Soapdish.

Review #2533: Soapdish.

Cast: 

Sally Field (Celeste Talbert / "Maggie"), Kevin Kline (Jeffrey Anderson / "Dr. Rod Randall"), Robert Downey Jr (David Seton Barnes), Cathy Moriarty (Montana Moorehead / "Nurse Nan"), Elisabeth Shue (Lori Craven / "Angelique"), Whoopi Goldberg (Rose Schwartz), Teri Hatcher (Ariel Maloney / "Dr. Monica Demonico"), Garry Marshall (Edmund Edwards), Kathy Najimy (Tawny Miller), Arne Nannestad (Burton White), and Paul Johansson (Blair Brennan / "Bolt") Directed by Michael Hoffman.

Review: 

Who doesn't love a good soap opera? I vaguely remember seeing a bit of soap operas when I was younger (I'm told Passions had a town witch?) but parodies of soap operas have been around since what, Soap (the nighttime parody that ran in the late 1970s)? Apparently, the original impetus for what became Soapdish was formed during production of Steel Magnolias (1989), as writer Robert Harling had a handful of conversations with Sally Field and Alan Greisman, a producer and Field's husband at the time (apparently, Sigourney Weaver was at one point considered for the lead role before rejecting it, a move she regretted). Originally tabbed with Herbert Ross to direct at TriStar, it eventually shifted to Paramount, with a few other changes as well Andrew Bergman (who stated that he did not visit the set much) gave re-writes to the script. Of note is that Aaron Spelling served as a co-producer (yes, in between an executive producer on shows such as The Love Boat and Dynasty*, Spelling dabbed in producing, with this being his last one as a producer before being an executive producer for The Mod Squad [1999] and Charlie's Angels [2000]). This was the fifth feature film directed by Michael Hoffman who actually had studied at Boise State University before earning a Rhodes Scholarship that led to him studying Renaissance literature and eventually became involved in drama. Hoffman served as a co-founder of both the Idaho Shakespeare Festival and the Oxford University Film Foundation; his first feature was made at Oxford with Privileged (1982). Made on a budget of $25 million, the movie was a light success with audiences. Honestly, I had this film on the shelf as part of a three-pack (where it was somehow lapped in with Book Club [2018] and The First Wives Club [1996]) for a few years, so there's that.

 

Sure, it's a light farce that has a few garish colors with its outfitting at times (as designed by Nolan Miller of Dynasty fame that you can see in select shots here), and sure, it moves along with a quick pace at 97 minutes...and that's all good with me. It is a dazzling affair wrapped in the odd quirks that come with big stars and bigger egos that lends itself to plenty of humor from people who seem pretty game. At the helm is Field (already a bit familiar in comedy for those who watch, say, Smokey and the Bandit every year like I do*) in a role that lets her have a chance to play a goofy pampered oddball that is affectionately entertaining. She clearly had enjoyment at doing a slapsticky type of farce that could've just as easily been played as a pathetic clown but instead has a plucky type of charm to laugh along with in the wide variety of moments that come with being a name that ages by the Hollywood minute while real-life drama and soap drama really can just crash together. The best little scene might be with Goldberg and Field exchanging in a little game of egoboosting when the former pretends to recognize the latter at the mall to the surprised glee of a handful of fans (everyone loves a scene-chewer). Kline actually had a bit of experience with soaps via a brief run on Search for Tomorrow, so it probably makes sense that he said this role was akin to playing a "psychotic", which seems apt for someone basically given some room to play a neat little ham. Of course the real chewer of scenery in delightfulness is Moriarty, who clicks into place in ravenous conniving energy from the jump, one who takes (nearly*) everything in stride. There are highlights from rest of the cast in neat little quirks that come through, such as the brief dazzling nature of Hatcher*, the charmingly smarmy Downey Jr, the relatively normal charm of Shue, the all-too brief fun of seeing Marshall/Fisher riff on the usual privileged executive or the beleaguered Goldberg. It's a likable movie with plenty of goofy little moments of seeing people have fun with the inner workings of "the right shot", "the right script", "the right thing" all going to hell at the whims of basically who talked last or pulled rank the best. By the time the movie rumbles to its conclusion involving offbeat revelations and a plausible enough sell of life basically moving along to the next season of gossip and looking for the next thing to chase. As a whole, Soapdish is a charmer that dishes out enough little moments of amusement to keep the viewer soaped up for a fun time.

 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*I was going to mention 7th Heaven in the "hey, remember this show?" but I feel that mentioning the show starring an actual pervert seems a bit much.

*I know Field is a two-time Academy Award winner and all that, but, yeah, Smokey is the one I think about when I think of Field first, which I probably should rectify. At least I don't think of her as a flying nun.

*I don't understand the criticism of the transgender character being revealed to be the villain. What, are transgender people supposed to be saints in every film ever? 

*And as we all know from Seinfeld, "they're real...and they're spectacular." I will say that if I had to consider watching slowly watching a TV show from start to end from the 2000s, Desperate Housewives would be on the shortlist. No, really.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Review #2375: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Cast: 

Robert Downey Jr (Harold "Harry" Lockhart), Val Kilmer ("Gay" Perry van Shrike), Michelle Monaghan (Harmony Faith Lane), Corbin Bernsen (Harlan Dexter), Dash Mihok (Mr. Frying Pan), Larry Miller (Dabney Shaw), Rockmond Dunbar (Mr. Fire), and Shannyn Sossamon (Mia Frye (Pink Hair Girl) Directed by Shane Black (#396 - Iron Man 3)

Review: 

"I have always assumed that in a very over compensatory way that I will come back tomorrow and the treasures will be gone. Then you have those days when you have not written for a while, you are a bit rusty and you think the vault is empty. Eventually you have to take a leap of faith. But I have never been too big on faith. Deep down I hope I have this overall positivism within. I have faith in life’s ability to provide terrific crescendos but there is also this nagging certain that what awaits me are these horrible pitfalls."

It sure has been a while since we talked about Shane Black. The UCLA Drama School graduate rose to prominence with a spec script he manage to sell to Warner Bros... which ended up being Lethal Weapon (1986). Well, okay, that isn't the whole story. For one, the Pittsburgh native actually had an interested in hardboiled fiction from his printer father before he went to UCLA for film, and while he liked to write from a young age, it was his friend Fred Dekker who inspired him to go for a living in the film industry by showing him a script he was doing. He worked as a typist and in data entry before his "The Shadow Company" script had gotten an agent and executives to basically guide him to do something for them, and, well, Lethal Weapon (among other observations)*. His first draft for the sequel (which was darker in tone that basically is referenced here) was not accepted, and he had lingering doubts in his confidence, but he followed this with scripts that got turned into movies with The Last Boy Scout (1991), a re-write of Last Action Hero (1993), and The Long Kiss Goodnight (1994). The relatively quiet reception to that script led to Black being disillusioned for a number of years. When he decided to try and write a script different from his usual stuff with a romantic comedy, he asked James L. Brooks for advice (Brooks apparently told Black that he "always pictured [Black] doing something like Chinatown which was character driven with a lot of twists") but found that the only way to solve his problems with the script was to make it a movie about a murder with detectives. The script, which was inspired by the 1940s novel Bodies Are Where You Find Them by Brett Halliday, ended up at Warner Bros. with Joel Silver (already familiar with Black in previous ventures) as producer; with a budget of $15 million, the movie wasn't a big hit at the time, but Robert Downey Jr called the movie "my calling card to Iron Man". Black would next direct (and write) with Iron Man 3 in 2013.

Admittedly, it is a shaggy type of neo-noir that balances its 103-minute runtime with varying levels of humor and enjoyment that comes from such a curious ensemble and style on screen. Far from just being a namedropping tribute (note the titles for its "chapters"), it goes and coasts in shrouding mystery and sharp amusement that may not be a great movie at first glance but sure is at least a good enough time to possibly encounter again anyways. Downey Jr** in particular seems to be having a fun time as a crook that is wrapped up in the growing hijinks that arise in overbearing people and situations and handles it with worthy timing (it helps to narrate the movie at times to general chuckling). We roll along with things just as Downey does in being quick on one's feet to make for a delightfully clumsy guy to follow along with. Apparently, it was Kilmer who suggested that his character should be gay (with Black being fine with a character that is going to kick the door down, gay or not). Obviously, Kilmer knew what he was doing in terms of matching Downey in pace and timing that has passion for what he does in terms of results that breezes through the film in a way that buddy films could only dream to have. Monaghan accompanies the proceedings with peppy charm that has enough of a curious rapport with Downey Jr to balance the movie out beyond the procedures that come in mystery without needing to go to all of the obvious romcom things. Bernsen lurks in the ground probably not nearly as much one might want to see, but he lingers enough to sell the trick that comes in looking past appearances and smiles while Mihok and Dunbar make for useful henchmen to pop in and out as well. In general, the movie does coast along with charm that eventually levels its machinations for a suitable enough climax with fair closure that at least lets the audience have the satisfaction in being on the ride without throwing out on their end, if you know what I mean. As a whole, Black's debut as a director works out the best in having enough charm from its main cast in hardboiled chuckles to make this a worthwhile recommendation for those looking for a little bit of everything.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Okay, there was also The Monster Squad and acting but blah blah blah, get on with it, right?

**Noted at the time for slowly making his way out of addictions rather than say, previous noirs like The Singing Detective (2003) or his Academy Award nominated role in Chaplin.

Tropic Thunder.

Review #2089: Tropic Thunder.

Cast: 

Ben Stiller (Tugg Speedman), Jack Black (Jeff Portnoy), Robert Downey Jr (Kirk Lazarus as Lincoln Osiris), Nick Nolte (Four Leaf Tayback), Steve Coogan (Damien Cockburn), Jay Baruchel (Kevin Sandusky), Danny McBride (Cody Underwood), Brandon T. Jackson (Alpa Chino), Bill Hader (Studio Executive Rob Slolom), Brandon Soo Hoo (Tran), Trieu Tran (Tru), Matthew McConaughey (Rick "The Pecker" Peck), and Tom Cruise (Les Grossman) Directed by Ben Stiller.

Review: 

''I was trying to push it as far as you can within reality. I had no idea how people would respond to it.'' 

Ben Stiller spent a couple of years making an idea involving actors filming a war movie. He would know, because this idea came about when he had appeared in a small part in Empire of the Sun (1987). He had seen a number of his friends undergo boot camp training for their roles that found them talking like they had become part of a real military unit that seemed like a "sort of self-important, self-involved thing". He kicked around ideas while getting his turn in television such as The Ben Stiller Show and directing with Reality Bites (1994) and The Cable Guy (1996) before appearing in There's Something About Mary (1998) made him a more name presence. At any rate, the script for what became this film was developed by Stiller and Justin Theroux while Etan Cohen helped them write the screenplay. Oddly enough, Stiller intended to cast Keanu Reeves in the lead role and himself as the agent, but when this did not come to pass, he instead took over the lead role. There also is a bit of improvisation present when it came to parts of the storyboard that didn't have scripted dialogue. Spoof, satire, parody, I think you get the idea of what you have with a film that seems right at home with others such as Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991), the documentary that detailed the "rough" time in the production of Apocalypse Now (1979). It sure must have been a surprise that the film attracted minor controversy (something involving disabilities or "blackface", but 2008 crowds had their own standards of ignoring that), because Stiller was even quoted as saying once it has "always been a controversial movie" while noting it as one he is proud of it.

I vaguely remember watching this film about over a decade ago, and I thought it was decent back then before somehow forgetting about it. I wondered a bit how the film was going to look now that it was past the 15-year mark. Hell, I should have realized it was going to be a good time, because, well, it is a fine time to spend in the art of making light of war moviemaking. It makes a solid 107-minute ensemble with plenty of fun spent making light of the excesses that come in moviemaking for those in front of the camera and behind it. The array of spoofs starts right from the get-go with the faux trailers that begin the film by showing four degrees of a star, whether that involves method acting, has-been action stars, Chris Farley models, or, well, rappers trying to be actors. Stiller proves pretty well with the insecure has-been that comes with flailing in the face of rising and dying stars in Hollywood, which includes trying to veer in "Oscar bait" for worthwhile silly insecurity. The best way to describe Downey Jr's performance is, well "dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude." He is so absorbed in playing someone so different from himself (both in appearance and, well, personality) that is quite amusing in the fact he is all in for trying to trigger emotions like a man pressing buttons on a conveyor. You could make the argument that the actor he really seems to hone is not so much Daniel Day-Lewis (method acting and all) but in fact Peter Sellars (hey, The Party (1968) has its own debate over playing race versus playing comedy). Black succeeds fairly well in pathetic addiction, at least when compared to the moments of film acting for the fart-based trailer or those moments in the "war film", I mean. Jackson and Baruchel round out the cast with their own lingering flailing at the insecurities that infringe all of them in the jungle (technically Baruchel is the straight man, but the only different quality for Jackson is a punchline but stay with me on this). The adversaries presented are pretty one note, unless you try to posit that war movies sometimes have their own one-dimensional outlook, but one thing that is delightfully one note in the best way is Nolte, because his gruff outlook in the face of lies is endearing (particularly since he contrasts McBride). Cruise seems to be enjoying himself in the loudest and most obvious cliche (name me one benevolent studio head), which I was surprised to realize actually involved prosthetic hands, and it works out to a few decent jokes (I don't actually believe that a spinoff film would've been the best idea though, but you do you). As a whole, the gags work out pretty well for silly enjoyment over how much insecurity one can have with actors with a biting pace and tone that holds its own in all of the right ways. 15 years hasn't made the humor lessen in impact for those who are up for it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Oppenheimer.

Review #2050: Oppenheimer.

Cast: 

Cillian Murphy (J. Robert Oppenheimer), Emily Blunt (Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer), Matt Damon (Leslie Groves), Robert Downey Jr (Lewis Strauss), Florence Pugh (Jean Tatlock), Josh Hartnett (Ernest Lawrence), Casey Affleck (Boris Pash), Rami Malek (David Hill), Kenneth Branagh (Niels Bohr), Benny Safdie (Edward Teller), Dylan Arnold (Frank Oppenheimer), Gustaf Skarsgård (Hans Bethe), David Krumholtz (Isidor Isaac Rabi), Matthew Modine (Vannevar Bush), David Dastmalchian (William L. Borden), Tom Conti (Albert Einstein), Michael Angarano (Robert Serber), Jack Quaid (Richard Feynman), Josh Peck (Kenneth Bainbridge), Olivia Thirlby (Lilli Hornig), Dane DeHaan (Kenneth Nichols), Danny Deferrari (Enrico Fermi), Alden Ehrenreich (Senate aide), Jefferson Hall (Haakon Chevalier), and Jason Clarke (Roger Robb) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, and #1618 - Tenet)

Review: 

“I’m always pushing various things forward, but this is one where a lot of different planets aligned. Los Alamos, this place that will always live in history or infamy, was first a place where Oppenheimer and his brother loved to go camping. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, I’m looking at the most personal possible connection between a character and a massive change to the world that couldn’t be undone.” - Christopher Nolan

There is no way to state how damn good the film is besides saying it is a really great achievement that should be seen. Blah blah Barbie, you could see that any time in the next couple of weeks but consider Oppenheimer as early as one could possibly do. No really, see it as quickly as you can, the three-hour runtime is worth the time presented, and I am sure you will be rewarded by the experience that makes for a fascinating biopic. The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer has been argued to be one of a modern tragedy, and this film proves that very point by the time it even has built two-thirds of the scope required of three hours of breathtaking film. Lord do I wish it was easy to just say what I mean in less than a handful of paragraphs, but if one can say roughly over 900 words for a film involving humans and dolls, clearly one has to make sure to put in the hours to articulate the importance of watching a film (specifically Nolan, who wrote the screenplay) that took its inspiration from the 2005 biography of the famed Oppenheimer in American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (incidentally, some of the subjects interviewed by Sherwin had been featured in The Day After Trinity, such as Haakon Chevalier). Oppenheimer is seen in various places besides Los Alamos in New Mexico, of course, such as his time as professor at thee University of California, Berkeley and his time spent after the war at the Institute for Advanced Study, while one other moment in history is seen under the cloud of Oppenheimer with the 1959 confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss for the Secretary of Commerce, after having taken office via a recess appointment the previous year (the film obviously doesn't have time to mention everyone, but the scuttling of the confirmation had help from Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, whose disagreements with Strauss drove him to drive such an effort, complete with an ally in fellow Senator and committee member dealing with commerce in Gale W. McGee). You can thank the efforts of folks such as J. David Wargo and James Woods (both executive producers) for getting this film to the finish line, since plans for doing one based on the book had muddled for over a decade; the only film to feature Oppenheimer in a prominent role was Fat Man and Little Boy (as played by Dwight Shultz for a film released in 1989), which absolutely nobody remembers fondly, at least when compared to say, the 1980 BBC TV serial Oppenheimer, which had Sam Waterston as star. Nolan has stated the purpose of having scenes in black-and-white is meant to present an objective view of the story of Oppenheimer from the point of view of the one most seen in these scenes with Strauss.

Oppenheimer the man is presented in all of his epic qualities of contradiction of brilliance. He is the namesake for both a process and approximation in science (with collaboration with other scientists, naturally) that is also wracked in paradoxes that make the heart of the film. Pride really does come before the fall, especially for someone who was under constant surveillance by the FBI before and after the war. The man is presented as a man with qualities and flaws apparent to all of us, a man of brilliance, a man of guilt, a man of womanizers, a man fit to argue as one of great tragedy. There are so many performances in this film that one can't mention every single person that portray these figures (some of whom only appear for a time such as Gary Oldman as President Harry Truman or James Remar as Henry Stimson). It is easy to state however, that Murphy and Downey Jr rein in the best performances of the whole film, with each of their stories being told in such compelling detail. Murphy has the weight of the title role on his shoulders, but he handles it with such clear conviction that one sees him as Oppenheimer with perfect efficiency that makes it so one never sees an actor playing a man but just the man and all of his qualities thrust upon us, and it takes a most exceptional person to give the role justice with such persuasive power. We live in a world created by Oppenheimer's actions and we feel it firmly with his performance. Downey Jr is practically the mirror of Oppenheimer when it comes to how he handles being cast into the light of his own hearing. All great villains believe themselves to be in the right, ones who believe that power stays in the shadows because only amateurs chase the sun, and Downey Jr plays this with such devastating power that is conniving and breathtaking in the time he is on screen. His arrogance is breathtaking in the greatest of ways possible, one filled with pique that is accompanied in moments with Ehrenreich for fascinating interaction. Murphy and Downey Jr clearly deserve all the recognition they have gotten for this film already and I am sure they will endure in the years to come. Of course, the rest of the performers are magnificent as well in conveying the players to destruction necessary, mostly in the case of Damon and Blunt. The clash of hard-driving practicality in Damon clashes with the philosophical Murphy for such riveting tension and even more riveting in the respect you see between the two that comes out because of how effective it all is played out. Blunt and her own contradictions make for a worthy pairing with Murphy, one with razor-sharp timing and unwavering confidence that goes well when you consider how Murphy is presented with Pugh on the other side of feminine curiosity (which in of itself is useful to watch). You get the point about these performers, they are useful in all the ways that matter without distraction, which is bookended by Conti but also sees people such as Hartnett and Safdie shine too.

Nothing is more exhilarating than seeing Lewis Strauss not become a member of a cabinet. Nah, just kidding (fun fact: he was the first person not confirmed for a cabinet seat by the US Senate since 1925 - never let it be said that Movie Night does not try to deliver "education" beyond rambling), because the buildup to the Trinity test is one for the ages. The buildup to the bomb and the accompanying music by Ludwig Göransson is absolutely worth the price of admission, complete with the moment itself in its beautiful destructive quality (the film was done with minimal computer-generated imagery). Of course, other sequences such as expressing certain scientific aspects (remember that the real Oppenheimer made contributions to various theories such as black holes) is a reminder that seeing this film on the biggest screen possible really can be a rewarding time for all involved. The guilt is crushing in all of the ways that matter when it comes to the level of involvement one has in forming a bomb and seeing it go away from your hands or seeing the results of it. Of course, since the film includes the noted scene of President Truman mocking Oppenheimer of just who has "blood on their hands", the fascination will endure further in discussion of ethics and beyond. Far from just a biopic that goes from point A to point B, the film flourishes from the very get-go and never lets up in conveying the wonder that comes in seeing the Manhattan Project meet its destiny that intertwine with the destinies of both Oppenheimer and Strauss with their hearings. God do I love this film, and I can't say enough about just how brilliant it is or how devilishly well-timed it is to make the three hours pass by without a single complaint. It serves as both an informative feature of the time and also a warning to the danger that comes with living in a world that Nolan believes is one shaped by Oppenheimer, whether we like it or not.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

U.S. Marshals.

Review #1692: U.S. Marshals.

Cast: 

Tommy Lee Jones (Sam Gerard), Wesley Snipes (Mark J. Sheridan / Mark Roberts / Mark Warren), Robert Downey Jr (John Royce), Joe Pantoliano (Cosmo Renfro), Daniel Roebuck (Bobby Biggs), Tom Wood (Noah Newman), LaTanya Richardson (Savannah Cooper), Irène Jacob (Marie Bineaux), Kate Nelligan (Catherine Walsh), Patrick Malahide (Bertram Lamb), Rick Snyder (Frank Barrows), and Michael Paul Chan (Xiang Chen) Directed by Stuart Baird.

Review:

Do you remember The Fugitive? A long time ago, I was first introduced to it by the 1993 film, one of a string of adaptations of familiar television shows that have been quite prevalent over the past few decades. The original series had ran for four seasons from 1963 to 1967 involving the chase of an escaped convict (an innocent victim of blind justice) that goes from place to place trying to clear his name while an lieutenant bound to enforce the law is keen on catching him. The show was created by Roy Huggins (whose previous successes included Maverick, which also saw a film adaptation in the mid 1990s) with Quinn Martin producing the show; supposedly the idea for the show was based on the real-life trial of Sam Sheppard, who was convicted but subsequently acquitted of the murder of his wife, although Huggins denied this (at any rate, Victor Hugo's 1862 novel Les Misérables is likely the most evident inspiration). Oh, and it happened to be one of the first notable series finales ever broadcast on television, but that's besides the point. The reason I mention all of this is to provide context for when a film adaptation of the show eventually came to pass, one that modified details within an attempt at making a thriller capped by one big stunt (with a train, what else?). It did its own interpretation of the main two characters that retained a good deal of the claustrophobic feel of the series that works in character-driven drama with plenty of shots of Chicago that seemed distinct and useful when compared to the anthology premises used by the show. It wasn't a perfect movie by any means (since it inadvertently captured the fuzzy resolution of trying to cap a thriller with shaky explanations that the show also had), but it certainly received enough notice from folks to stand well among its time, even after nearly three decades. One of the benefactors from that success was Tommy Lee Jones, who won an Academy Award for his performance in that film; if you remember correctly, Jones spent screen time either paired with an elusive Ford or paired with the folks on the hunt for him that ranged from Joe Pantoliano to Johnny Lee Davenport (i.e. a supporting cast of five), and most of that supporting cast returns here. As with this film, Huggins served as one of the executive producers, while John Pogue served as screenwriter.

Are you surprised that this movie came out five years after the success of The Fugitive? Or is the real surprise the fact that this "spinoff" was even created at all? Nay, the true surprise is how average the movie is, a movie that is blandly unnecessary yet never infuriating enough to stop watching (if only because of the folks involved). In other words, if you've seen one movie about a fugitive on the run, watch The Fugitive. You could replace Jones and his character with any kind of generic hero and probably not lose much when it comes to entertainment value (incidentally, Stuart Baird had served as the editor on a variety of action films that ranged from Lethal Weapon (1987) to Demolition Man (1993) before debuting as director with Executive Decision in 1996). The movie builds on the idea of "innocent man on the run" in trying to add a conspiracy aspect to it that results in a very muddled movie that takes quite a while to really do anything of circumstance, and we are talking about a 131 minute movie. When one starts talking about innocent fugitives who are also former CIA operatives after we see him nearly get taken down by zip guns hidden in a prison plane, the brain starts to check out. The performances are relatively fine, in that the main group of Marshals roll with the clichés without turning into complete cardboard (i.e. you don't groan at the banter). However, Snipes certainly suffers the most when it comes to having to deal with the muddled focus, contrasting oddly with Jones in the levels of interest despite having (on paper) more to work with in terms of people to bounce off than Ford had to do in the first film (i.e. Jacob, although she is merely just okay here), and yet it still feels a bit hollow. I like Jones just fine for this film, but he clearly had better material to work with before, in that there isn't anything that really stands to interest a newcomer or one familiar with the first one. Of course, if one likes seeing Jones or Snipes as actors, one could be fine with what they see anyway, since bad movies with a favorite actor can theoretically still be interesting to view (for example, there are folks who probably can stomach Blade: Trinity for Snipes just as I remind myself of the amusement I share in thinking about Volcano (1997) with Jones in its monumental amusement factor). Downey has described this as one of his worst filming experiences, going so far as to call it "the worst action movie of all time", one that depressed him and made him rather be in prison than wake up on the set of it again. It likely doesn't help that he seems a bit miscast here, and we are talking about a movie that barely has that much energy to go with in the first place. Really though, a great deal of the movie could be summed up as "on paper", in that the idea of a film about folks pursuing people on the run could on paper be interesting, or maybe the idea of seeing where a guy like Gerald goes after having spent considerable time catching one innocent fugitive goes (on paper). Instead, one gets a mild movie that seems to have the odors of studio notes, where the demand to try and top the stunts that captured attention before go hand in hand with trying to wring originality out of familiar pulp. The swinging stunt onto a passing train is likely the most notable scene from the movie (the plane crash is a close second, but yeah), and if it is taken as just a movie for distraction without taking too much into its middling middle-ness, it might prove inoffensive enough to see once. As a whole, it is an unnecessary spinoff that doesn't equally doesn't do much to spin on what had been done years before while serving average in every other aspect that will either mean a movie one will pass on seeing or find to be a mild curiosity on a long boring night.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Good Night, and Good Luck.

Review #1539: Good Night, and Good Luck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Natural Born Killers.

Review #1265: Natural Born Killers.

Cast: 
Woody Harrelson (Mickey Knox), Juliette Lewis (Mallory Wilson Knox), Robert Downey, Jr. (Wayne Gale), Tom Sizemore (Detective Jack Scagnetti), Tommy Lee Jones (Warden Dwight McClusky), Rodney Dangerfield (Ed Wilson), Edie McClurg (Mrs. Wilson), Sean Stone (Kevin Wilson), Russell Means (Warren Red Cloud, Sr), Lanny Flaherty (Earl), and Evan Handler (David) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street and #1090 - Platoon)

Review: 
It is interesting to look upon this film today, 25 years after its release. It is a notoriously famous kind of film, one that was modified from its original script by Quentin Tarantino (the second of two scripts he had sold, with the other being True Romance) to the point where he was given a story credit while screenplay credit went to Richard Rutowski, Oliver Stone, and David Veloz. Tarantino wasn't a big fan of the final product, and the film is certainly an easy one to rage/rave about. The resulting film is one that is bold in its violence and its attempts to make a statement about society and so on and so on while also serving as a twisted romance - two hours of chaotic energy that is frantic, satirical, and a bit of a mess. Honestly, it must be real hard to fall along the middle ground with this particular film: One can appreciate the technical aspects of the film and yet still take issue with its approach for the message it wants, or one can really, really feel that it is a tiresome and ridiculously shameless attempt at satire that goes over the top to where it hits the moon with jagged edge front and center. One film that came in mind when viewing this was Bonnie and Clyde (1967), which in itself was a controversial film for its violence with its lead characters while being a seminal film for a burgeoning generation. This is definitely a film that is trying to be the kind of thing for its type of audience, with its decade certainly being a polarizing one in terms of the landscape of media and the world as a whole. One can certainly see that effect today, for better or worse (the less said about quote-unquote fake news, the better). It is the kind of loud film that probably seems right at home with the loudness that can accompany our lives if one allows it (or even if they don't).

No one seems to be safe from Stone's grip on message-making, or his grip on spectacle violence (or whatever you really want to call it), and they make for a cumbersome cocktail that when sipped manages to hit the consumer on the head and make for a fuzzy feeling all at once. This is especially apparent with the editing (which took eleven months as opposed to the shoot taking just 56 days) and look of the film, which can go from color to monochrome or just be filmed with a dutch angle (or most notably superimposing images of the 20th century in the background). Am I watching an crime movie or an art film? Really, you could say it is a bit of both. Does it go over the line when it comes to actually making a point? Sure, and it does that with no real sort of regrets, much in the same way a shock jock can hammer the hot take home till the cows come home to call the complaint hotlines. For me, it is a well made film that comes off okay with its approach while scoring points for capable film-making (moreso in the first half than the second) and its cast. Each of the core five has some sort of oddity to them (the headlining couple need no explanation), where being over-the-top is more like being over the rails and into the weird aisle, which generally works out fine in showing some ooze. Harrelson and Lewis are a dementedly successful duo when it comes to performances. One always wants to know what they will prove to do, whether with each other or with someone else, a sort of hypnotic feeling really. Much like the others in the film, one can't help it. Downey Jr plays his role of prowler for the attention machine (or however one would describe a tabloid TV host who happens to have an Australian accent) with effectiveness, where one can see the thirst for something deep in us (or what have you) that manifest in a wildly weird climax. Sizemore surely proves to task with his unconventional conventional role, where you can see the powder keg show its cracks from time to time. Jones hams it up (this is apparent with the hairstyle), and it works itself out for a few laughs at a man meant to have control yet can't even control himself. Special scene-stealing consideration goes to Dangerfield, who actually wrote his lines for his dark part that is perfectly horrific for what is needed. In the long run, this is a movie that roars itself from the very beginning with an ax to grind about its topic of conversation that swings for the trees and manages to cut down the entire forest while also setting it ablaze. Its fury can prove a bit too much after a while when it comes to actually trying to contain itself to one frenzy at a time. It can prove to be a horrific, biting, infuriating, frustrating, or rewarding experience, depending on how one looks into it. It is a controversial film for a reason, but the curious film mind will certainly have quite the time with it, that much is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Avengers: Endgame.

Review #1213: Avengers: Endgame.

Cast: 
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Brie Larson (Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Josh Brolin (Thanos), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Evangeline Lilly (Hope van Dyne / The Wasp), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Rene Russo (Frigga), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Benedict Wong (Wong), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Dave Bautista (Drax), Letitia Wright (Shuri), John Slattery (Howard Stark), Tilda Swinton (The Ancient One), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter), Marisa Tomei (Aunt May), Angela Bassett (Ramonda), Michael Douglas (Hank Pym), Michelle Pfeiffer (Janet Van Dyne), William Hurt (Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), Winston Duke (M'Baku), Hiroyuki Sanada (Akihiko), Tom Vaughan-Lawlor (Ebony Maw), Vin Diesel (Groot), Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), and Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier, #796 - Captain America: Civil War, and #1079 - Avengers: Infinity War)

Review: 
It is a strange thing to reach the end of a film saga like this one, with 22 films in eleven years that showcased numerous heroes onto the big screen while making a cinematic universe unrivaled at this moment by any other sort of studio. There will be more comic book films in the future from Marvel Studios that one would hope will continue to make interesting hero stories that work well as entertainment. As I recall from Infinity War last year, I thought that it was a pretty good experience that went for spectacle and succeeded in packing in each moment it wants to for a 149 minute run-time. Endgame decides to build on the model with a 181 minute run-time, which makes it longer than any comic book film - which is likely for the best, since at least it does try to be thorough with where it wants to go. This is a film that has a big task on its hands - it has to follow the previous Avengers film and its big punch at the end from its main threat: half of the universe is eliminated on a snap of the fingers of its big space device, the Infinity Gauntlet. It was pretty shocking to see that actually occur in that film, but I admit that it had to happen, mostly because there had to be a way to put big stakes for the inevitable sequel - so why not just have some of your heroes actually vanish? Of course, we live in an age where rumors and sequel reports are rampant, so seeing a hero die does tend to feel a bit hollow if you figure that they'll just return for their own batch of sequels (although explaining that to a kid would probably be a bit cynical at first). In any case, this is a film that has fun with some of its greatest hits by going back to the past, which works itself out just fine without becoming too stupid with its use of time travel as a plot device - for the most part. For me, I thought that the film was pretty good. It is probably as good as the last film, and it will probably rank up as a top ten favorite of this "Infinity Saga", which is for the best. It lives up to the expectations set from before and fulfills its destiny as an ending that proves satisfactory in closing things out with its own set of twists and action pulls. It has a bit of emotional weight to it at least, with its opening scene being a pretty fine highlight in actually showcasing some consequences along with the only Avenger actor given nothing to do over the years in Renner, so that works out. Finales are hard to land, particularly with trying to cover its bases and hooking its audience with excitement and rewarding the ones who have watched these films for over a decade with a real ending. Suffice to say, this works out well.

Undeniably, the best part of the film for me was the interactions of the heroes together with each other, with a key emphasis on the original cast-mates from the earlier films, while pairing off certain heroes with each other like the previous Avengers film did, such as Downey and Evans, Johansson and Renner, or Hemsworth with Cooper. These work out pretty well, with Downey being the most entertaining part of the film, as one would expect from someone doing a role once again over the past eleven years while serving as the heart of these films with his journey, which works out as well as one should expect. Evans and his earnest nature shine through just as well, persistent and well-natured with his own story. It makes sense to pair these two together for their own little story, which makes for a neat team-up when it comes together. Ruffalo is pretty fun to be around with, working this character to a brilliant balance that lets him not get lost in the effects while giving him time to shine. Hemsworth is fine, representing the one most changed by the events from before, which works fine - minus the parts when he is just used as comic relief for the first half, which can feel a bit tiring given his character over the past few years, even if isn't completely permanent, and I do look forward to seeing him again in other films. Johansson does well for herself here again, resilient as expected. Renner does a good job here as well, particularly with a well-done sequence in Japan that makes for quick but fun action. Among the other parts of the main group of heroes to shine is Gillan, Rudd and Cooper, who help contribute to giving the film some weight and humor, respectively. The ones to not get much to really do is Cheadle and Larson, honestly. Brolin plays the inevitability of his villain fairly well when he is on screen (although I did chuckle a bit at his "Farmer Thanos" getup for a moment). He doesn't really have as much to go on as before, but going from a pursuit for powerful stones to trying to keep his power does make him still seem dangerous without diminishing him too much. The key moments that drive the film aren't necessarily just big action pieces (of which there are enough for any action hound) but instead moments smaller on scale, such as Downey with Slattery sharing a scene together or Hemsworth with Russo at respective key points of time. It isn't so much because the moments just help to drive the plot at each point as it the fact that it resonates with what viewers have seen from these heroes and parents that shape them that resonate far more than a simple quip. The film's plot tries to juggle these characters and its destinations with an assortment of set pieces and time travel gobbledygook (which makes sense if one really doesn't think about it severely) that builds up to a big climax battle - which I found to be fairly satisfactory. I felt it made the right choices of where to go more often than not without simply devolving itself into complete overload of fan-service. It will make people really emotionally invested in these characters probably have some sort of release of emotion (which for me are just movies) and it will work out well for occasional viewers without bashing their head in with a insulting plot. It is grandiose and consuming for those who seek it, pure and simple. It may inspire a bunch of debate over how it handles certain characters (or how things ultimately ends up), but it is clear that there was a great deal of effort to pull things together to make a winning end without having a creaky foundation.

One will leave the theater probably with a sense of relief that the film worked out as well as it did within the big amount of time it had to do so, likely reflecting on how things go from there. I will probably stick around to see how some of the next few films turn out in trying to build adapt new heroes on screen and what interesting things could happen next while probably looking back on these films on occasion. This has been the best and strangest ride of entertainment that transformed comic book movies into something more, turning heroes only just known in comic circles and elevating it into the mainstream. None of these films are perfect, but they each have had their own vision and purpose, with this one being a fine gem amongst other shining features, with this being a moment of triumph.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Air America.

Review #1205: Air America.

Cast: 
Mel Gibson (Gene Ryack), Robert Downey Jr. (Billy Covington), Nancy Travis (Corinne Landreaux), Ken Jenkins (Major Donald Lemond), David Marshall Grant (Robert Diehl), Lane Smith (Senator Davenport), Art LaFleur (Jack Neely), Ned Eisenberg (Nick Pirelli), Marshall Bell (O.V.), David Bowe (Saunders), and Burt Kwouk (General Lu Soong) Directed by Roger Spottiswoode (#171 - Tomorrow Never Dies and #191 - The 6th Day)

Review: 
Perhaps this film was made at the wrong time. The film's development began with director Richard Rush in 1985 in an attempt to be the first comedy about the Vietnam War, writing a script that at one point was slated to star Sean Connery in the lead role, with various actors thought of for the other main role ranging from Bill Murray to Kevin Costner. In any case, a new direction was taken that led to the hiring of John Eskow to make changes, for which he received a co-writing credit. The film is loosely based off the non-fiction book of the same name from Christopher Robbins. As a action comedy, the only interesting thing about the movie is how it manages to flounder in two genres. This should seem surprising with Gibson and Downey Jr heading the cast, but it becomes apparent by the halfway point of its 113 minute run-time that the film doesn't have the energy to drive many laughs or thrills to carry a whole movie. The film tries to have it both ways - it has its bits of gags and oddball characters, such as ones who like to dangle sleeping people on a rope while flying or playing with coloring books while also trying to show dramatic elements (namely involving the war or the nature of their trade, including a fictionalized portrayal of an actual Laotian general), but it never truly clicks together in making something that actually seems interesting to follow along with. Perhaps the makers of this film really thought that a mish-mash of genres would serve the material well, but it just feels disconnected most of the time, where the implications never really seem to make an impact or matter. Wondering how factual the film is to real-life events is probably a bit more useful a task to do instead of giving the film too much effort. At least there is some decent plane action. It sure is nice to see Gibson at least, and he sure tries to make this maverick type seem interesting to follow along with, but he just seems to be going through the motions by the time his character arc suddenly turns up in the climax. Downey is fine with making some snide reflections, but he doesn't really seem to be interesting enough for the audience to go with when the film wants to try and present some sort of dilemma for its climax. Travis (in a role originally meant for Ally Sheedy) is fairly forgettable, with the oddball pilots somehow standing out better. Grant and LaFleur are a bit amusing for their patches of showtime, but they can't help the film gain footing because it just seems aimless with or without them. Obviously I wasn't expecting something loaded with action, but by the time it tries to reach for some sort of moral ground, it's easy to not care and lose oneself in awaiting the credits, the last thing one wants in a action comedy. It serves best as a time-waster, one that will generate a few chuckles alongside a possible yawn or two that makes this more of a disappointment than a complete disaster.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Weird Science.

Review #1116: Weird Science.

Cast: 
Anthony Michael Hall (Gary Wallace), Ilan Mitchell-Smith (Wyatt Donnelly), Kelly LeBrock (Lisa), Bill Paxton (Chet Donnelly), Robert Downey Jr. (Ian), Robert Rusler (Max), Suzanne Snyder (Deb), Judie Aronson (Hilly), Vernon Wells (Lord General), Britt Leach (Al Wallace), and Barbara Lang (Lucy Wallace) Directed by John Hughes (#046 - The Breakfast Club, #207 - Ferris Bueller's Day Off, #249 - Sixteen Candles, #643 - Uncle Buck, and #879 - Planes, Trains and Automobiles)

Review: 
Weird Science was the third film directed by John Hughes, along with the eighth that he wrote (which he reportedly did in two days), released nearly five months after The Breakfast Club on August 2, 1985. The title comes from the anthology comic book series of the same name published by William Gaines and edited by Al Feldstein that was part of EC Comics, for which producer Joel Silver had acquired the film rights to earlier in the decade; the plot is loosely based off the story "Made of the Future" from Feldstein. The film would also inspire a show of the same name that lasted from 1994 to 1998, although certainly the most enduring aspect from the film in the decades that followed is the title song from Oingo Boingo, written by Danny Elfman. In any case, it isn't hard to say that this isn't as good as other Hughes efforts, but there is still an element of fun to be had here, even with something as weirdly built as this. This is a goofy movie through and through, with a silly premise straight out of science fiction, while also being a teenage comedy that will likely hit the mark just enough for its audience target that doesn't take itself too seriously. Hall makes for a fairly likable lead to follow, having the type of timing and wide expressions that you might expect that certainly click at times. Mitchell-Smith does okay, playing the shy wiz kid type that certainly take a bit of time to get used to - but he gets some laughs eventually. LeBrock (a model turned actress in her second feature role after The Woman in Red the previous year) does pretty well, having charm and wit that makes her interesting to watch in getting some laughs and joy that plays well to the movie's advantage. Paxton proves to be a highlight, playing the obnoxious heel with relish and conviction that proves efficient. Downey Jr and Rusler have brief moments on screen, but they do their part well, which could apply to the other castmates, such as Wells and his biker role reminiscent of the one from his part in Mad Max 2. The film, in its 94 minute run-time, manages to play itself neatly with trying to balance its characters with wish-fulfilling and a few choice special effects - some of which work and some of it feeling a bit dated. It isn't too hard to see why it can apply as a cult classic, but it certainly can be a bit of dilemma to wonder if the film really does work. On its own level and terms, that may prove true for people in the right mood for it, proving to be fair entertainment for ones who want to seek it out.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Avengers: Infinity War.

Review #1079: Avengers: Infinity War.

Cast: 
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Paul Bettany (Vision), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Sebastian Stan (James "Bucky" Barnes / Winter Soldier), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Peter Dinklage (Eitri), Benedict Wong (Wong), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Benicio del Toro (Taneleer Tivan / The Collector), Josh Brolin (Thanos), and Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier and #796 - Captain America: Civil War)

Review: 
On May 2, 2008, Iron Man (#135) was released into theaters, being the first film in what has become known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has served to try and tell stories of entertainment with adaptations of characters from all-throughout its numerous comic book series. Eighteen films later, here we are with Avengers: Infinity War, picking up plot points from numerous movies such as the first two Avengers installments (#312 and #706) but also Guardians of the Galaxy (#626 and #932) and Doctor Strange (#874) among others. It is obvious to see the amount of effort (and money) utilized to try and make something that achieves its goal of great spectacle. As such, the film is successful in being good entertainment. While it can be argued that it may be a bit overstuffed for its own good (in numerous categories), it will ultimately prove satisfying for people invested in what it is trying to showcase, as is the case for this series in other films, which have had their own range of success. It might not go down as the best in this series or even the best comic book film ever, but it will serve as solid joyfulness for its viewers.

This is a film with a large scale and large importance to what matters, but it is the parts involving its main villain that ultimately tie the film best. For a series that likes to show off its heroes and their abilities, their depiction of villains have generally not always been their highlight, but I think that it works here because of the conviction taken to give Brolin's character a level of importance and depth, which Brolin does a good job in making entertaining and prime for what you would expect. The film manages to take what could've been unwieldy with having such a large cast and having to balance each out and makes it work just enough to keep its plots going with enough energy and commitment. It never spends too much time on one thing without sacrificing the other parts of the plot to its detriment. If you have spent time watching these characters (or care about them), you will find a good deal to appreciate in seeing certain people interact with each other, such as Downey and Cumberbatch, or Hemsworth and Cooper, filled with its moments of fun quips. The film can't be faulted for being murky with its effects or its costume look since it manages to not blur the line between wonderful and cut-scene. The action sequences are executed as you'd expect, accompanying the film with good craft and energy. The film and its impact will differ from person to person, but I found the film to be at the very least successful with telling its story without becoming a crammed exercise in over-indulgence, but I can't say that I am a staunch defender of what it does. At 149 minutes, it may prove a bit of overkill for some while being just the right kind of length for others in the mood for what it tries to sell. Its climax is fairly satisfactory, with enough pull and punch to make something worth going home to without feeling cheated or feeling sick.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Review #966: Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Cast: 
Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Michael Keaton (Adrian Toomes / Vulture), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Robert Downey Jr (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Zendaya (Michelle), Donald Glover (Aaron Davis), Jacob Batalon (Ned), Laura Harrier (Liz), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Bokeem Woodbine (Herman Schultz / Shocker #2), Kerry Condon (F.R.I.D.A.Y.), Garcelle Beauvais (Doris Toomes), and Jennifer Connelly (Karen), and Hemky Madera (Mr. Delmar) Directed by Jon Watts.

Review: 
It is astounding at the level that comic book movies have undergone in terms of scope and quality in the past decade, with this being the 16th film in Marvel's film universe (of which I've covered all but one), though Spider-Man has had numerous films within this century, with the first film (the only one I've watched - #611) being released in 2002, only 15 years ago. It also isn't Holland's first appearance in the role, seeing as he was in Captain America: Civil War (#796) just last year. Once again, it was time to go to the theater for a comic book film.

Baggage or not, I can say this movie is pretty good. There is a numerous amount of things that I liked from this movie, and it starts with Holland, who is instantly enjoyable to watch on screen; there is just something about him that clicks in each scene, whether as Parker or the titular hero, and I look forward to watch him in further films. Admittedly, I did wonder how the villain would be in this film, considering how they usually aren't as memorable in a good deal of these Marvel films. For me, Keaton does a fine job in trying to get around that problem, in part because his character is actually compelling to watch on screen, and I think it's because you actually get a sense of what he's doing and why he does it without it simply devolving into something one dimensional. Favreau and Downey are pretty good in their scenes, with the latter having a chemistry with Holland that works pretty well with the flow of the film. Tomei, despite not having too much screen-time, is fairly enjoyable and fits well with Holland. The rest of the cast is fairly watchable as well, contributing to the film for some laughs along with the story; as comic relief, Batalon admittedly could be hit or miss, but I found him to be relatively harmless (in terms of annoyance), and he felt useful enough to the film without seeming empty. There's just something relatable about the world that the movie builds that seems ripe for more adventures.

The film doesn't go too much into the origins of the character, but it doesn't feel necessary to have, mainly because the movie operates itself fairly coherently enough to get past that. The action scenes aren't particularly great (with the shaky cam definitely being hit or miss), but it doesn't look too muddy to hurt the experience; though the action isn't great for the climax, the build up and the acting for it is well enough to keep that from being a disappointment. There is a light but fitting atmosphere that goes for some laughs while not bogging itself down in being generic. What other film can have a scene where characters try to build the Lego Death Star? That's the fun thing about these Marvel films, they are diverse enough in their approaches and style that make these films irresistible to watch for me. It's easy for me to recommend it (if you already haven't seen it), but it's also easy to say that this is a fine installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is a solid winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Captain America: Civil War.

Review #796: Captain America: Civil War.

Cast
Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Don Cheadle (James "Rhodey" Rhodes / War Machine), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Paul Bettany (Vision), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Emily VanCamp (Sharon Carter), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Frank Grillo (Brock Rumlow / Crossbones), William Hurt (Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross), Daniel Brühl (Helmut Zemo), and Martin Freeman (Everett K. Ross) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier)

Review
One could make the argument that you could make a guess as to what will happen in the movie given the seemingly never ending progression of the Marvel Cinematic Universe from phase to phase, year after year. But I always try to go into these movies with at least some sort of open mind and try to see if I will enjoy what are currently the best made movies of this generation. The case still stands true with Civil War. While I think that Winter Soldier was a slightly better movie in terms of plot, Civil War manages to keep the entertainment flow going with enough action, charm, and bits of interesting discussion. It is hard to not compare this with the other film (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice) released earlier in the year about superheroes fighting against each other, but it is evident that this film did the better job in the departments that matter most: Setting up the conflict that leads to a fight and the actual fight itself. The progression of these films mean that one can see the layers of disagreement through the main two leads and actually emphasize with both sides (for the most part) and their viewpoints.

Sure, you can pick a side, but the movie marches on regardless, with expert juggling of all of these characters also being a key benefit. The villain this time around isn't easily apparent, but his motivations are least coherent enough, tying in well to the theme of the movie, involving the collateral damage that the Avengers leave in their battles (which while sounding like a no-brainer does make a bit of sense in the film). The usual castmates are excellent, with Evans and Downey being excellent main leads. Boseman and Holland are our new additions to the main cast, and they both make excellent impressions, with the latter (who is barely older than I am) especially standing out, with all the wise cracks one would expect from Spider-Man. Like the other Marvel movies before it, there is a certain level of fun amidst all of the mayhem, which makes up for a 2 and a half hour run time, although it certainly doesn't feel that long. Civil War manages to do its job effectively while not over-stuffing itself too much, and I certainly enjoyed it enough.

For reference, this is #23 in my (seemingly longrunning) Theater Saga, this time with friends, with this experience being pretty good.

Countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.