Showing posts with label Ryan Phillippe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ryan Phillippe. Show all posts

November 2, 2025

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997).

Review #2463: I Know What You Did Last Summer.

Cast: 
Jennifer Love Hewitt (Julie James), Sarah Michelle Gellar (Helen Shivers), Ryan Phillippe (Barry Cox), Freddie Prinze Jr (Ray Bronson), Johnny Galecki (Max Neurick), Bridgette Wilson (Elsa Shivers), Anne Heche (Melissa "Missy" Egan), Muse Watson (Benjamin "Ben" Willis / the Fisherman), and Stuart Greer (Officer) Directed by Jim Gillespie.

Review: 
"The joy of this film for me as a filmmaker was in taking [the] elements that we've seen before, and saying to the audience: 'Here's something you've seen before'—knowing that they're saying 'We've seen this before'—and still getting them to jump."

You may or may not know that this came from the writer of Scream (1996). Yes, Kevin Williamson had written a script loosely based on the 1973 novel of the same name, which had been written by Lois Duncan...but that script was done before Scream was even a thought in his mind, with the success of the 1996 movie getting people onto the idea of maybe doing studio slashers, which is where the old script came into play. This was the feature film debut of Jim Gillespie, who previously had done work on television and music videos. Duncan went on record as stating she was appalled by the movie being based on her book (stating specifically that she had a problem with sensationalized violence made to "seem thrilling rather than terrible", particularly since she was the mother of a murdered child); incidentally, Gillespie aimed to film with as little on-screen blood as possible to try and not be gratuitous with the violence. The book was a suspense novel featured a group of teens getting into a car accident (in the book's case, a young boy on a bike) that leads to death for the kid and oddly enough, nobody else. The movie was relatively successful with audiences, at least enough to inspire a sequel called I Still Know What You Did Last Summer in 1998 to go along with a direct-to-video feature (nobody cares), a modern take of the first film for an Amazon show in 2021 (what?), and a legacy sequel in 2025 that was called...I Know What You Did Last Summer (ironically following Scream doing the same thing years earlier*). 

Sure, you remember the movie about a hook-wielding killer terrorizing four teenagers. And you probably had one question on your mind: What the hell? What the hell to any of this? This was Williamson's "straightforward" horror script? To be clear, I will say that I may or may not be a bit generous with horror movies when it comes to assessing them because, well, there are some that are just entertaining even in mediocrity. But not this one. It isn't even the barebones body count (four), and it isn't even just the fact that the characters might as well have been constructed out of a wood board. No, what annoys me the most is that this supposed modern take on the slasher movie is just the same type of hack stuff you could find in Friday the 13th. And that movie was meant to be taken seriously, but with this movie, I thought it was supposed to be a joke, right down to the scene where Hewitt twirls around before screaming into the air what is the killer waiting for. Some might be subservient to any kind of slasher movie when it comes to spectacle, but not me, not for this one. The funny thing is that the killer is pretty terrible at how he targets people, since half the people he kills had nothing to do with the thing that happened a year prior and some of the time he just sneaks up on the people just to...terrorize them (seriously, he breaks into one girl's house to cut her hair down). But it comes in such a tedious little movie, one that aims to say something, anything about what it means to make the wrong choice and have to live with it...and then the ending coughs that up anyway! 

Some folks might consider Gellar to be the highlight of the film when it comes to...acting, but in general, everyone seems to be on the autopilot you could find in any generic slasher, even with the proverbial dark cloud over their heads. They just seem more like they are waiting for the boat show rather than being spooked by what is occurring around them, suffice to say. At least Phillippe is amusing in that veneer of arrogance and privilege for a time, probably far more than you think he will go given the amount of people to be terrorized or otherwise (such as Galecki, who might as well have been a paperweight). By the time the movie has ended its reign of error, complete with the characters seemingly learning about telling the cops about what the hell is going on, you will have gotten the feeling the movie was the equivalent of a toothache. This isn't one of those times where I get mad a slasher for being a slasher, this is just one of those frustratingly mediocre movies to get mad at because there were ideas worth looking into. Why not make a mystery worth watching about people who can't cope with who they are in making the wrong choice? But nah, there was a hook story mentioned in the early parts of the movie so we can have the killer go with hooks because, uh, reasons. As a whole, I Know What You Did Last Summer has a few tiny moments of relief - the chase of Gellar near the end is probably the highlight, at least when not considering the humor at the movie's expense for sheer ludicrous things. But the real moment where you believe things will be good comes here: when you look at the fact the 101 minutes are over, and you can watch a different, more interesting slasher movie. Or just a non-slasher movie. Or, well, whatever. Anything other than middle of the road junk.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.
Next up: Pumpkinhead.

*Totally not the point, but I don't give a shit about the reasoning for Scream 5 (2022) being called Scream. It was stupid when Halloween (2018) did it, so if I ever get to the Scream movies beyond the first, you best believe I'm calling the 2022 one Scream 5. Then again, the weird people talking about Scream in recent days about 7 on both sides make me roll my eyes. 

May 19, 2021

MacGruber.

Review #1680: MacGruber.

Cast: 
Will Forte (MacGruber), Kristen Wiig (Vicki Gloria St. Elmo), Ryan Phillippe (Lieutenant Dixon Piper), Val Kilmer (Dieter Von Cunth), Maya Rudolph (Casey Janine Fitzpatrick), Powers Boothe (Colonel Jim Faith), Timothy V. Murphy (Constantine Bach), Chris Jericho (Frank Korver), and Montel Vontavious Porter (Vernon Freedom) Directed by Jorma Taccone.

Review: 
"What you see with this movie is exactly what we wanted to do. It's the three of us having a bunch of fun writing it, then having fun making it with a bunch of our friends—old friends and new friends. I think that fun comes across when you watch it. It's rare that you get that kind of creative freedom."

I suppose there really should be a line that prefaces any review of a movie based on a sketch from Saturday Night Live, because really there is one easy statement to make: the level of humor to expect from a film like this depends on just what era of the show you grew up watching (so if you stop watching and come back to it like five or ten years later, you get to say that it wasn't as funny as the era you grew up with). Technically this is a bit unfair, because I did like The Blues Brothers (1980) and the Wayne's World (1992-93) movies. But one probably wouldn't be surprised to see that this was the first one of these SNL films to be released in theaters since The Ladies Man (2000) and it is currently the last one, although it is only now that the idea to develop MacGruber into television is happening. But you probably need some detail before we get into the quality of the movie, so what is exactly MacGruber? Well, believe it or not, I do remember this series of sketches, because even ten year old kids like me need something to do on Saturday nights. The series of sketches ran on-and-off for three years as a parody of the television series MacGyver (1985-1992), where the parody character (after a song extolling the talents of said character that can get stuck in your head) would try to escape a dangerous situation with little time remaining in a control room with some sort of random material while he is plagued by some sort of internal issue (such as say...growing bald or his grandmother) before the bomb explodes. The star of the actual show (Richard Dean Anderson) even made an appearance, for which child-me would have been pretty surprised by (insert reference to Stargate SG1 here). For what its worth, the only other recurring short I remember from the time was something involving cats with lasers, so one wonders where the time has gone. At any rate, the idea for MacGruber came from Jorma Taccone, who had joined SNL in 2005 that was known for his work in the comedy troupe The Lonely Island, which would create numerous digital shorts for the series until 2014 (the next film that Taccone would direct featured the troupe with Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping in 2016). He pitched the original idea to Forte and John Solomon for a month before finally convincing them to conceive a series of brief films (as opposed to one sketch). SNL creator Lorne Michaels eventually suggested that they should develop a script for a film (if one can do a commercial with Pepsi and make it stick, truly a movie isn't too far off). Taccone, Solomon, and Forte would set out to make a movie that looked like an action movie (in the vein of stuff like Die Hard and First Blood) while honing to a cheap budget ($10 million, with less than 1/50th of it being used for special effects) while shooting it in the course of a month.

So yes, one can credit the filmmakers for having the freedom to do what they wanted with a comic relief lead that has to balance the line between insanely flawed and likeable enough to see all the way through for 91 minutes. The film was a flop, but it has certainly developed a small cult following in the decade since its release (one notable fan: Christopher Nolan). Take this anyway you wish: It might be the Freddy Got Fingered of its decade, where it just isn't my kind of thing, but I can at least understand the appeal for it despite finding it below quality. In other words, you can misunderstand all you want, but it can't hide the fact that it isn't even as clever in trying to have fun with the action genre as Last Action Hero (1993). Honestly, there isn't anything here that is remotely interesting when it comes to its supposed unpredictability or its attempts at balancing strait-laced folks like Kilmer and Boothe (the highlights of the movie) with the wackos in Forte and Wiig that seems more useful in less does on television. I think it is the brief time one spent with the sketches that made them more effective than what happens when you try to extend something that should have stayed at a minute. But hey, someone might think of it as akin to those parody movies like Airplane! (1980), or maybe an offshoot of other attempts at making fun of action movies like Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993, which I should probably re-watch at some point), or maybe even Big Trouble in Little China (1986), although I should mention that each actually have a real third act. Or maybe it will touch those who are familiar with an insecure lead in action with Archer, although that is funny for its own reasons. For me, the main joke doesn't stick at any point long enough to keep my interest, one that drags itself in the guise of edge with the depth of a shallow pool. One knows Forte can be funny, because one doesn't stay on a series for a decade without having some staying power, but here it just seems like a fun time for Forte and little else for those who think the character needs to take a trip to the trimmers. One can only tolerate insecurity for so long before a stick of celery gets involved, so this little game of buildup and humiliation rides on the viewer's patience for it. Wiig is used for a bit of singing and doing disguises that has the energy of a hit-or-miss gag, which is up to your preferences (meh is the only word I can find). Phillippe plays the straight man to this trio, one that has to put some sort of gravitas to the stuff around him, which hits with the power of a defective broomstick. It is Kilmer that actually shines over these folks, mostly because his dry delivery seems more prescient for what one could see in an overblown action movie in actually seeming funny for what is needed that might have deserved even more time on screen. Boothe plays it as one might see in a cheap 80s movie, which is collected but worth your time. There is a group of wrestlers used for a cameo that goes exactly the way you might see coming a minute before it happens in the gag, which is rather disappointing. Look, if you find it to be a funny movie, all power to you. But it begs for a polish in its lead presence, racked with gags that are very hit or miss that makes it quite niche and cliché at the same time. The only thing that offends me more is something unbearably bland, one that is only for a particular audience that probably likes some of the stuff I prefer when it comes to jokes that land that clearly could have been said in less than a thousand words that could have been said in seven: It just isn't my kind of comedy.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

August 5, 2019

Igby Goes Down.

Review #1253: Igby Goes Down.

Cast: 
Kieran Culkin (Jason "Igby" Slocumb, Jr.), Claire Danes (Sookie Sapperstein), Jeff Goldblum (D.H. Banes), Amanda Peet (Rachel), Ryan Phillippe (Oliver "Ollie" Slocumb), Bill Pullman (Jason Slocumb, Sr.), Susan Sarandon (Mimi Slocumb), Bill Irwin (Lt. Ernest Smith), Jared Harris (Russel), and Celia Weston (Bunny) Written and Directed by Burr Steers.

Review: 
Call it writer's block, call it a logjam - this review took over a week to actually come to fruition, with two reviews sandwiched between UHF and this.

What is there to say about a film like this? It is an independent comedy drama that likely fits best to languish on a film shelf for years before you eventually get around to actually seeing if its worth it. The most annoying films to write about are the mediocre ones, where it isn't a terrible experience to sit through but it also isn't anything to really write home about either. In the long run, this mixed bag middles too much with its misanthrope main character for its first half while faced with more interesting supporting actors before its second half lands with a soft thud. There isn't a terrible performance in the bunch, nor is the film really that awful to sit through in the long run, but it sure takes its time in making itself seem worth a look, as if making a coming-of-age movie needed acidic foundations (in this case, a nutty rich family) to really make for entertainment. It feels like an interesting film when not faced with its silly misanthrope lead (or when he isn't being romanced / being assaulted by someone, like a therapist), but it really does seem at times more fitting for a novel than a film, albeit with a few chapters being tossed around. The best response one can have for the question of why should I care about what is going on is that it is meant to be sharply witty and observant, the kind of film that can picked and poked at the same way one could poke at The Catcher in the Rye, I suppose. This for a film that features a scene of someone who when told of how dirty he looks comes back to the family dinner table without clothes. When I really care about the movie is the parts around the main character - it needed more weird moments with people like Goldblum, Pullman, and Sarandon, who are each adept at garnering some humor along with showing the flip-side of life as an adult with some money - whether that involves hypocrisy or succumbing to pressures. I do at least appreciate Culkin for taking a role as ridiculous acidic as this one is and making an attempt to garner some humor. The same can be said for Danes and Peet, who clearly need more time on screen besides just being around the main character from time to time. Phillippe and Irwin provide small but useful moments. Sometimes a film can make you think about how you were growing up with all the changes that occur around you, whether through friends, family, or all of the above. Igby just happens to be on the fringes of adulthood - what better way to respond to it by skipping school, romantic moments, and plenty of loathing to go around. It sure wants to play cynical with its coming-of-age story - heck, why not go further? Fully drag its soap opera level of weird events to its natural conclusion - blather on for longer than 98 minutes and give these characters enough depth (and perhaps rope) to trap themselves within hypocrisy and what it means to be a human being - whatever that means. Go nuts and make this an attempt at garnering some real humor instead of trying to have it both ways with jokes and pathos. Of course one can't really take much of this that seriously, minus the parts involving Igby and his father (to a point); the time spent with him and his mother only really seems to come out in the second half rather than really drive the film home all the way. On the whole, this proves to be a frustrating film to sit through, where one can see the intentions from its director/writer Steers try to come out through a film that can't quite live up to making a clear resonating path. It becomes more depressing to see where the cast is and isn't used than the material itself, really. It may prove well for those who seek it out and have the right mindset for its tactics, but I just couldn't find this a clear enough winner to recommend it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.