Desperado.

Review #2415: Desperado.

Cast: 

Antonio Banderas (Manito "El Mariachi"), Joaquim de Almeida (Cesar "Bucho"), Salma Hayek (Carolina), Steve Buscemi (Buscemi), Cheech Marin (Short Bartender), Quentin Tarantino (Pick-Up Guy), Carlos Gomez (Memo "Right Hand"), Tito Larriva (Tavo), Angel Aviles (Zamira), Danny Trejo (Navajas), Abraham Verduzco (Niño), Carlos Gallardo (Campa), and Albert Michel Jr (Quino) Written and Directed by Robert Rodriguez (#1193 - Alita: Battle Angel, #1903 - From Dusk till Dawn, #2377 - El Mariachi)

Review: 

Admittedly, I wanted to Desperado for quite a while. I bought a DVD pack with it included a while ago and, well, it is time to collect. Robert Rodriguez followed El Mariachi (1992) with a television movie assignment that came out of the blue with Roadracers (1994)*. But here were are with his second feature film, a "Neo-Western action movie" once again. The movie was shot in late 1994 with a budget that was described as, well, adding a few more zeroes from before that was shot in the same place (Ciudad Acuña) as the first movie; as before, Rodriguez serves as writer, director, and editor. Sure, the movie had its troubles: the original cut was rated NC-17 by the MPAA due to the graphic violence that had to see a handful of cuts just to get an R rating, complete with taking out a shootout at the end that I think you will be curious about. When the movie was released on August 25, 1995 (the first of three Rodriguez-involved projects in a year next to winter 1995's Four Rooms, where Rodriguez directed one of the four segments and 1996's From Dusk till Dawn), the film was a general hit with audiences, and, well, there was eventually a follow-up film with Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003). 

It is a nice movie for those who know what they are getting into with a movie that is more of a side-step sequel than anything, one that feels the need to see the last scene of the previous movie but with a different face this time around. Now it dwells on the idea that killing the killer wasn't enough to satisfy the fallen mariachi, now it rests to chop the head ahead of that guy too. For the most part, the movie is generally satisfying to those who liked the ambition shown in the other film without seeming like a product of compromises, which mainly means some energetic shooting and a few quick cuts to go with a slightly more packaged story. So yes, the adrenaline rush may not be for everyone, but it does have likeable folks to carry things for 105 minutes. Undeniably, Banderas has a gritty charm to make this character one worth searching further in how one could just slip into guns as if it was a rhythm to replace the one ripped from his busted hand. He clearly oozes the appeal that one could see a lover or a killer in the same breath without a false note detected because you roll with him and his baptism of fire that clearly needs the touch of people again. It helps to have Hayek (in her first key role in an American movie, after a good deal of telenovela appearances) generate just as much sensual appeal in curiosity at the idea of someone who isn't merely just a tool like other folks in the town but has their own sins just the same. Perhaps not surprisingly, their chemistry simmers quickly to the surface that is clear to root for and watch play out for all of the passionate strings you damn well know will be pulled. de Almeida (cast prior to shooting when Raul Julia died) is at least an adequate adversary to shoot for in clear-cut ruthlessness alongside wavering stability (note the sequence where he can't find his phone), at least until the movie makes its one turn of the screw that probably will strain at least one person's doubts. At least the supporting cast comes and goes for a few curious chuckles from Buscemi and the staging for the mayhem is worthy enough to make it look like the fights worth investing time in. Sure, the climax isn't played out to the whole bloody affair (instead having a few dark chuckles with the arrival (and departure of Gallardo and Michel Jr to the fray), but the slap-bang enjoyment of the film as a whole is consistent and kinetic enough to be satisfied with the movie reflecting the way the last one went: on the road but with company to travel this time around. As a whole, it is an improvement on El Mariachi with its general staging of action and all-around charm to ride the storm of doubt made by an up-and-coming director that is worth checking out.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Incidentally, because he managed to license music from Link Wray (it was cheap at the time), it played a tiny influence on Pulp Fiction (1994), because Quentin Tarantino saw Rodriguez using that music and got the idea to use Wray's "Rumble" for his film. No, really, you can read that and hear about "72 camera setups with a single camera in one day."

The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!

Review #2402:  The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!

Cast: 

Hugh Grant (the Pirate Captain), Martin Freeman (the Pirate with a Scarf/Number Two), Imelda Staunton (Queen Victoria), David Tennant (Charles Darwin), Jeremy Piven (Black Bellamy), Salma Hayek (Cutlass Liz), Lenny Henry (Peg-Leg Hastings), Brian Blessed (Pirate King), Russell Tovey / Anton Yelchin (Albino Pirate [United Kingdom] / [United States]), Brendan Gleeson (Pirate with Gout), Ashley Jensen (Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate), Ben Whitehead / Al Roker (Pirate Who Likes Sunsets and Kittens [UK] / [USA]) Directed by Peter Lord (#160 - Chicken Run) and Jeff Newitt.

Review: 

"We had one of those meetings that you have in development departments where there’s 30 books on the table, people discussing if any of them will make a TV series or a movie, and I picked this thing up off the table and I read five pages. It made me laugh so much. Seldom, indeed, have I read anything that’s had so much fun in it so quickly. So I thought, “Well, we’ll do that!” That’s just the start of a very long process because it wasn’t really as much of a story in the book, so that was two years to get the draft together."

Sure, why not. It's been a very long time since I covered a feature made by Aardman Animations*, and this was their fifth one released to theaters and a bit of a return to stop motion, as their last two movies (Flushed Away [2006] and Arthur Christmas [2011]) were done in CG. This movie was planned to be in CG, but their partners in Sony saw the models used as reference that seemed better for stop-motion, albeit with computer generated imagery used for scenery, such as with the sea (at any rate, art of the film does exist to view for oneself). The source material is a book series that English novelist Gideon Defoe first created with The Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists in 2004 that lasted for five more novels in eight years, and it perhaps is not a surprise to see that Dafoe wrote the screenplay for this film. Outside of the United Kingdom, the movie was released under the title of "The Pirates! Band of Misfits", and it is where you get two different voice actors for select characters. The movie was a mild hit with audiences, but apparently its failure to make more money internationally led to Sony (who apparently had high expectations) not going forward with partnering for a second Pirates movie, which would've apparently been about cowboys. This was the 2nd of two movies Lord (the co-founder of Aardman) has directed, as he since has spent time as an executive producer on a variety of Aardman projects, while co-director Jeff Newitt worked on Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget (2023). The next movie made by Aardman was with StudioCanal for Shaun the Sheep Movie in 2015.

I don't really care for using the word "cartoon" for a movie, but I'm sure this type of movie would fall under that label for most people with its intent of just having fun with pirates in the 19th century (1837, specifically) that goes with the flow of living dodos and adversarial queens for 88 minutes. The animation is nice enough to serve as the backdrop for quite a few charming gags (mostly visual) and it clearly will work enough in patience for anybody that got a kick out of Cutthroat Island (1995), despite a few limitations. You can't really take it seriously as a historical movie, but I do wonder if we see that many movies that make light of old dead presidents (some of whom actually owned slaves when in power) as much as others make light of dead monarchs (just to throw one random fact down the hole, Darwin married in 1838 to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood and had ten children). At least Grant* seems to be having a fine time playing a wayward pirate, one that is fairly goofy but endearing enough to go with the evident road to go down in generally good timing (namely dry). Freeman and Tennant accompany him with varying levels of success in timing to react to the teetering absurdity that is fairly dry and yet still sly enough to make it a good bit to go with. Staunton makes for a fairly quality adversary in snooty amusement (as one does when playing a figure of a particular design in rotund-ness). There may be a wide variety of name actors popping in here and there that are mostly fine for tiny gags (it does warm the heart to see a bit role for a booming actor in Blessed). The general line of action for the film most revolves around setting up amusing little situations, whether that involves time spent with, well, scientists and a climax that is relatively engaging in setup to at least give the folks something to be happy with when all is said and done. As a whole, it just is a movie you either roll with in its whimsical type of timing and style, for which it does look quite accomplished in the sense that it never looks tired or too desperate to get the jokes to land. 

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Hilariously, this is yet another actor finally featured in a review, it never occurred to me I never saw Hugh Grant in a movie before. Also, I suppose I forgot to mention that Aardman has done a few short films. Here's your cookie.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.

Review #1947: Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.

Cast: 

Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Harvey Guillén (Perrito), Florence Pugh (Goldilocks), Olivia Colman (Mama Bear), Ray Winstone (Papa Bear), Samson Kayo (Baby Bear), John Mulaney ("Big" Jack Horner), Wagner Moura (Wolf / Death), Da'Vine Joy Randolph (Mama Luna), Anthony Mendez (Doctor), and Kevin McCann (the Talking Cricket) Directed by Joel Crawford and Januel Mercado.

Review: 

You may or may not remember that Puss in Boots (2011) was eleven years ago. That was the culmination of years of development because of how much interest there was by DreamWorks Animation to do a feature film based on the character inspired by the fairy tale character of the same name (the origin of the fairy tale character is rooted in Italy, but the film character is depicted as having Spanish origin - incidentally, Banderas is the voice for the Spanish and Italian dubs of the character). Puss first was introduced in Shrek 2 (2004). The influences for the character are pretty evident, ranging from Errol Flynn to Zorro to bits taken straight from the voice actor in Banderas. Appreciation for the character were enough to scuttle the original idea to make a direct-to-video movie and instead make a theatrical effort instead, one that continued the trend of amusing takes on fairy tale characters (such as Jack and Jill, for example). It was a pretty good movie, but I think you can forgive me for having a bit of a hazy memory and doubt that this would be anything too special. The success of the film led to plans for a second film pretty quickly, but development took a considerable amount of time (such as restructuring of the script by 2015); an entire animated television series ran from 2015 to 2018 in that eleven-year gap between films, just to make the point clear. It was production designer Nate Wragg that pushed the idea for the animation to resemble a fairy tale illustration. So yes, 3D animation combines with painterly textures that might make one think of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018). The screenplay was done by Paul Fisher and Tommy Swerdlow, while Swerdlow co-wrote the story with Tom Wheeler (the screenwriter / story co-writer on the previous film). This is the third feature film for Joel Crawford, who debuted as a director with The Croods: A New Age (2020) after working with DreamWorks Animation in the story artist department since 2006 on numerous films, while this is the first feature effort for Januel Mercado (he serves as "co-director", which in my mind deserves recognition).

It dawned on me pretty early on that I have only seen three DreamWorks Animation films in a theater when they were new: Madagascar (2005), Shrek the Third (2007), and Shrek Forever After (2010). The funny thing is that this movie actually became better than any of those films by about the halfway point. It aims for something not seen much in the prior film or the Shrek films in the eye for a darker tone that isn't leaden with edgy humor but instead a celebration of adventure. How many animated films even think about the subject of one's mortality? It manages to improve on the original by cultivating an adventure and dynamic between its main group that doesn't hinge on being just like the first feature, which basically means aiming itself as a take on the Spaghetti Western. The opening sequence alone is worth watching for the dazzlement it inspires in re-introducing the character in all of his "rockstar glory" (if you will) before launching its key setup: facing Death. The fact that one gets to see just how one can lose eight lives in the blink of an eye is pitch-black amusing. It is interesting to see how Banderas has kept this role fresh and interesting beyond just playing a silly cat that happens to look a bit like Zorro. The mischievous charm present in his last four vocal performances as the character is still here, which is now tinged with fear that he handles with compelling edge required to make the stakes all the more important. We like the actor and character already, so it isn't too much of a leap here, but Banderas isn't merely on autopilot in terms of just playing schtick. Hayek is just as charming in allure (the only returning actor besides Banderas), still showing worthy chemistry with Banderas. In a way, it makes sense that Guillen is part of this key trio, since the last film did have a trio with Banderas and Hayek, albeit in a different manner when it came to a quest. Guillen is the comic relief that in a sense is also the spirit of the whole film: carefree and wandering on its own path, and I think that results in a pretty decent performance, one with decent chuckles that don't derail the proceedings (well, maybe the bit about trying to do cute eyes, but other than that...). Moura makes for a compelling figure to loom over the proceedings, since, well, he is playing Death (literally). Granted, it isn't as prolific in time on screen as Mulaney, but Moura still makes for a solid foil with the proper delivery one would hope to see. As for Mulaney, he makes a chuckler as the other key adversary looming over the proceedings that reminds me of another Western pastiche: Harvey Korman from Blazing Saddles. This is basically a compliment in terms of timing worth every moment seen on screen. The quartet of reimagined storybook characters in Pugh-Colman-Winstone-Kayo is a nice one in terms of silly wannabee heavies, ones with desires and quirks that are actually compelling and make for an interesting dynamic.

Whether there is another adventure involving this character or not (green-skinned ogre or not...), I would say that it proved to be a useful use of my time when it comes to seeing animation done right. It has an inevitable moral about the nature of figuring out what one really wants, but it handles that with general patience and weaving that doesn't make for any easy outs. The movie feels like a breeze at 102 minutes, managing to show plenty of interesting visuals (such as the climax in a star) that make for a generally involving time. When it comes to making arguments about animated movies not merely just for children, this is a pretty good indicator of an animated film that can work for anyone. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

From Dusk till Dawn.

Review #1903: From Dusk till Dawn.

Cast: 

Harvey Keitel (Jacob Fuller), George Clooney (Seth Gecko), Quentin Tarantino (Richard 'Richie' Gecko), Juliette Lewis (Katherine 'Kate' Fuller), Ernest Liu (Scott Fuller), Salma Hayek (Santanico Pandemonium), Cheech Marin (Border Guard / Chet Pussy / Carlos), Tom Savini (Sex Machine), Fred Williamson (Frost), Michael Parks (Texas Ranger Earl McGraw), Kelly Preston (Newscaster Kelly Houge), John Saxon (FBI Agent Stanley Chase), Danny Trejo (Razor Charlie), Brenda Hillhouse (Hostage Gloria Hill), and Marc Lawrence (Old Timer Motel Owner) Directed by Robert Rodriguez (#1193 - Alita: Battle Angel)

Review: 

The vampire movie has many forms besides Dracula, but I am sure you already have figured that out. You could look at it from a number of ways, particularly in the 1990s, which saw films by Francis Ford Coppola (you know, that mediocre Dracula adaptation) and John Carpenter (Vampires). So yes, an action horror movie with Robert Rodriguez is certainly an interesting idea. This was the third feature film by Rodriguez as a director, who made his feature debut with El Mariachi (1992) that led into more success with Desperado (1995). The story was done by Robert Kurtzman (a co-creator of the KNB EFX Group, which was behind the effects of this film) while the screenplay was done by Quentin Tarantino (the third and last film he wrote without directing after True Romance (1993) and Natural Born Killers (1994)). Rodriguez and Tarantino, best friends since the 1990s, would collaborate with each other eleven years after the release of this film with the double-feature Grindhouse (Planet Terror / Death Proof). The film was followed by two direct-to-video sequels that were produced by Rodriguez, and he would develop a television series based on the feature in 2014.

Admittedly, the enjoyment of the film will depend on how big one is in a film that tries to blend action and horror with measured patience - it is action all the way, but at least the horror is fun. The first hour is all about the set-up in what you might see coming from the action cliches that Tarantino clearly has an interest in (he likened the film to The Desperate Hours (1955) but with a supernatural twist), complete with having a core group of characters that have useful rapport with each other. Watching a movie with killers that have a bit of charm does seem a bit familiar if you've seen some of Tarantino's work, but of course it also probably goes hand in hand with Rodriguez in terms of kinetic enjoyment (like many of his films, he served as editor). So yes, it is essentially like having a sandwich of two favorable elements packed together (say, peanut butter and jelly), if it works well for you, go right on ahead, because it will satisfy the B-movie dreams one could go for, complete with green blood splatter. It may be a movie of the macabre, but it is one with a good-natured smirk to things, which works just enough in trying to make one believe in the horror of a bar that offers both pretty women and vampires. This was the first major film role for Clooney, previously best known for his run on the TV series ER. He does pretty well here, wrapped in plenty of confidence and devilish charm that is interesting to see play out against both the action element and the eventual horror that clearly would suit him for future films. Tarantino must have been interested in following the tradition of other director-turned-actors like John Huston when it came to playing a role opposite Clooney. They share a decent rapport together in brotherly cohesion that holds enough weight to make him more than just being the lesser of the key quartet. Keitel makes it worth his while in reserved dignity in religious dilemma, but Lewis is the quiet leader in her offbeat charms that proves quite natural for all the turns required. The small moments with others is fun for those who like recognizable faces and names, such as Trejo (Rodriguez's second cousin), Savini & Williamson or with the triple cameos by Marin, which all have charm that invite a bit of imagination of their stories besides this one, and Hayek makes the most of her time on stage with allure - so yes, it is a fun little time for those into its spirit (oh, there are others who come and go like Liu or Saxon, which is whatever, and that is a sad thing from someone who digs Saxon but still thinks the movie is fine). The mayhem is plentiful that makes the 108-minute run-time go with clear enjoyment for making schlock to enjoy taking the cliches from the book and putting them in the grinder. You have a movie where a gun is on a man's crotch to go with brains being stabbed by a pencil and kids getting chomped by vampires - it all works out. As a whole, the action and horror elements done by Rodriguez and company make an interesting result, serving as a slightly more expensive B-movie that could please both genre lovers if in the right mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Frida.

Review #1822: Frida.

Cast: 

Salma Hayek (Frida Kahlo), Alfred Molina (Diego Rivera), Geoffrey Rush (Leon Trotsky), Mía Maestro (Cristina Kahlo), Ashley Judd (Tina Modotti), Antonio Banderas (David Alfaro Siqueiros), Edward Norton (Nelson Rockefeller), Diego Luna (Alejandro Gonzalez Arias), Margarita Sanz (Natalia Sedova), Patricia Reyes Spíndola (Matilde Kahlo), Roger Rees (Guillermo Kahlo), and Valeria Golino (Lupe Marín) Directed by Julie Taymor.

Review: 

If one wants to hear about an entertainer director that made marks in both film and stage, Julie Taymor would be a useful start. Born in Massachusetts, Taymor developed an interest in theatre from a young age, complete with study with L'École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq before moving onto Oberlin College (where she studied mythology and folklore). She honed her interests through masks and dance while first serving as director in New York theatres in 1974. She would make a variety of plays such as Shakespeare productions before having her prime moment with her production of The Lion King on Broadway, which was one of the most popular productions of its day in 1997, complete with Tony Awards for Taymor. Meanwhile, Taymor also did ventures into filmmaking, having her first directorial effort with an American Playhouse-produced film with "Fool's Fire" (which both premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and aired on PBS). Her feature debut was Titus (1999), which received fair marks (particularly with costume design). In her film career, she has made five films in over two decades of work. You might be surprised to hear that this film went through a lengthy development hell, with a plethora of considerations considered that involved Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, and Robert De Niro at different points. Hayek (who had slowly built a presence in Hollywood in the mid-1990s) had been interested in doing the role for a number of years, and by that time the works of Kahlo was attracting further interest from art folks, but it only came around in 2001 with Miramax alongside a variety of producers (seven credited) and four credited screenwriters (Clancy Sigal, Diane Lake, Gregory Nava, Anna Thomas) that listed Hayden Herrera's Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo as adaptation material, as championed by book editor/literary agent-turned-executive Nancy Hardin.

Admittedly, I had considered watching this film for a number of years, if only because one is always curious about art (no matter how "mediocre" or bad one is at it, as I can attest to). I think most of us at least know about the works of Frida Kahlo (born of German and Mexican heritage), if only because of how striking her art is. With a runtime of 123 minutes, I think the movie does a spectacular job in capturing the artist with enough strokes in style and engagement to make a solid biopic, one that runs through a number of interesting events in the life of Kahlo (and Rivera) with useful patience that never seems to collapse into easy generalizations. It captures the essence of someone with growing pain and talent for a fitting capture of an artist with such a vibrant personality that honors the art without falling into hagiography. With a useful ensemble like this, it should only make sense that Hayek (who received a plethora of award nominations for her role) leads the way with suitable timing, having a burning sense of self that lives through two great accidents (a trolly and Diego Rivera) with honesty. The chemistry between her and Molina sears through with confounding energy, one that endures with the quality of a bird and an elephant that is endearingly watchable, and Molina makes a good showman to pair with Hayek. The rest of the group come and go with varying strokes that hone interest for what is needed when looking upon history with general interest, with Rush and Norton probably being the most notable of the historical presences that compare interestingly when played against Hayek (of course, Golino is quietly effective in small moments spent with Hayek too). The clash of visions (ideological or not) collides for an engaging movie that elevates its subject (complications and all) for a curious biography worth watching from a director engaged with making entertaining projects with style to accompany it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: To end our month of Women Directors...we end with Marie Antoinette (2006).

Movie Night: Wild Wild West.

Review #454: Wild Wild West.

Cast
Will Smith (James T. West), Kevin Kline (Artemus Gordon and Ulysses S. Grant), Kenneth Branagh (Dr. Arliss Loveless), Salma Hayek (Rita Escobar), M. Emmet Walsh (Coleman), Bai Ling (Miss East), Ted Levine (General "Bloodbath" McGrath), Frederique van der Wal (Amazonia), Musetta Vander (Munitia), Sofia Eng (Miss Lippenrieder), and Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon (Belle) Directed by Barry Sonnenfeld (#005 - Get Shorty, #077 - The Addams Family, #078 - Addams Family Values, #211 - Men in Black, and #212 - Men in Black II)

Review
This was adapted off the classic television show The Wild Wild West, though judging by how they apparently changed significant aspects of the film, I'd cross out the word adapted. Will Smith is usually charming, even in the cliched Independence Day, but not even he can give any life to the way his character is portrayed. Kevin Kline is okay at best, but to say this would be a step down from A Fish Called Wanda is an understatement. Kenneth Branagh...playing an southern scientist with no legs was odd enough...but the thing that takes the cake is...the spider. Yes, a Mechanical Spider, in the Wild West. You might wonder how it could feasibly be made, I'm just wondering how no one ever mentions seeing it after the film's end, though I suppose Grant wouldn't want "I saw a giant spider, while opening a railroad. No I am not insane." being the last line of his memoirs. The effects have more merit then the story and it's a bland  stand still of a film, disappointing western buffs, action buffs, and of course, Wild Wild West fans.

The film was terrible enough to inspire Robert Conrad (the star of the original show) to accept the film's five Golden Raspberry Awards in person, and I can't blame him for doing that. In conclusion, the best way to sum this film is one quote: "I made a mistake on Wild Wild West. That could have been better. ... No, it's funny because I could never understand why Robert Conrad was so upset with Wild Wild West. And now I get it. It's like, 'That's my baby! I put my blood, sweat and tears into that!' So I'm going to apologize to Mr. Conrad for that because I didn't realize. I was young and immature. So much pain and joy went into The Fresh Prince that my greatest desire would be that it's left alone." And when that comes from Will Smith himself, that just makes this sad film even worse. Avoid this film like it's the plague.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Puss in Boots.

Review #213: Puss in Boots.

Cast
Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Zach Galifianakis (Humpty Alexander Dumpty), Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris (Jack and Jill), Constance Marie (Imelda), Guillermo del Toro (Comandante, Moustache Man), and Mike Mitchell (Andy "Jack" Beanstalk) Directed by Chris Miller (#163 - Shrek the Third)

Review
This film is a spin-off of the Shrek franchise, and it works well enough to not have to depend on it for guidance. The acting is good, with Banderas stealing the show. The film has some good action and while not being entirely different from other animated films, it has enough charm in visuals and gold old action with some fun to win out in the end. It's good stuff for cat lovers as well (I couldn't resist saying that).

To the 97 people who have read this review: How did this review attract you, and how has this managed to be the highest rated one ever?

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.