Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem.

Review #2083: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem.

Cast: 

Micah Abbey (Donatello), Shamon Brown Jr (Michelangelo), Nicolas Cantu (Leonardo), Brady Noon (Raphael), Ayo Edebiri (April O'Neil), Jackie Chan (Splinter), Ice Cube (Superfly), Maya Rudolph (Cynthia Utrom), John Cena (Rocksteady), Seth Rogen (Bebop), Rose Byrne (Leatherhead), Natasia Demetriou (Wingnut), Giancarlo Esposito (Baxter Stockman), and Paul Rudd (Mondo Gecko) Directed by Jeff Rowe and Kyler Spears.

Review: 

“The first tentpole we planted in the ground was authenticity. We wanted it to be a real coming-of-age teenage movie. Past versions of the Turtles have been muscular and ripped, and few teenagers are as jacked as many of the Ninja Turtles have been. They need to look like real teens. Lanky. Awkward. Maybe not comfortable in their bodies yet.”

Admittedly, my familiarity with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is pretty limited in the art of actually watching it. I vaguely remember viewing the two first live-action films in 2011 and 2013 and that is essentially it. As you may already know, it all started as a comic created by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird in 1983 with the original idea of doing a one-off parody of comics of the time, which happened to involve teenage mutants, animals that talk, and, well, ninjas; they self-published the comic, to shocking success. There have been a handful of television shows (yes, one for pretty much each decade of adolescent) and now seven feature films. Interestingly enough, this is only the second animated film, with the only other one being TMNT (2007), which also featured a handful of name actors in supporting roles...but this is the first one of any of these to feature a primary cast of teenage actors for the lead four characters. The film had five credited writers: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, Jeff Rowe, Dan Hernandez, and Benji Samit (of note is that while each did the screenplay, the latter of the five was not responsible for the story); it is Rowe who has noted that the script required a good deal of re-working when it came to the structure of the main characters being in high school at a certain point. You may or may not recognize Rowe as the co-director behind The Mitchells vs. the Machines (2021), having previously done work on Gravity Falls and Disenchantment; as for Spears, this is his feature directorial debut. The inspiration for the film was multi-layered, with the evident one being to find their "North Star comic book look" (as described about what made Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) so successful), which led to plenty of inspiration from sketches that one would make as a teen that led to a result involving fiddling with the frame rate and other ideas that were meant to look like it was done on purpose. 

Perhaps there is no better reference material to show clips of Internet videos about martial arts training to go alongside clips of Jackie Chan kung fu films. Admittedly, coming-of-age stories are a dime a dozen, but it never hurts to have one that tries to cut a message involving acceptance that makes for a solid film for those who know exactly what to look for within entertaining animation and a few decent jokes and action sequences. I appreciate the heart the film has, one that manages to show an interesting quartet of youths that will likely please people already quite familiar with turtles in a half shell while also seeming interesting enough for those less familiar (ones who aren't "green with envy", you might say). The credit for the film can go to the filmmakers first or second, but the fact that the leads (Abbey-Brown-Cantu-Noon) make fun with improv and charm as raw youths (who want to be high schoolers, go figure) that makes me chortle rather than bristle, but I suppose one has their own varying milage when it comes to cliche patience. Besides, they make a good grouping with Chan, who basically reflects with Cube when it comes to the presentation of "our makeshift family vs. the world", and on that note, Cube makes a solid threat in hardened scorn that isn't just a goofy threat (well, Superfly is only a name). The rest of the cast is generally fine in not being just a noted goofy voice, as noted by folks such as Edebiri that keep the film on the level (for all I ragged Rogen on for The Super Mario Bros Movie, he is fine here). The action is done with clear energy that doesn't lose itself in murky staging, and the city landscape sure does look pretty well here, particularly when it comes to the final fight with its big freaky monster (involving horses). 100 minutes is a desirable length to spend with a serviceably executed film that plays it well with maintaining something to care about in youthful folks to go in a familiar story that is high energy silly fun. It's the kind of thing to switch on for those looking for a bit of mayhem with neat animation that will make ideas of seeking further adventures seem like a shell of a good time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Marie Antoinette (2006).

Review #1823: Marie Antoinette.

Cast: 

Kirsten Dunst (Marie Antoinette), Jason Schwartzman (Louis XVI of France), Judy Davis (Anne de Noailles, "Countess of Noailles"), Steve Coogan (Florimond Claude, Count of Mercy-Argenteau), Rip Torn (Louis XV of France), Rose Byrne (Yolande de Polastron, Duchess of Polignac), Asia Argento (Madame du Barry), Molly Shannon (Madame Victoire), Shirley Henderson (Madame Sophie), Danny Huston (Joseph II of Austria), Marianne Faithfull (Empress Maria Theresa), Mary Nighy (Princesse de Lamballe), Jamie Dornan (Axel von Fersen), Al Weaver (Charles, Count of Artois), Sarah Adler (Maria Theresa, Countess of Artois), Sebastian Armesto (Louis Stanislas, Count of Provence), and Clémentine Poidatz (Marie Joséphine, Countess of Provence) Directed by Sofia Coppola (#700 - Lost in Translation)

Review: 

“I’m so happy it has an audience now because at the time it was not successful. People didn’t go see it; they didn’t really know what to make of it...It means a lot to me that it continues to live on.”

Oh sure, the Coppola name may be a connected one in cinema, but it doesn't hurt to see the promise of another Coppola making their mark on film. Born in New York City, Sofia Coppola actually became involved in film from a young age, dabbling with a number of appearances in the background of several films done by her father Francis (her first film credit as writer would be as co-writer with her father on "Life Without Zoë", a segment for the anthology New York Stories in 1989), although she also had plenty of her own interests (such as design, photography, and music) while growing up in California; her most notable film role was in The Godfather Part III (directed by F. Coppola) in 1990. She had a handful of interests, but filmmaking would prove to unite all of her interests in a way she wanted, and her first film was Lick the Star, a short done in 1998. Her first chance to direct and write in features came with The Virgin Suicides in 1999 (with F. Coppola's encouragement as co-producer); the film received notice on release in the festival circuit, and her next film would go further. Lost in Translation (2003) won Coppola an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (to go alongside a nomination for Best Director and Best Picture). The film utilizes the 2001 novel Marie Antoinette: The Journey by Antonia Fraser as the historical material used for the story of Antoinette, and Coppola wanted to make a portrait of the historical figure that did not aim for a traditional biopic and instead aim for a more intimate look of the world of that time; in other words, both the novel and film would end up telling the story of Antoinette without anticipating her ending or reference the sentence she is unfairly associated with ("let them eat cake", a phrase she never said at any point in time). In addition to writing the screenplay, Coppola also served as a co-producer. This was the third film that Coppola has directed over her two-decade career. The film made $61 million on a budget of $40 million while cultivating a divided response from audiences. Fraser noted the differences between her book and the film while saying that she adored the film, for what it's worth.

If you did not know, Marie Antoinette was the Queen of France from 1774 to 1792, having been sent from her native Austria to France at the age of fourteen to secure an alliance between the two countries, which resulted in marriage to Louis XVI (they would not consummate the marriage for eight years); she died at the age of 37 under the French Revolution by guillotine (as was the case with her husband Louis XVI). The storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, the state prison by the kings of France, is commemorated as the country's national day (France would have a long history of changeover in the next century, which included three Republics and two Empires as Louis XVI was not the last French monarch). Look, do you want a cast's cast for this film or not? Any movie that dares to have Rip Torn play a king and dabble on for moments to chew on as a "randy" King in the first half is clearly on the right track. Dunst makes for a splendid lead performance, one that captures the contradiction that comes with being a young royal with expectations thrusted upon them, one who is whisked away from all she knows to serve strange people in a country that seems so far away when kept in a palace where people are expecting you to have children before you are even 18 while gossiping about you and your "foreign" status; there is a certain angst present within all of the glamour seen, if only because one can only do so much to distract themselves (whether that means wanting candy or not), and Dunst shows the patience required from balancing impulse and dignity, whether that involves life in the Palace of Versailles trying to play nice or time spent in the Petit Trianon for ease away from burdens (such as with supposed affairs). Schwartzman plays well in the curiosity that comes with tenuous chemistry shared with Dunst that reminds one of a janitor trying to find the right broomstick (or in this case, key) for the task required, which results in a few laughs for useful effect, since he seems more adept for locks and hunts rather than the prowl of the bedroom. There is a handful of faces to see through the film that provide a few useful or amusing moments, and this mostly falls on the shoulders of Coogan or Torn, which works out without distraction. Davis and the others do fine in carrying the background among all the pomp and circumstance that make for a worthy paradox (or satire), because Shannon and Henderson essentially remind one of high school gossipers. The film is quite wonderful to gaze upon as expected, most notably with the costume design by Milena Canonero and cinematography by Lance Acord, as each help to make the film an arresting experience to view in a way that movies are meant to do.

As a whole, I think this is actually a pretty underrated movie, one that seems quite relevant and interesting despite the passage of over fifteen years and other costume dramas. Yes, it is a glossy historical movie, but it is a glossy historical movie that manages to be an engaging look into the world of 18th century France and the royalty that feels more apart of the country rather than actually part of it (of course it isn't like the film is a defense of the kingdom over rioters); it is a film that utilizes a stylized interpretation of the doomed queen and privilege to worthwhile effect. It captures both aristocratic fun and the loneliness that comes on the other side to useful effect. It never wastes its 123 minute run-time on sanctimony, serving instead to show its lavish atmosphere (rising and falling) in all the right places with a charming lead that makes for a curious film involving womanhood that makes for a modern hidden gem and a worthy third effort from Sofia Coppola.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Well, we have reached another end of March. It was quite interesting to do another themed March involving women directors, one that saw a handful of captivating perspectives that one would only hope we will see some of again next year. Suggestions are always welcome when it comes to theme months, so we shall see where the wind blows next time. 

Insidious.

Review #1556: Insidious.

Cast: 
Patrick Wilson (Josh Lambert), Rose Byrne (Renai Lambert), Lin Shaye (Elise Rainier), Ty Simpkins (Dalton Lambert), Barbara Hershey (Lorraine Lambert), Leigh Whannell (Steven "Specs"), and Angus Sampson (Tucker) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman)

Review: 
"I wanted to prove to people that I could make a very classic, old-fashioned haunted house film and show that I could make scary films without relying on blood and guts."

Sure, one can go the mainstream path with horror films, or they can go into independent features that try to reach audiences without trying to compromise themselves too much in vision, whether with gore or not. James Wan found himself as a key figure in making independent horror that reached mainstream success. Born in Malaysia but raised in Western Australia, he graduated from RMIT University with a bachelor's degree in Media in 1998 that helped him teach him about the process of filmmaking he had wanted to do. Wan made his first film in collaboration with Shannon Young as Stygian (2000), a 16mm low-budget action-horror feature that found its way to local film festivals (such as Melbourne's Underground Film Festival, which noted it as having a great use of the "Guerilla Aesthetic"). It was his directorial debut in true features however that proved prominence however: Writing with Leigh Whannell on a script that was inspired by their dreams and fears. Aspiring to pitch to studios with something presentable, they made a short film together in 2003. The nine minute short (with Whannell appearing as the star) Saw ended up attracting enough attention for a subsequent feature film to be directed by Wan the following year. While Wan would co-write for the third film, Wan moved on to other features, although Dead Silence and Death Sentence (both 2007) proved less successful, leading him to take a rest until he aspired to make a horror film with Whannell without needing to resort to gore. He has kept himself busy with horror in directing and producing (aside from a few profitable blockbusters), which included directing the second of the subsequent Insidious franchise.

Sure, it is easy to go around the bend and call the film an attempt at a modern-day Poltergeist (1984), with its haunted house aspect (...to a point) and having to have a parent rescue their child from the other world and such. But that would miss the point of the fact that this is actually more equal to the sequels of Poltergeist in that they are laughably missing adequate scares along with its attempt at explaining itself in the second half for less adequate effect. I do wonder how the film might have been with acting that seems more prepared than having three weeks to film - of course it could also be possible that Wilson and Byrne just okay and that's that. One gets to partake in the "things are happening and I'm the only one who sees it", while the other tags in for the latter half and handle the horror themselves because plot reasons or something. One almost wishes for more Shaye at that point (without more of the obvious bumbling from Sampson and Whannell), mostly because one would probably want the soothing temperament in reaction to building horror as opposed to the family aspect (oops).  If you desire a film that tries to ride on atmosphere with a bit of visuals that don't rely on gore, this could be for you, but honestly this just came off as a parlor trick that has seen better days. This was written by Leigh Whannell (who wrote for all four Insidious films while directing the third one and also doing his own somewhat overrated horror film with The Invisible Man ten years later), who as with Saw also has an important small role in the film. 

Wan and Whannell can be applauded for their attempts at making a cheap little family drama falling into horror that maintains their independence without spending more than $1.5 million, at least. I just wish it wasn't such a silly spectacle in doing the mundane in jump scares that might as well be a film where someone goes "BOO!" every so often. At that point, I'd rather have the little gore cheapie that could, because it will test patience in a less tiresome way. The second half may be weaker than the first, but that's mostly because if it is going to try and explain itself or delve into concluding itself with scares, it better accomplish something meaningful more than just a book report of how they spent their haunting. If one invests themselves into its carefully concocted family scare-show for 102 minutes, they may find something with some satisfaction in those moments to jump out in imagery. For me, it proves too mild and too late to build its mood to a rightful enjoyment worth more than one viewing for those who prefer to see a bit more fight in their horror times.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Troy (2004).

Review #1538: Troy.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Achilles), Eric Bana (Hector), Orlando Bloom (Paris), Diane Kruger (Helen), Brian Cox (Agamemnon), Sean Bean (Odysseus, King of Ithaca), Brendan Gleeson (Menelaus, King of Sparta), Rose Byrne (Briseis), Saffron Burrows (Andromache), Julie Christie (Thetis), Peter O'Toole (Priam, King of Troy), Garrett Hedlund (Patroclus), and John Shrapnel (Nestor) Directed by Wolfgang Petersen (#414 - Air Force One)

Review: 
"Homer's work was violent and brutal and sexy and bold and powerful," he states. "It's long and it's epic, with a lot of characters - a full spectrum of bloody, beautiful elements. The material does not ask you to cut a corner here or remove something there. This is too extreme; too rough, too violent…And I suppose I have to mea culpa, because there I was, crying in the editing room, but still doing it… I've learned a lot and next time, I promise, there will be a big fight!"

Bring on the spectacle, bring them on from all places in the world. Wolfgang Petersen gradually rose up the ranks in his native Germany through the theater (along with doing short films of his own in 1968) before studying at the Film and Television Academy in Berlin that helped him move on to television and eventually his first film feature in 1974 with One or the Other of Us. It was Das Boot (1982), his third work, that generated the most attention in his country and abroad, which The NeverEnding Story (1984) helped continue to that trend. Over the years, Petersen has made twelve films (mostly regarded as blockbusters) that have resulted in mostly fruitful successes. What better way to try and do an epic based in some part on myth by taking out the mythological effect and striving to make an historical epic? Of course this is a loose adaptation Homer's Iliad (with the script of the film being written by David Benioff, who had done The 25th Hour two years prior), considering the fact that numerous characters don't actually die in the poem as compared to the film that condenses its Trojan War to a few weeks. The original version of the film was 162 minutes, while the director's cut adds 30 minutes. I saw the original version because hey, that's the DVD I had.

Whether one eels having intervention from above is a bit silly or not, it definitely makes this film a bit strange to view through the lens of an epic, and the result is something that will either prove just fine for some and a little hollow for others. Maybe one could blame Gladiator (2000) for the idea of doing ancient epics like this with big spectacle for gladiatorial combat in ancient times and a flash of stars while taking brevity out to the toolshed to hammer repeatedly. Honestly though, there isn't anything inherently terrible about this particular movie, but it just happens to be so incredibly mediocre in pretty much every aspect, where the only thing going for it is a flash of scenery and spectacle to gaze upon. In a way, it is like seeing a large dog rumble around in the yard wearing "clothes" - it's a dopey sight, but it is probably too precious to think of as anything other than just silly. Pitt certainly looks like he tries to give his all to looking and seeming the part of the big hero (despite his subsequent reservations about the film's lack of mystery) that works in parts in trying to inspire some sort of nuance that sort of works in conviction but seems sort of lost in the shuffle of camp. Bana and Bloom come and go with about as much charm as dollar-store mannequins, where one fights the urge to look at their watch (particularly in the case of the latter, playing a bland coward). Kruger was brought in because Petersen wanted an unknown for Helen of Troy, but she never really seems that compelling to really drive drama forward to really serve as a "face that launched a thousand ships", instead seeming like a face in the crowd. Cox certainly seems to be having a grand time in being involved in a epic, and I can applaud him having bluster with a big bulky costume. Bean and Gleeson compliment things just fine in reserved moments, although it is obviously O'Toole who seems to make the most out of a paycheck-I mean appearance as a king with clarity. If I cared about what went on with this spectacle, maybe it would matter more than its ultimate result, the bastion of clichés ancient and less ancient that seems suited for irritating fans of mythology or flat-out making them yawn for all the stuff that comes out at them like a grand old cutscene.  If one believes in its scope through shots in Malta and Mexico and its 163 minute odyssey through some sort of meaning in mythology, trek on and relax with where it wants to go in its bellowing of an epic for its own time. I can't give it a winning recommendation, but you can certainly draw the line in the sand for yourself for if it matters enough to seem right for you.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: X-Men: First Class.

Review #042: X-Men: First Class.

Cast
James McAvoy (Charles Xavier), Michael Fassbender (Erik Lehnsharr), Kevin Bacon (Sebastian Shaw), Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique), January Jones (Emma Frost), Rose Byrne (Moira MacTaggert), and Nicholas Hoult (Hank McCoy) Directed by Matthew Vaughn.

Review
EDIT: I've edited this to remove this segment that is in retrospect, stupid to have added: "If you don't read the comics, then the film causes continuity issues for non readers (X-Men 3: The Last Stand's opening sequence in general with Xavier standing 20 years ago when he is paralyzed here in the 1960's)", especially given how the next X-Men film dealt with continuity. 

One notable thing is that the movie is directed by the guy who was supposed to direct X-Men: The Last Stand before departing. Now he has his chance here to make a good movie. Which he did. The cast did their best to be like their adult versions, and the action is good. One is that the film spends way too long on developing and training these guys. I mean, it's development, but it's so long. Another thing to add is that some of the characters are focused on when we know they don't matter to the plot, slowing the film a little bit more. It manages to be a good way to revamp the franchise in terms of quality and history, which is nice.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.