Heat (1995).

Review #2491: Heat.

Cast: 

Al Pacino (LAPD Robbery Homicide Lieutenant Vincent Hanna), Robert De Niro (Neil McCauley), Val Kilmer (Chris Shiherlis), Jon Voight (Nate), Tom Sizemore (Michael Cheritto), Diane Venora (Justine Hanna), Amy Brenneman (Eady), Ashley Judd (Charlene Shiherlis), Mykelti Williamson (Sergeant Bobby Drucker), Wes Studi (Detective Sammy Casals), Ted Levine (Detective Mike Bosko), Dennis Haysbert (Don Breedan), William Fichtner (Roger Van Zant), Natalie Portman (Lauren Gustafson), Tom Noonan (Kelso), Niki Haris (Marcia Drucker), Kevin Gage (Waingro), Hank Azaria (Alan Marciano), Danny Trejo (Gilbert Trejo), Susan Traylor (Elaine Cheritto), Kim Staunton (Lillian), Henry Rollins (Hugh Benny), and Jerry Trimble (Detective Danny Schwartz) 

Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, #1713 - Manhunter, #2091 - Miami Vice, #2325 - Collateral)

Review: 

"I charted the film out like a 2 hr 45 min piece of music, so I'd know where to be smooth, where not to be smooth, where to be staccato, where to use a pulse like a heartbeat."

It helps to know the story a bit, admittedly. Once upon a time, a Chicago detective named Chuck Adamson kept tabs on the crew of one Neil McCauley, an ex-inmate of Alcatraz that one time saw the two end up meeting for a cup of coffee. Adamson later became a producer and screenwriter himself (where he co-created Crime Story, a show Mann was the executive producer on from 1986-1988). What interested him was the professionalism that Adamson respected in McCauley even with the recognized fact that one of them probably would kill the other. Mann had first written a draft in 1978 but he trimmed it down when NBC approached him to do a TV show. The result (filmed in less than a month) was L.A. Takedown (starring Scott Plank), a TV film that aired in 1989 that the network rejected because they didn't like the lead actor. But a few years later, with a few more moves under his belt, Mann set out to do the movie he wanted to do at last, complete with having Al Pacino and Robert De Niro being in the same movie (a relatively big deal for the time for a film that, well, has them meet twice) and one that was shot in Los Angeles that used nearly a hundred locations around the city for 100+ days of filming. Released on December 15, 1995, the film was a relative success with audiences (particularly abroad). Apparently, actual robbers took inspiration from the movie in later years to go along with video games such as Grand Theft Auto and directors such as Christopher Nolan.* In 2022, Heat 2, a novel written by Mann and Meg Gardiner was released that was both a prequel and sequel to the movie. A feature film adaptation is currently under development that may start filming in 2026.

What we have here is a movie full of intensity in the great game of choices, personal codes and the consequences that can have an effect on a wide range of people. It's a wonderful epic in the sprawling confines of a frontier that is intimidating as it is lonely. It's as much a neo-noir as it arguably is also a Western in its own respect, one that looks upon the nature of obsession and the sacrifices one makes to burnish that fire and live on the edge. A good chunk of the characters that we see throughout the near-three hour run time all have illusions about who they are vs. what really lies beneath the surface of their work, one in which it isn't so easy to just turn it off just because it's time to go home now, whether that involves cops that can't exactly tell their spouses about recently murdered people or men who believe themselves to be alone in their process or even those trying to dig their way out besides being an "ex-con". Simply put, the juice comes and goes but the work will be playing everywhere until the Earth is nothing but dust. Apparently, there was a scene that showed Pacino's character chip a bit of cocaine before it was cut out of the film. At any rate, high-strung user or not, I don't see anything wrong with where Pacino is going with such a fascinating role because, well, volatile is volatile (besides, "overacting" is only a bad thing when one wants to pick at things - the scene interrogating Azaria is delightful more than just "ham"). He handles it with such gusto that you understand pretty quickly how one can hate the sight of a horrible crime (dead hookers, robberies, you get it) and yet have the juice to want to crack it. Regardless of if one had a person like Venora or Portman in their orbit, there are just some people that need the chase because the pursuit of justice is just as addicting as the pursuit of a good score. De Niro matches that with his own type of worthwhile energy, a brooding man who values success at his craft because there is nothing better in his worldview even if he is confined by a code that might as well be a prison (such as how he lives or the ever-changing cars). One can only try to fool themselves with thoughts of being with Brenneman but really what matters to him is fulfilling his obligation to this mythic code of no excuses (and no second chances for violators) and trust for certain folks only. Pacino and De Niro basically are yin and yang in the knowing sense of "whatever it takes". It is just as well to see Kilmer and others fill the tapestry of obsession that wants to believe they are in control of their own lives in responsibility, whether that involves the disciplined (and still fallible as a character) Kilmer or the cut-rate Sizemore or even tragic side figures such as Haysbert that remind you that nothing is easy to escape. The robbery sequence obviously is the highlight of the film in its slam-bang execution of loud devastation that works to clockwork in seeing where one will go in realizing the full process of the job, right down to the eventual climax in wordless (but impactful for what is seen) resolution*. As a whole, Heat is a long burn not so much about a heist but about the people that toil in the work of people at a variety of angles that crisscross with each other in sacrifice and foibles to worthwhile staccato execution. It's a hell of a movie to see turn 30 years old.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently, the way that Kilmer reloads his weapon during the famous shootout scene is apparently a thing that professionals tell others to aspire to do in real life.

*Honestly, it is a bit weird but not a dealbreaker at what happens to (the Kilmer character in how he just...escapes). 

The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle.

Review #2486: The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle.

Cast: 

June Foray (the voice of Rocky / animated Natasha Fatale / Narrator's Mother), Keith Scott (the voice of Bullwinkle / the Narrator, animated Fearless Leader / animated Boris Badenov / RBTV Announcer), Robert De Niro (Fearless Leader), Rene Russo (Natasha Fatale), Jason Alexander (Boris Badenov), Piper Perabo (Karen Sympathy; Julia McAnuff as young Karen), Randy Quaid (Cappy "Frank" von Trapment), Kel Mitchell (Martin), Kenan Thompson (Lewis), with David Alan Grier (Measures), Jon Polito (Schoentell), James Rebhorn (President Signoff), Carl Reiner (P.G. Biggershot), Jonathan Winters (Whoppa Chopper Pilot, Ohio Cop with Bullhorn, Old Jeb), Rod Biermann (Ole; Adam Miller as young Ole), Paget Brewster (Jenny Spy), and Janeane Garofalo (Minnie Mogul) Directed by Des McAnuff.

Review: 

Hey, ever hear of a modern adaptation of an old TV show? You might know from your parents (or grandparents, anyway) about aa show called The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends, which originally aired from 1959 to 1964 on ABC and later NBC. It was originally devised by Jay Ward and Alex Anderson, who previously collaborated on a program called Crusader Rabbit; Bill Scott was head writer and also part of the voices that made up the show that featured June Foray, Paul Frees and others. It was actually a variety show that consisted of such segments as, well, the serialized adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle and other segments such as "Dudley Do-Right" (which was adapted by Universal Pictures into its own film in 1999) "Peabody's Improbable History" (later adapted into an animated film in 2014), and "Fractured Fairy Tales". The film was made after many years of development that originally saw Danny DeVito and Meryl Streep for the roles of Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale; the sciept for the film was written by Kenneth Lonergan. He had been involved in the theater since the 1980s but had done a few film scripts, with his next one being, well, work on Gangs of New York (2002). As for its director in Des McAnuff, he has mostly done work for the stage beyond directing just this film and Cousin Bette (1998), although he co-produced The Iron Giant [1999] (go figure). Released in June of 2000 on a budget of $76 million, the film (produced in the wake of Universal's apparent attempts at trying to tap the old TV market such as Flipper [1996], McHale’s Navy [1997], Leave It to Beaver [1997], Dudley Do-Right) was a considerable financial failure for what either was a flop because it didn't hit for young audiences or didn't hit for "Baby boomer nostalgia" or something.

As someone who wasn't too familiar with the show, I actually kind of like this movie. Sure, it is pretty goofy, and sure, it probably is the ultimate hit-or-miss movie with its gags. But damn it, I like goofy stuff like this. Silly narrators, odd hijinks, a deluge of celebrity cameos for the sake of having them, some strange plot involving animated characters in the real world to go along with a totally-not prescient idea of mass-marketed slop.* The effects for our heroes were done by Industrial Light & Magic that had plenty of involved people trying to accomplish McAnuff's wish to have the characters interact with the space and people that looked simple enough (so, yes, having to deal with problems such as selective motion blurring - you can read more here). Foray and Scott make a quality duo to accompany the film in goofy and sly charm, mostly because they just happen to come off as, well, a worthwhile pair to listen to. Of course, a movie like this needs a human counterpart, which is where Perabo (cast after Monica Potter stepped out) comes in. She does relatively fine here, having a few good moments of actual timing (along with an accompanying joke about her "inner child", heh, get it?) mixed in with plenty of okay ones, mostly because even a mild-energy Quaid is still curious to view*.  It should be noted that De Niro was a co-producer on this film. He seems to have a bit more fun than Russo or Alexander in hammy nature that seems ripe for a goofy adventure, and I would say that is more than enough for a film that relies on ham-handed puns and zippy things. There are an array of bit appearances and one-joke cameos that is mostly highlighted by Winters being three one-bit parts that I'm sure will please a few people for 92 minutes, or perhaps it will make you wonder if would've been better as just an animated movie. But at any rate, the movie could be a decent experience for those who like silly jokes and goofy enthusiasm that may hit just enough to make one have enough chuckles to make one believe it was worth the curious trip.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*I did have this movie on DVD when I was younger but I was the kind of idiot kid that liked to scratch DVDs on the front side and never actually saw the movie until now. Also: This 2000 article namedrops the wave of the past decade and can you imagine how weirder it got?: The Fugitive, Dennis the Menace, The Beverly Hillbillies, The Flintstones, The Mod Squad, The Avengers, Maverick, Casper, The Brady Bunch, Mission: Impossible, Wild Wild West, Charlie's Angels...

*Call me delusional, but the whole idea of having bad television put on screen sounds a bit like the current day debate over "slop". Sure, people in the film don't try and justify slop like people do try to justify the disgusting use of generative AI, but food for thought.

*Just don't ask him about elections or legal issues.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Review #2308: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Cast: 

Robert De Niro (The Creation), Kenneth Branagh (Victor Frankenstein), Tom Hulce (Henry Clerval), Helena Bonham Carter (Elizabeth Lavenza Frankenstein), Ian Holm (Baron Alphonse Frankenstein), John Cleese (Professor Waldman), Aidan Quinn (Captain Robert Walton), Richard Briers (Grandfather), Robert Hardy (Professor Krempe), Trevyn McDowell (Justine Moritz), Celia Imrie (Mrs. Moritz), Cherie Lunghi (Caroline Frankenstein), and Ryan Smith (William Frankenstein) Directed by Kenneth Branagh (#041 - Thor)

Review: 

"Frankenstein feels like an ancient tale, the kind of traditional story that appears in many other forms. It appeals to something very primal, but it’s also about profound things, the very nature of life and death and birth—about, essentially, a man who is resisting the most irresistible fact of all, that we will be shuffling off this mortal coil. It was sent to me as I was rehearsing a production of Hamlet, and it seemed to me that the two things were linked. Hamlet and Victor Frankenstein are each obsessed with death. Hamlet’s whole story is a philosophical preparation for death; Victor’s is an intellectual refusal to accept it."

On November 4, 1994, audiences got their chance to see a big-budget adaptation of a classic novel that had seen a dozen (or so) films that cribbed from it since the 20th century began. You might remember that Francis Ford Coppola had spearheaded a production to make a lavish adaptation of a famous horror novel for which the result was the lavishly mediocre Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). But one can't stop there as a producer, I suppose, as here we are looking at the other horror movie that had Coppola involved, albeit not as director; the source material, as one already might know, is the 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. The movie was originally written by Steph Lady prior to Coppola buying the rights to it; he planned to direct the film before deciding to ask Branagh to direct the film while also saying the importance of casting Robert De Niro as the Creature. At the time, Branagh was rehearsing a production of Hamlet and he perceived links between it and Frankenstein when it comes to the obsession with death (you can inquire about Branagh's mindset prior to the release of the film here, for example) You might remember that the Belfast-born Branagh had trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art before eventually becoming a director with Henry V (1989), the first of several adaptations of the work of William Shakespeare. Frank Darabont was brought in to do a second draft by Branagh. Audiences didn't really go out in droves as compared to the folks that saw Bram Stoker's Dracula (it wasn't a failure of course with its $45 million budget). Darabont later called it "the best script I ever wrote and the worst movie I've ever seen", stating that Branagh was entirely to blame (or give credit to, if one liked the film) for what essentially became an "operatic attempt at filmmaking". According to Lady, his script was used by a friend who taught at a film school about when a good script is "in the hands of a bad director." The makeup from Daniel Parker, Paul Engelen and Carol Hemming at least earned attention, receiving an Academy Award nomination (and it certainly seemed deserving, the creature does look pretty good here).

There is something at work in one's soul to try and understand where it all went up for a monumental example of being forgotten. How do you manage to make a movie with such a noted actor like De Niro and not end up being thought of first or even second in Frankenstein-adjacent movies? How do you make a movie with loads of amniotic fluid and eels to go along with a deliberately phallic tube...and not have any great lasting appeal? Even the defenders of Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) can point to the style of the film as a lasting legacy (I personally put the legacy in that stupid look of its title character, but your milage may vary), but this is merely a movie that seems to fall by the wayside even with two memorable actors trying to lead the way. Branagh was once quoted as not being able to resist having a scene involving re-creating Elizabeth despite its difference from the novel because "it seemed to make psychological sense", one that could be different from the "high camp" from the two James Whale films. This seems to be amusing because of how much he figuratively seems to eat the movie right from under De Niro, gallivanting as if this really was a show for the stage. In his attempts to mine tragedy in what essentially is a war of creation, you get a performance that is purely in the middle-ground that (unfairly or not) really does remind one of better days with Peter Cushing as Frankenstein. Maybe that is just the curse of doing a Frankenstein film that ends up having to do things that might remind you of one of the more famous adaptations because you just expect it, even if it tries to repulse you with the idea of something that could just be possible somewhere beyond imagination. De Niro actually does pretty well with his performance (apparently, he studied stroke victims when it came to finding the voice for the Creature), it just so happens that he falls upon the strange double-edged sword that comes with being such a noted presence in acting that may be a bit lost among the makeup and the aforementioned bombast behind him. But the sequence with him taking shelter within a barn and a downtrodden family that features him seeing and learning about people on some sort of level is still a worthwhile one to view as a highlight, particularly with the end result of a creature that now has its worldview confirmed of hatred surrounding its existence. The dangers of the obsession with trying to win the game of creation pulls handily with Carter for a confused performance that at least has one shining moment: right around the climax, the book and film get to collide with each other in having a would-be bride be interrupted by the Creature...only here she gets her heart ripped out (okay, there's a scene right after that too, but it is more fun to let one be only a little bit surprised by revealing only the obvious moment of interest). The rest of the actors are left to sway at the weird execution of a film that veers between melodrama and disturbing (poor Cleese doesn't get much time underneath that wig, but I appreciate the effort), which mostly means Hulce and Quinn are left on the wayside a bit. The 123-minute runtime is probably a bit too much to really hold things together for what the movie believes itself to be in great tragedy, but at least it does try to keep the foot on the pedal of frantic filmmaking, for better or worse. Processing the film ended up where I liked the movie just enough. I don't know about calling it "profound" in being disturbing, but it is fairly entertaining even in profound averageness, so I suppose that is better than nothing. Highly ambitious even with its ultimate short-sighted execution, you might find something worth watching for a film that now can celebrate a third decade of anniversary. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Blair Witch 2.

Killers of the Flower Moon.

Review #2142: Killers of the Flower Moon.

Cast: 

Leonardo DiCaprio (Ernest Burkhart), Robert De Niro (William King Hale), Lily Gladstone (Mollie Kyle), Jesse Plemons (Thomas Bruce White Sr), Tantoo Cardinal (Lizzie Q), John Lithgow (Prosecutor Peter Leaward), Brendan Fraser (W. S. Hamilton), Cara Jade Myers (Anna Brown), JaNae Collins (Reta), Jillian Dion (Minnie), Jason Isbell (Bill Smith), William Belleau (Henry Roan), Louis Cancelmi (Kelsie Morrison), Scott Shepherd (Byron Burkhart), Everett Waller (Paul Red Eagle), Talee Redcorn (Non-Hon-Zhin-Ga / Traditional Leader), Yancey Red Corn (Chief Bonnicastle), Tatanka Means (John Wren), Tommy Schultz (Blackie Thompson), Sturgill Simpson (Henry Grammer), and Ty Mitchell (John Ramsey) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed, #1559 - Hugo, and #1567 - The Wolf of Wall Street)

Review: 

“As far as taking risks at this age, what else can I do? No, let’s go do something comfortable.’ Are you kidding?”

The Native American and the white man in particular, did not have the greatest of relations in the early years of the United States, particularly in the 19th century. At any rate, by the dawn of the 20th century, the Osage Nation was undergoing significant change. The Burke Act in 1906 tried to assess the competency of Native Americans (as a person), while the Oklahoma and Indian Territories merged in 1907 when they were admitted into the Union. By this time, the Osage had found oil on their land. Long story short, there were headrights assigned to the people of the tribe when it came to royalties for oil, which would change their lives in ways that could never be reversed (which is depicted in the opening of the film with a ceremony cutting right to oil). There were guardians assigned to the tribe to "manage" the rights for decades (incidentally, when the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was signed, President Calvin Coolidge was photographed with four members of the Osage). By the time legislation was done to ensure that non-Osage could not inherit the headrights, a string of murders later called "The Reign of Terror" was already in motion for people such as the Bureau of Investigation (later named the FBI) to eventually break into. The murders had a wide effect for the people that saw it and others around. Fred Grove (a part-Osage) was a child when he heard the bombing murders and became a novelist. Tragedies of the Osage Hills (1926) was a dramatization done by James Young Deer (a man with Nanticoke ancestry), although it is now lost. The FBI Story (1959) dramatized the crime investigation The movie shows a handful of the murders, but it is estimated that over 60 people may have been murder as a part of these murders, with one of the ringleaders being William King Hale. In 2017, the nonfiction novel Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI as written by David Grann, was published, and the attention was so present that Imperative Entertainment paid $5 million to the film rights the year before the film was released. The original intent for the film apparently was focusing mostly on the investigation (where DiCaprio would star as Thomas Bruce White). However, this was shifted to a focus instead onto Ernest Burkhart and his wife Mollie Kyle as Scorsese stated that since the audience knows the film is really a "who-didn't-do-it" rather than a whodunit. Osage Nation chief Geoffrey Standing Bear served as a consultant on the film; Scorsese wrote the film with Eric Roth

Leave it to me to give credit to Apple TV+ for helping to fund the film (Paramount Pictures became distributor rather than just the whole funding studio when fears arose about the budget rising to $200 million). Well, anybody that lets a film that runs for over three hours a proper release in cinemas deserves worthwhile attention, so imagine releasing one that is really good. Scorsese is one of our most enduring directors alive today when it comes to storytelling that has the scope and range to back up everything that comes and goes with this film. It is a lament for the dead that seems now more than ever important to remember when it comes to the lessons that one can find within the dangers that come in greed and power. The pace never seems to loom on one's interest because of just how much there is to show within this town in terms of hypocrisy. People are killed or set up to be killed in ways that make one recoil in the sheer audacity. There are so many actors present that pop in and out that can't even be mentioned due to space (such as Barry Corbin, playing a gloomy undertaker, or Fraser using those moments of screentime for appropriate bluster opposite Lithgow), much in the same way that one can't mention every nook and cranny when it comes to the history aspects (the book notes the rumor that William Hale was the father of the unborn child that was being carried by Anna Brown before she was murdered). This is quite a worthy trio to hold it all together when it comes to just how much greed and language can touch upon people's lives (consider that De Niro's character speaks to the Osage in their language and yet it never is translated). The dynamic of DiCaprio and Gladstone is especially important to gaze upon when it comes to viewing just what looks like deception and looks like an actual sense of love. DiCaprio sells the game well when it comes to playing the part of puppet and puppeteer that makes for such a grand act of pathetic measures of men. Admittedly, it might seem odd that Hale, a person who was in his late forties when the murders were being done, is being played by De Niro (in his late seventies), but he proves a skillful performance in conniving sociopathy, one who never looks to show any remorse for what they reap and see from their actions. Amidst all of the tragedy, the one most visible is with Gladstone because of the decay that becomes apparent the longer the proceedings go on that she handles with tenacity. That last scene with her and DiCaprio is a worthy one to close their story out with all one needs to know when it comes to truths and lies. The way that the film ends is particularly well done because it goes twofold with how the last words go with the last image of Osage celebrating their culture in a large tribal dance with just what has endured from those dark days. People live, people die, but the culture endures. As a film, it is a great tragedy that will surely prove enduring when looking upon the many worthy films that Scorsese has made as a filmmaker in over a half-century. This lesson of greedy horror in a time that does not strike as too different from now is handled with effective execution and stature that could only be viewed best with dedicated patience and curiosity through and through.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Men of Honor.

Review #1645: Men of Honor.

Cast: 

Robert De Niro (Master Chief Leslie 'Billy' Sunday), Cuba Gooding Jr (Boatswain's Mate Second Class Carl Brashear), Charlize Theron (Gwen Sunday), Aunjanue Ellis (Jo Brashear), Hal Holbrook (Mr. Pappy), Michael Rapaport (Gunners Mate Snowhill), Powers Boothe (Captain Pullman), David Keith (Captain Hartigan), Holt McCallany (Machinist's Mate First Class Dylan Rourke), and David Conrad (Captain Hanks) Directed by George Tillman Jr.

Review: 

"I realized that some of these aspects related to my path as a filmmaker. And I believe audiences will find a part of themselves in Carl - the best part of themselves - perhaps the part they haven't used lately."

George Tillman Jr wanted to make movies from a young age. The Milwaukee native was shooting things he saw with a 8mm camera he borrowed from his father as a child, but it was the viewing of films such as Five on the Black Hand Side (1973), Claudine (1974), and Cooley High (1975) that inspired him to enter the world of filmmaking. He studied film and video at Columbia College in Chicago before moving into a partnership with a fellow classmate with Robert Teitel in Menagerie Films, a directing and producing partnership. Through years of rising from production assistant to writing/directing his own script, Soul Food (1997) became a hit. Tillman has so far directed seven theatrical films while also serving as a producer on a variety of films, and this is his second overall film, for which he was attracted to the story of Carl Brashear. The son of a sharecropper that did not graduate high school, he was the first African-American graduate of the United States Navy Diving & Salvage School, having done so in 1954 after enlisting in the Navy six years prior. Sixteen years later, having overcome an accident that lost him a leg to be recertified as a diver, he became a U.S. Navy master diver. The path to making a film of Brashear started in 1980 (right after retiring from service) that bounced around from contract deals to a script in 1994 for Paramount Pictures that stalled until it went into the hands of Teitel and Tillman Jr. Budget haggling was a step to overcome alongside getting actors to appear, so here we are with a $32 million film with two Academy Award winners for stars.

There is likely a good reason that this film stood on my shelf for over a decade, because I do know my dad favored certain films that involved the military in some way or just had a good story to tell. Somewhere, in that mindset of 129 minutes spent with this film, is a struggle for something better than average when it comes to a biopic that has an interesting juggling act between its stars. On the one hand, it does manage to accomplish one basic fact: It tells the story of a man who persisted onto his goal no matter what challenge came his way (whether prejudice or one good leg), and it does so with just enough interest to hear more about the story that will likely be enough to overcome its shortcomings for those who are interested in what it wants to say. The sticking point one might have is the very fact that it is a modestly average affair all the way around when it comes to being a conventional biopic, one that just manages to not diffuse itself in tension only because the main two actors do fine enough with the material while the action in the water is at least somewhat interesting to sit through. It is as if someone wanted to make a 50s style drama biopic, one with challenges to overcome while other folks dote on them. In that sense, De Niro does just fine with what he is given, trying to toe the line between hard-driving mentor and maniac without playing to the angle of biopic scene-chewing camp. Granted, it is an angle that can only go so far in middling depth, but De Niro at least seems game for doing it straight rather than playing it off for an unintentional laugh. Gooding Jr (who found himself playing quite a few historical figures in the next few years) does well enough in his own distinct path in playing off courage and interest in the main subject without becoming just a man in a suit, one that has to deal with underwater action with patience alongside other moments that he is fairly up to task for. Theron and Ellis compliment the two in the moments away from the water with adequate results. Honestly, one wonders if there was more of the eccentric Holbrook left on the cutting floor, one who has exactly one scene of focus involving his eccentricities (alongside racism). Rapaport is there for basically three scenes as a counterpart for Gooding Jr that comes and goes.

Of course there are a few embellishments from history to fiction, and at least the film had the participation of the Navy. One particular name comes up with Alberto José do Nascimento, a Brazilian diver who was the only one to support Brashear, complete with being the only one to bunk with him (as opposed to the stutterer played by Rapaport). Of course, De Niro is playing a composite character of people that Brashear dealt with, and the whole episode involving a bar dispute settled with submerging one's head in water apparently didn't happen either. As for the amputation...well it wasn't because he wanted to go right back to the Navy but with a prosthetic - he was plagued by necrosis and infection (with a possibility of keeping the leg, but with a brace, not a cane). At any rate, it is a film of process for diving rather than big moments, building to its rise and fight again type of mantra with reasonable finish. Is it great? Not by any means, but it gets the job done in portraying a useful moment in history with a reasoned cast and director to reach the levels it wants without sinking, and that should be more than enough in the end.

Next Time: Closing time hits soon, but it's time for Selma.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Goodfellas.

Review #1496: Goodfellas.

Cast: 

Robert De Niro (Jimmy Conway), Ray Liotta (Henry Hill), Joe Pesci (Tommy DeVito), Lorraine Bracco (Karen Hill), Paul Sorvino (Paulie Cicero), Frank Sivero (Frankie Carbone), Tony Darrow (Sonny Bunz), Frank Vincent (Billy Batts), Chuck Low (Morris Kessler), Frank DiLeo (Tuddy Cicero), Henny Youngman (Himself), Gina Mastrogiacomo (Janice Rossi), Catherine Scorsese (Tommy's mother), Charles Scorsese (Vinnie), Suzanne Shepard (Karen's mother), and Debi Mazar (Sandy) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, and #1463 - Raging Bull)

Review: 

"You think you're doing something at the time, and that gets you through it. And maybe it changes over the years. A picture takes on a life of its own."

A great movie can come out of a little observation. In this case, a little bit of observation over the life of a mobster resulted in one of the best films of the 1990s, with others going farther in calling it one of the greatest ever made, with an influence that has reached across other media that took inspiration from its content and style, most notably with David Chase and his television series The Sopranos. The basis for the film is the 1985 non-fiction book Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family by Nicholas Pileggi, which was about the exploits of Mafia mobster-turned-informant Henry Hill over the course of 25 years, and the film would follow a majority of the beats covered by the book (aside from a few name changes and certain omissions, such as Hill's hustling while enlisted in the United States Army). Scorsese was first interested in the book while in production on The Color of Money (1986), liking its documentary-style writings of how the Mob worked while beginning it "like a gunshot and have it get faster from there". There is a natural way to how everything flows together in this film, where one feels at ease with time when viewing the life of these wiseguys, with a script (done by Scorsese and Pileggi) that had improvisation that one can see at key points in the film. For example, the "How am I funny?" sequence was actually based on Pesci's experience as a waiter serving an actual wiseguy in a restaurant, which was acted and rehearsed with Pesci and Liotta before being constructed by Scorsese from the transcripts (since this was not actually in the original script). Scorsese was inspired by Jules and Jim (1962) with its use of voiceovers, while deciding to do a mix of the traditional narrative that would start in the middle and move backward and forward. 

Although Hill was not directly involved with the film, De Niro talked to both him and Pileggi (who let them use research material not in the book) in preparation of the role from his walk to how he ate his food, while Liotta listened to tapes of Hill talking to Pileggi, which would be key in the narration in how dynamic it is to the story being told. This is a film with plenty of nuance that handles its subject with precise execution in its cast and direction that spring for several memorable moments mixed in with swift and clear-cut violence that make a fascinating look upon a unsavory-yet-captivating world of crime. It moves at an efficient pace that uses its 145 minutes to tell a well-cut story that has the classic Scorsese hallmarks of quick cuts alongside frantic style (in an attempt to show a "punk attitude", he stated) and key choices of music to go alongside key moments. Liotta is our focus (and voice) for the film, and he does a tremendous job with being our center of unflinching energy that draws us in as well to a certain lifestyle through his eyes with conviction. De Niro proves just as prepared, wrapped in relentless gravitas that carries the film with naturalness. The third leg of our trio is Pesci, who moves along with crazed unflinching energy that attracts us with that early question about a funny wiseguy that keeps you on your toes (the scene with him and C. Scorsese involving cutting a deer and a painting proves just as well in improvised morbid energy). Bracco goes along with the action with frenzied perceptive timing that carries the film with her own narration as someone who enters in the action and stays in that web of crime, even with such turbulent (but fascinating) chemistry with Liotta, such as the moment where she has him in bed with a gun on him. Sorvino rounds out the cast with a collected presence that has plenty of stature and coldness for one to fear and appreciate whenever on screen. The others in the cast (including real-life mobsters cast as extras) prove fine in lending presence and body language to the key moments of the film, which can lead to some tension or a bit of humor (including the famed one-liner comedian Youngman) that make the shifting from youth to adult crime for our lead all the more easier. It handles its moments of violence with cold-cut effienct, never shying from depicting the lifestyle it wants to show in all of its honesty (for a film at least) that runs the gamut of ambition, avarice, and paranoia in all of its unseemly glory. Three decades have only brightened the legacy of this film, an achievement for its cast and director in execution that has kept it in the public consciousness as a seminal crime film for the 1990s and beyond.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Raging Bull.

Review #1463: Raging Bull.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (Jake LaMotta), Cathy Moriarty (Vickie LaMotta), Joe Pesci (Joey LaMotta), Frank Vincent (Salvy Batts), Nicholas Colasanto (Tommy Como), Theresa Saldana (Lenore LaMotta), Mario Gallo (Mario), Frank Adonis (Patsy), Joseph Bono (Guido), Frank Topham (Toppy), and Lori Anne Flax (Irma LaMotta) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver and #992 - The King of Comedy, and #1276 - Mean Streets)

Review: 
"Movies touch our hearts and awaken our vision, and change the way we see things. They take us to other places, they open doors and minds. Movies are the memories of our life time, we need to keep them alive."

"I just can't fake acting. I know movies are an illusion, and maybe the first rule is to fake it, but not for me. I'm too curious. I want to deal with all the facts of the character, thin or fat."

It should only figure that one of the best films of the 1980s came about as a chance for Martin Scorsese to save his life and career and for Robert De Niro to have a soulfully devastating performance to lead a film of tremendous quality in their fourth collaboration together. This was the seventh film directed by Scorsese, with his previous effort in New York, New York (1977, a tribute to classic musicals) having been a failure with audiences that had led him to depression and an addiction to cocaine, which nearly led to his death. It was De Niro who had pushed for Scorsese to try and make a film about Jake LaMotta, who had written an memoir in 1970 called Raging Bull: My Story (which he said had a lot of heart despite not being a great book), which had depicted the noted rough fighter's life from youth to the end of fame that was comprised of moments such as his troubled childhood and struggles with the mafia and his own demons outside the ring. De Niro spent years trying to convince Scorsese to take up the project, since he was not a fan of boxing (or sports in general). Scorsese treated this film as if it could have been his last, and it would not prove to be the easiest of shoots for anyone, not particularly for its star or director. It's interesting to note the boxing sequences, which only last a fraction of time in a two-hour film and the fact that they were shot first over a period of ten weeks (having been designed on paper first and meant to be done over three weeks). The film was written by Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin, which went through a number of re-writes, with Scorsese and De Niro being soon tasked to do re-writes that were quite significant in molding the film's content, such as eliminating the depiction of LaMotta's father (it should be noted that Schrader's initial re-write, though thought to be potentially X-rated, was the one that had added Joey to the script) alongside the calm re-enactment sequence at the end from On the Waterfront. One great technique that helps in making this such a distinct boxing film is the way those scenes are shot - inside the ring, with distinct sounds that make for a raw and intense experience to view, particularly since the editing (done by Thelma Schoonmaker) cuts everything together with finesse to where one never gets lost in seeing this descent for 129 minutes.

For an actor who is tasked to play such a tormented man over the span of several years, De Niro sinks right into the part with no difficulty at all in an electrifying performance of the soul. This plays out whether when in the ring (having been trained by LaMotta and actually participating in three matches) or when confronting the people that know and love him with his jealousy and self-destructive tendencies as the film goes on and as he starts to wither down and grow old (having gained 60 pounds for the last half of the film) and he has to face his toughest opponent - trying to find redemption. One can't take their eyes off him and his seething performance that beats at you with a tremendous punch every step of the way. Pesci (known by Scorsese and De Niro because of his debut performance in The Death Collector four years prior) proves to be just as great in following along the action as one with plenty of raw spirit in keeping up with De Niro (with occasional confrontation) that make for captivating scenes, particularly with their last one together, where one tries to do a reconciliation, filled with quiet awkwardness to brilliance. Moriarty, making her film debut (thanks to Pesci), proves just as capable in her role, resourceful and knowing as the time goes by for the film. The rest of the cast prove just as well in filling the grimy world around the film, one that dares you in with a stark look from Michael Chapman in cinematography to go alongside tremendous ambition from Scorsese to show a man on the edge without any false sentiment or step. It seems obvious now to call it a masterpiece, although it had a gradual rise in reputation (having proved a fair hit with audiences) that is now considered one of Scorsese's best films (along with one of De Niro's best). With a stark devastating look and feel and a great director and trio at hand, you can't go wrong with this film, one that lands its punches everywhere in emotion.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Deer Hunter.

Review #1458: The Deer Hunter.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (SSG Michael "Mike" Vronsky), Christopher Walken (Cpl. Nikanor "Nick" Chevotarevich), John Savage (Cpl. Steven Pushkov), John Cazale (Stan), Meryl Streep (Linda), George Dzundza (John Welsh), Pierre Segui (Julien Grinda), Shirley Stoler (Steven's mother), Chuck Aspegren (Peter "Axel" Axelrod), and Rutanya Alda (Angela Ludhjduravic-Pushkov) Directed by Michael Cimino.

Review: 
"I don't make movies intellectually, I don't make movies to make a point, I make movies to tell stories about people."

War can lead to plenty of actions, and films revolving around (or about) the war is one of them. Vietnam was no different, although it certainly reflected differently than other film revolving about war, whether involving the war or coming home from it, and there certainly are differences from films such as The Green Berets (1968) when compared to this, Go Tell the Spartans, or Coming Home (all 1978) or later ones like Apocalypse Now (1979) and Platoon (1986). It should only figure that a film like this would come from an unknown in Michael Cimino, who was certainly an eccentric when it came to a rise to stardom that was as quick as his fall in a varied career of seven films. He was a graduate of Michigan State University in graphic arts in 1959 along with subsequent study at Yale for art that was followed by work in advertising and commercials during the 1960s (with a stint in the Army reserves for six months). He decided to take on screenwriting in 1971, with his first script being Silent Running (1972) with Deric Washburn and Steven Bochco. He helped write Magnum Force (1973) with John Milius before writing Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974), which was liked enough by Clint Eastwood to have Cimino make his feature directorial debut. He would ultimately win two Academy Awards for his involvement with this film, which he also co-produced and co-wrote (winning for direction and for Best Picture), but his next film Heaven's Gate (1980) turned out to be such a tremendous failure (with far more budgetary overruns than this and numerous edits that has a complicated legacy) that led to a curtailed career.

It isn't too surprising that the film went through plenty of turmoil in production. The budget rose from eight to fourteen million dollars in budget, and Cimino's perfectionism seems to really come out during its wedding sequence (which makes one really feel like they are stuck in a wedding), with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond once describing him as being "difficult to deal with...very stubborn...He wanted it the way he wanted it." There are four different writers credited for the film: Deric Washburn wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Cimino (also co-producer), Louis Garfinkle, and Quinn K. Redeker (the original idea was done by the latter two about Russian roulette in Las Vegas) There is certainly an allegorical feel to this film, albeit not without its own controversy about where it tries to go with its depiction of war (the Russian roulette sequences with POWs is most prominent in that discussion). The basic nature of this film is a portrait of three steelworkers having their lives changed after fighting in the Vietnam War, and it is De Niro and Walken who help to steady a film wracked with plenty of show and say about itself and the nature of change that goes in a man when seeing war, which makes for a curiously decent (if not tremendously flawed) experience for 184 minutes, a mixing of commonplace and agony. De Niro (who had apparently prepped for the role by hanging around with steelworkers in bars and visited their homes as one of them) proves quite compelling with strength that we see come out during the film even as it gets darker and darker. Walken proves just as devastating, rolling along with the agony of war and chance that makes for a soulfully fascinating watch whenever he is present, whether involving roulette or writhing in bed, and the sequence between him and De Niro at the end with roulette (the second time, with the first being just as tense) being the best part of the film in seeing the degree of madness one can do in the company of others. Savage makes the last piece of the veteran trio count just fine, an involving performance that goes along with the others that accompany some interesting moments with Cazale (in his final role before his death) and Aspegren (an actual foreman at a steelworks) that share clear contrast of bonding from the first to the last half of the film. Streep rounds out the cast with grace for a role that could've faded in the background with a less talented actress but here is done with care.

On the whole, the one feeling I had with this film was a sense that I should have liked it more than I did. I acknowledge that the film works fairly well as a tragic look on the nature of friends changed by their experience in war, but its attempts at building a detailed story that borders on excess for a ultimate three hour length nearly overwhelms the whole experience into chaos. The Vietnam sequences are the best part of the film, in part because I really seem to remember them better (because one needs authenticity, it was actually filmed with rats and mosquitoes) than the events that transpired before them, although the parts after coming back from the war do work in cultivating heartbreaking curiosity. Whether there is enough or too much setup to make this story truly work, the film does turn out to be worth a watch in the achievements that it does do in its acting and some of its riveting somber moments, which make up for its tests of patience that have made it a masterpiece in some eyes and tedious in others, and I find myself firmly in the middle. I didn't love what I saw, but I sure didn't hate it either.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Jackie Brown.

Review #1307: Jackie Brown.

Cast: 
Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Samuel L. Jackson (Ordell Robbie), Robert Forster (Max Cherry), Bridget Fonda (Melanie Ralston), Michael Keaton (Ray Nicolette), Robert De Niro (Louis Gara), Michael Bowen (Det. Mark Dargus), Chris Tucker (Beaumont Livingston), LisaGay Hamilton (Sheronda), Tom "Tiny" Lister Jr (Winston), Hattie Winston (Simone), and Sid Haig (Judge) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, and #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)

Review: 
For a crime film, a well-detailed story can go a long way to make an experience worth remembering. Quentin Tarantino certainly had plenty of films to showcase interesting people and the environments they inhabit, and Jackie Brown proves no different, showing plenty of wit and charm through a 154 minute leisure that has a solid cast and pretty good execution that leaves one fairly satisfied. This happens to be the only Tarantino film where he adapted a previous work, with the source material being Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard (which Tarantino did over adapting Freaky Deaky or Killshot after re-reading), for which there were a few changes made involving its title character alongside her race that Leonard approved of, reportedly saying that this was the best screenplay he had ever read. For his third directorial effort, Tarantino uses a little less violence and a bit more chronology when it comes to telling his story, which works pretty well within some casual confines, featuring six distinct players in something reminiscent of blaxploitation films (having Grier helps in that regard) without losing itself too much in clear style. The main group of actors do pretty well in that regard, starting with its main lead. Grier, already a trail blazer for female action heroes in the 1970s, proves just as capable in sinking her teeth into a towering presence, capable of holding her own with whoever is on screen without even having to use a gun all too much. Jackson exudes ruthless confidence to a tee here, capable of sticking any kind of line involving unseemly things (such as trying to get someone in a trunk as a favor) without too much reluctance. Forster seems completely in his element here, a world weary straight-laced player with complete professionalism and subtle chemistry with Grier that makes for a well-deserved comeback for the character actor that ended up with an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor - the film's only Oscar nomination. Fonda and De Niro also provide welcome players, casual and raw for the moments that need to happen, which all comes full circle with the parking lot sequence in terms of emotion and payoff (sometimes you just need to see it all play out to make it really count). Keaton doesn't have as much time, but it sure is nice to see him and the rest of the supporting cast in those little moments to surround the environment of the plot. It has its choices when it comes to music or homages, doing so with careful ambition that extends to a plot that plays by the book in gathering these characters to the moments that matter without shortchanging them with cheap gags or rushes. The film has its amusing moments, but it knows when to drive itself with sharp senses of focus with characters who all seem to have been around the block a few times and seem weary for it. It's a nice movie that drags itself with daring regard for plenty to see with its characters and its sudden turns that make it all feel worth it. Sure, it isn't his best film, but it does prove a worthy one to view once if not twice to see how the run plays out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Joker (2019).

Review #1282: Joker.

Cast: 
Joaquin Phoenix (Arthur Fleck / Joker), Robert De Niro (Murray Franklin), Zazie Beetz (Sophie Dumond), Frances Conroy (Penny Fleck), Brett Cullen (Thomas Wayne), Douglas Hodge (Alfred Pennyworth), Dante Pereira-Olson (Bruce Wayne), Glenn Fleshler (Randall), Bill Camp (Garrity), Shea Whigham (Burke), Marc Maron (Gene Ufland), and Leigh Gill (Gary) Directed by Todd Phillips (#564 - Starsky & Hutch)

Review: 
I would not be the first to admit that this film picked up traction for curiosity in the months before its release. Actually, the interest for most probably was pretty much there from when it was announced back in 2017. It certainly seems to be the kind of film to have staying power, particularly in conversation over its merits as a different kind of comic book film (along with some other conversations about its tone possibly inspiring real word violence, which really does come off as a big joke that could only be done by hack writers repeating the same fear that did not transpire for other films, like Do the Right Thing). It surely has taken influence from films such as Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, where it tries to ground itself in its look of a man from the other parts of society, where warmth seems like a commodity waiting to be crushed into the ground and chaos seems only fitting for a place like this. Phillips also co-wrote the screenplay with Scott Silver, which certainly likes to play itself as a creepy tense drama along with moments of humor, each of which work themselves well enough to a degree. For all the posturing one could do about the subject matter or its tone, the easiest thing to say in my mind is that Joker proved to be just fine. It isn't a masterpiece by any means (which is apparent if you compare it the two films I just mentioned or not), nor one becomes engulfed by mediocrity, which is certainly fun to say when it comes to having a good time and then having to think about exactly what they just saw.

This is a movie about a failed comedian who ends up turning to crime while dressed up as a clown, after all. If one can see the origin of Batman several times on film in the past few decades, why wouldn't there be an origin on his greatest foe? After all, each portrayal of the Joker (as created by Bill Finger, Bob Kane, and Jerry Robinson) on film has their own take of the criminal mastermind since Cesar Romero in 1966 (with most of them being pretty good, minus the previous one). It only makes sense to do an origin story (of sorts), where it isn't beholden to the outlines delivered by the comics featuring the character on-and-off over seven decades but instead makes its own path forward. In that sense, Phoenix is positively the one for this role, undeniably captivating to watch in seeing such a pained broken man, whether physically or through a matter or laughing. The others of the cast make their moments count fairly well for a film that tries to have its cake of commentary and its origin story with small moments for the supporting characters to grasp at. Beetz is fine, having a smooth quiet chemistry with Phoenix for what is needed, if that makes sense. De Niro playing a homage with a talk show host crossing paths with a failed comedian does work out alright for his few minutes on screen. Conroy and Cullen are just as alright for the needed moments, all things considered. It should come as no surprise that the film indulges itself in violence at times, to where one almost could see this as horror (bit of a stretch, but think about it) rather than a psychological thriller, but it doesn't come off as unnecessary or to the detriment of the film and its intent, which works itself out just fine. It verges as a sometimes thoughtful look on society and what could happen when one's binders to the world around them wears off. The film is a wild weird mess at 122 minutes, but I applaud the efforts to make a dark film out of a comic book, as it is the kind of bold film that will surely have plenty of fans and detractors to write screeds about, for better or worse. It is a movie that is dreary, cynical, riveting, and plenty of other descriptions that fits its title character as well as anyone could really expect.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mean Streets.

Review #1276: Mean Streets.

Cast: 
Harvey Keitel (Charlie Cappa), Robert De Niro (John "Johnny Boy" Civello), David Proval (Tony DeVienazo), Amy Robinson (Teresa Ronchelli), Richard Romanus (Michael Longo), Cesare Danova (Giovanni Cappa), George Memmoli (Joey), Martin Scorsese (Jimmy Shorts), David Carradine (Drunk) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver and #992 - The King of Comedy)

Review: 
"You don't make up for your sins in Church; you do it on the street; the rest is bullshit and you know it."

It is amazing sometimes to see where a director can go in their path from turning ambition (or someone else's ambition) into something worth being on screen. Scorsese developed a love for cinema from childhood while growing up in Little Italy in Manhattan (with his experiences living there inspiring this film's story), and he subsequently attended  New York University's Tisch School of the Arts, making a few short films before making his debut feature film with Who's That Knocking at My Door (1967), starring Zina Bethune and Keitel in his film debut, which dealt with Catholic guilt. This film also deals with guilt through the lens of a crime film. After serving as one of the editors for the acclaimed documentary Woodstock in 1970, he directed his second film Boxcar Bertha with producer Roger Corman two years later, he was encouraged by actor/director John Cassavetes to make something based on his own ideas, which led to this film (with Scorsese doing the story and co-writing the screenplay with Mardik Martin). Mean Streets was done in a period of 26 days, with Los Angeles being the primary location for all but six of those days (spent where the film was primarily set, New York). Incidentally, Corman offered to fund the film (which ultimately was made for around $500,000) at one point, albeit with an all-black cast. Scorsese found funding with tour producer Jonathan Taplin and eventual distribution from Warner Bros that meant he could do the film as he wanted.

Ultimately, this film is a testament to how someone can really make a film come alive with the right sense of passion and a dynamic cast behind it. It has endured for over four decades in part because of how much it still resonates as a crime drama with its dealings of guilt and sin in the streets. It surpasses its small budget in most areas alongside its surroundings to be something quite captivating in its style that captures plenty of grime through its 112 minute run-time without becoming overwhelming. It moves at its own pace with plenty of control that one could expect from a capable director who wants to make a story come alive without having distractions in the way. With Keitel and De Niro, one can't help but be interested in what happens next, both having an aura that is magnetic whenever either is on screen, the case being especially strong for the former. You can really see the conflict with Keitel pop out on screen without having to be spoonfed direction, where his ambitions and feelings hit their own sort of crossroads. De Niro is a wild fire that burns just as fast whenever he makes his impression, such as reacting to being called a "mook" in the middle of a friendly transaction that evolves into a friendly fistfight. The rest of the cast does just as well, with Robinson having a careful slice of chemistry with Keitel while also being quite watchable, and Proval and Romanus make for a good team with the others. In a film that doesn't have or need a clear hero or villain, the film more around with its own aims and aspirations, where the fights are more inward than anything (although its fistfight is pretty well done) and the spectacle is in how all the drama plays out. There are plenty of crime films to go around, but it doesn't mean that they can't still seem fresh to follow with, with this one seeming like a template for other films to follow (particularly with its use of period rock music). The film ends when and where it needs to end up while leaving its audience entertained and interested in discussing what they saw. It does fine with living up to expectations that one could expect from a director like Scorsese with his first major breakthrough, hitting most of its marks just fine. It aims for the real side of a life in the streets racked with guilt and crime and succeeds without compromise.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Showtime.

Review #1078: Showtime.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (Detective Mitch Preston), Eddie Murphy (Officer Trey Sellars), Rene Russo (Chase Renzi), Frankie Faison (Captain Winship), Pedro Damián (Cesar Vargas), Drena De Niro (Annie), William Shatner (Himself), Mos Def (Lazy Boy), and Peter Jacobson (Brad Slocum) Directed by Tom Dey.

Review: 
Showtime manages to read out like a studio notes version of what it wanted to be. It tries to have its moments to make fun of the buddy cop structure along with its moments about reality TV, but it all crashes down to mediocrity in part because it never really takes off. The chemistry between De Niro and Murphy is better than something like Hollywood Homicide (#1075) (which also depicted a cop who wanted to be an actor, only done less funny), but it is fairly obvious that the film doesn't give them much to really do. Both of them deliver okay performances, with Murphy generating a few more laughs than De Niro, but I didn't find myself laughing too particularly hard with it. Russo does a decent job with what she's given, with the rest of the cast delivering okay performances that don't really come off as detrimental to the film, although Damian can't lift the material to make his villain role anything good. The film isn't painful or intolerable by any means, but it also isn't anything that rises to anything particularly good. It doesn't help when the movie at one point starts throwing out lines from other films (such as Taxi Driver - #990) that only serves to remind me of what I'm not watching. Its beats with the plot are a bit by the numbers, and nothing comes off as a big particular surprise with even its action sequences seeming by the numbers. The parts with Shatner playing himself end up feeling like the most amusing parts of the film in part because they seem offbeat and interesting (with a T. J. Hooker reference, of course) compared to the other parts that come off as routine and a bit sloppy. At 95 minutes, the film isn't too much of a chore, but it isn't anything that will come off as particularly rewarding for most. If you watch as something just for entertainment and nothing more, you might get a few moments here and there, but you won't find yourself particularly loving it.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The King of Comedy.

Review #992: The King of Comedy.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (Rupert Pupkin), Jerry Lewis (Jerry Langford), Diahnne Abbott (Rita Keane), Sandra Bernhard (Masha), Tony Randall (Himself), Shelley Hack (Cathy Long), Ed Herlihy (Himself), Frederick de Cordova (Bert Thomas), Margo Winkler (The Receptionist), and Kim Chan (Jonno) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver)

Review: 
This is certainly an interesting black comedy film, in that it is a black comedy that doesn't invite itself for laughs, but it invites you to follow these strange but interesting characters while also feeling very relevant even after nearly 35 years since its release. When compared to Taxi Driver, one can see some similarities within the main character (both played by De Niro) in their loneliness, although their results definitely have a significant contrast (namely, one film has blood while the other doesn't); Scorsese stated this about the connection between the two characters: "Taxi Driver. Travis. Rupert. The isolated person. Is Rupert more violent than Travis? Maybe." De Niro undeniably pulls a great performance out of this aspiring (and deranged) character that reels you in with his passion and desire (as odd as that might seem). Lewis (in a role that was rejected by Johnny Carson) does a tremendous job as the beleaguered host who has an unquestionable subtle charm to him (even with all the things that happen around him). Bernhard pulls off a capably deranged performance, always managing to make you not take your eyes off and what offbeat thing she might be doing next. Abbott also does a fine job, having a naturally innocent charm to her that resonates well when paired with De Niro. For me, my favorite scene comes during the second half, with De Niro, Lewis and Bernhard acting together, involving some gum and cue cards which works because of how well each actor plays off each other and the way that the film plays with the circumstances and mood. The camera shots are also fairly fitting for the film's tone, where fantasy and reality not being particularly distinct from each other but also showing mayhem (such as the opening scene).

The rest of the cast are satisfactory in their roles, with my favorite being Herlihy (who had been the voice of Kraft Foods commercials for decades) and his richly distinctive voice. As stated before, there are some laughs, but the movie never really desires to let you absorb it because of how enclosed it seems with its dark aspects; one particular example is a scene where Lewis is accosted and told by an old lady that he "should only get cancer". It's a brief but useful scene in understanding this film, for better or for worse. It never strives to overstate itself nor focus on being just satire or thrilling. It blurs the line between fantasy and reality a few times throughout the movie (something that once again someone could compare to Taxi Driver), and it definitely has an interesting repel effect, with the ending also being an interesting point of discussion. It never goes for the jugular in laughter nor give you the satisfaction of seeing a character show their layers, but there is something about how it portrays the perspective of media culture and worship that certainly resonate even now. It shows an ugly side to the culture that without doubt leaves an indelible and unforgettable mark. It definitely is not a movie for everyone, but it definitely is a fine winner in my mind, laughter and all.

Happy to mark that this is the 100th film reviewed in 2017 on Movie Night, the fourth time that I've done at least 100 films since 2010.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Taxi Driver.

Review #990: Taxi Driver.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (Travis Bickle), Jodie Foster (Iris "Easy" Steensma), Harvey Keitel (Matthew "Sport" Higgins), Cybill Shepherd (Betsy), Albert Brooks (Tom), Leonard Harris (Senator Charles Palantine), Peter Boyle (Wizard), Harry Northup (Doughboy), and Norman Matlock (Charlie T) Directed by Martin Scorsese.

Review: 
It seems odd that it has taken so much time to cover a Martin Scorsese film, but it seems fitting to cover this one (his fifth overall movie), which has quite the reputation (it was awarded the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival while also being nominated for four Academy Awards), and it is easy for me to see why. The way that the film shows a look into the dark elements that make up New York (for the time it was made) along with the lonely world of an alienated (but always compelling to watch) main character played expertly by De Niro. There is just something about the way he speaks and his mannerisms that make him a character one could relate to, or at least be invested in his story, which always manages to be compelling, with numerous highlights (such as the famous "You talkin' to me?" scene, which serves to feed into how lonely this character is that still endures in pop culture to this day). Foster is quite effective in her role that only serves as part of the nightmare kind of world that this film sets itself in. Keitel is also fairly effective, having a brutal nature that makes the skin crawl without relying on over-the-top moments. Shepherd is probably the most normal character in the film, but she certainly has an important place while also being fairly charming, and her scenes with De Niro are fine. Brooks and Harris don't have much screen-time, but they certainly do make for an entertaining impression. The rest of the cast (including a short scene with Scorsese himself) do fairly effective jobs. The use of slow motion in some parts of the film certainly contributes to making this movie stand out amidst the grime and a good musical score by Bernard Herrmann (who had finished the music score the day before his death on December 24, 1975). The climax of the film (and the end scene that follows it) is the pinnacle of an already exceptional movie, with a look and feel that is as rapid as it is effective, with an ending that certainly lends itself to discussion. In any case, this is a capable thriller that certainly still endures even after forty years since its release.

As dedicated readers can tell, we are in the final stages of the countdown to the big pinnacle for Movie Night. Get ready for the rest of the batch to come soon.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Shark Tale.

Review #164: Shark Tale.

Cast
Will Smith (Oscar), Robert De Niro (Don Lino), Renée Zellweger (Angie), Jack Black (Lenny), Angelina Jolie (Lola), Martin Scorsese (Sykes), Doug E. Doug (Bernie), and Ziggy Marley (Ernie) Directed by Vicky Jenson, Bibo Bergeron, and Rob Letterman.

Review
This film isn't really inspired, with animation that's decent but nothing special. The puns from Coral Cola to Katie Current get old fast with jokes that aren't as useful. The plot feels like something you find in a mobster film, but it isn't very useful in tone. Compared to Finding Nemo, this film isn't as fun or warming. This film has good voices from Smith, who like always makes any film worth something. This film is not as good as Shrek or...Kung Fu Panda, but at least it will entertain for 90 minutes (a running trend in animated films). This ends Part V of Dreamworks Animation Week. Stay tuned for Part VI...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.