Atlas Shrugged: Part II.

Review #2480: Atlas Shrugged: Part II.

Cast: 

Samantha Mathis (Dagny Taggart), Jason Beghe (Henry Rearden), Esai Morales (Francisco d'Anconia), Patrick Fabian (James Taggart), Kim Rhodes (Lillian Rearden), Richard T. Jones (Eddie Willers), D. B. Sweeney (John Galt), Paul McCrane (Wesley Mouch), John Rubinstein (Dr. Floyd Ferris), Robert Picardo (Dr. Robert Stadler), Ray Wise (Head of State Thompson), Diedrich Bader (Quentin Daniels), Bug Hall (Leonard Small), Arye Gross (Ken Danagger), Michael Gross (Ted 'Buzz' Killman), Rex Linn (Kip Chalmers), Larisa Oleynik (Cherryl Brooks), with Thomas F. Wilson (Robert Collins), and Teller (Laughlin) Directed by John Putch.

Review: 

Okay, maybe it seems silly to cover another Ayn Rand movie for Turkey Week. But if you had the displeasure of watching Atlas Shrugged: Part I. The 2011 movie barely made it to any theaters to begin with, so guess how they raised money for the sequel. Apparently, $16 million was raised by a company based in New Jersey in a private debt sale. Filming apparently was then announced to start in April 2012 to be released in October 2012 that totally would be in line with the U.S. presidential election. One of the writers of the film was Duncan Scott, who apparently did a re-edit of We the Living (1942) with English subtitles. He is credited with the screenplay alongside Duke Sandefur and Brian Patrick O'Toole. Everything is different, right down to the director. John Putch has mostly directed for television and a few projects for video. Even the cast is different, as apparently it wasn't easy to negotiate options with actors in such a short time. Producer John Aglialoro went on the interview circuit a bit in stating his hopes for the film to hit with certain audiences, once stating that leftists dismiss Rand as a "cartoon....that she was for selfishness". Perhaps not surprisingly, the movie was not screened for critics, accusing them as having their integrity going off a cliff while also deciding, yes, these think-tanks called The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute are going to be fair and balanced towards this movie*. Atlas Shrugged Part II did get to screen on over a thousand screens on opening day....and a month later, the producers decided to not release numbers for it by the time it made a whole $3 million. The market rejected the films in theaters, but Aglialoro decided to finish the job with a third film in 2014 (you know damn well we'll be back to see that film in 2026).

The movie is termed as "sci-fi drama, and I hesitate to nof chuckle. If this was meant to be a challenge of the meme that rolls with the word "libertarian" in "we demand to be taken seriously!", it would be a bonafide swing-and-a-miss. It somehow is technically better than the previous film but is just as insanely boring, with its attempts at celebrating the defiant businessman and its incessant asking of who is John Galt (I'm Spartacus!) making me giggle again and again. The most fun you may get from the film is in the name game of spotting people you might recognize from better things: hey hey, its Ray Wise (and accompanying evil sneer) from RoboCop/Twin Peaks! A collection of TV guys in Teller (who speaks!), Picardo, Gross, Bader and Linn. A lead from Pump up the Volume*. Could you imagine if this film actually did influence someone in how they voted in an election? What, vote for conservatives or they'll keep trying to make movies to break into the mainstream? If you go up to a mirror three times and say "taxation is theft", will a Libertarian appear out of thin air to scold me for believing in a driver's license? It probably goes without saying that the dialogue is as stilted as ever for a movie that would probably serve as the real test for if something designed to preach to a specific choir is actually slop. Then again, how many movies actually show TV pundits play themselves? It is funny that this is the middle film of a series that certainly was just itching to get to John Galt and his big speech for the conclusion (70 pages for a book, probably less for a film) that basically dances like a soap opera with further people leaving society because, hey, who is John Galt? Mathis and Beghe can only do so much under the strain of it all, which means they sometimes sound vulnerable like actual human beings, even if two movies have managed to do little in making the audience realize why they matter as characters. The unending desire to nail oneself on the cross of Rand means an inevitable speech is looming around the corner or the soap opera-tier characters pop in and out, which is sad because good god you need a really over-the-top villain (Wise could've easily swallowed the film, so naturally they give him a few lines) to up the tension.. It basically resembles a religious movie but with the morals of holding the one true power together: capitalism rules guys, we just have to trust these elite and not the evil government red tape to do their job! The fact that the apparent depression that is supposed to be in the film basically shows just a few people at random times does put the proper trim of amusement to it all. They manage to make plane maneuvering and a train-crash the equivalent of one guy trying to start a "wave" and getting crickets. As a whole, Atlas Shrugged: Part II continues to get stuck in the mud of wooden dialogue with actors that cannot possibly hold it together when its foundation is a self-serving mash of meandering goofiness. 

 

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Later: War of the Worlds (2025)

*Hey, I try to have a balance. I try to not share visible irritation for the following: annoying pretentious filmmakers, hippies, annoying conservatives, annoying liberals, and people who believe that movies/video games influence people to do violence. If you ever want to say what grinds your gears: leave a note.

*Perhaps ironically, Samantha Mathis was elected to serve in a trade union position with Vice President, Actors/Performers of SAG-AFTRA from 2015 to 2019. Ayn Rand wasn't big on "altruism" and unions (as selected here: Ayn Rand's Defense of an Anti-Union Massacre — History News Network) but sure loved the government-run Social Security and Medicare in later years.

American Psycho.

Review #1984: American Psycho.

Cast: 

Christian Bale (Patrick Bateman), Justin Theroux (Timothy Bryce), Josh Lucas (Craig McDermott), Bill Sage (David Van Patten), Chloë Sevigny (Jean), Reese Witherspoon (Evelyn Williams), Samantha Mathis (Courtney Rawlinson), Matt Ross (Luis Carruthers), Jared Leto (Paul Allen), Willem Dafoe (Donald Kimball), Cara Seymour (Christie), and Guinevere Turner (Elizabeth) Directed by Mary Harron.

Review: 

"What occurred to me is that just enough time had passed to make a period film about the ’80s, and say things about the ’80s, and bring out the satire. And that was interesting to me."

As a director, Mary Harron has aimed to make above all else movies with meaningful things to say beyond just the label of feminism. Born in Bracebridge, Ontario in Canada to an actor/comedian in Don Harron, although the divorce and re-marriage in her family led to her living between Toronto and Los Angeles and later England. Her parents liked to take her to films they wanted to see that were generally art films (i.e. not exactly suitable for children), with her early large influences being Alfred Hitchcock. Later studies at places such as the National Film Theatre and she studied English at St. Anne's College, Oxford University before moving to the States in New York to become a journalist. She wrote and created a magazine for what became the punk scene in the city before later becoming a drama critic in later years. In the 1990s, her interest in the life of Valerie Solanas spurred her into wanting to do a documentary (since she was working as a producer on a program dedicated to American pop culture at the time). In turn, this idea was suggested to become a film, which resulted in the 1996 film I Shot Andy Warhol. In total, Harron has directed seven films in over two decades, with the most recent being Dalíland (2022). The movie is based on the 1991 novel of the same name by Bret Easton Ellis. The original book generated controversy because of its portrayal of violence toward women (as a whole the book is far more visceral in its descriptions by its unreliable narrator in Patrick Bateman of murder along with emotional psychotic breakdowns). Ellis has described the main character of Bateman as being "crazy the same way I was", although he has only admitted this in recent years (he initially stated during the release of the novel that his father was the inspiration while also later calling the book "a criticism of male values that were around me", one that he found easy to observe as a gay man). Ellis had called the book "unfilmable", but Edward R. Pressman bought the rights to film the book in 1992 and persisted for eight years. Numerous names were considered to direct such as Stuart Gordon and David Cronenberg (with Ellis even writing a draft), but Harron accepted an offer to do the film in 1996 under the condition that she could write her own draft. She brought Guinevere Turner on to help write the script while also trying to find the right Bateman (for her part, Turner found the book horrifying alongside really funny while also believing the right spin could make for a "really subversive, feminist movie"). By 1998, Harron thought she found her ideal actor with Christian Bale (at the time mostly known for Empire of the Sun (1987), when he was 13), because she felt he was the only who understood the role as being (in their words) "an alien who landed in the unabashedly capitalist New York of the '80s" when he found the script quite amusing. However, Lions Gate Films tried for a time to recruit Leonardo DiCaprio to star in the film (which Harron vehemently disagreed with), complete with Oliver Stone taking over as director. Thankfully, disagreements between the two led to the return of Harron and Bale, albeit with a small budget of roughly $7 million.

The movie was indeed a modest success at the time of its release in 2000, albeit with a polarized response by some due to the level of violence. Actually, looking back, it is almost as amusing to consider the perception of the film back then as it is to actually look at the film now and share a laugh as the effective satire it ultimately is. It is the work of somebody who may or may not be guilty of murder slipping by in a world focused entirely on lifestyle above all that examines misogyny and masculinity with an awareness and timing that is brilliant to sift through for 100 minutes. Undeniably, the movie is all on Bale and his performance. His method of performance involves plenty of rhythm to go with clarity and control that brings out plenty in isolation and alienation beyond the winning smile shown in a man that in his words is "simply not there". He has the outward charm of someone like Tom Cruise (intentionally done) that is both unsettling and captivating, one who seems to sell every scene he is in (present in all but one) as one of numerous people that we see within the mask they seem to wear (why else does the axe sequence seem to linger on half of his face covered in blood) It is evident that his method preparation paid off for an effective performance that is the perfect act of a warped man in a warped time that shows the vanity of man through people who are never seen working in any scene. The others can only help but drift in the ideal manner when wrapped in the gloss of the 1980s, such as the restaurant trio of Theroux, Lucas, and Sage, or with Witherspoon and her confidence that goes like oil on water when paired against Bale. Sevigny is probably the most sane person in the general web of things, at least because she is in it slightly more than Dafoe and his blend of investigative query/baiting. There are a handful of interesting moments to note (at least ones that have not become Internet memes), ones that show Bale gliding through his environment in the most entertaining of alienated ways, such as him casually admitting his crimes in conversation or him doing a strut right before the axe death with "Hip to be Square" playing.

Ellis described the book as one that he didn't think needed to be turned into a film, since he felt that the ambiguity of the novel would be turned into something "infinitely less interesting" with a medium of film that seemingly demands answers (incidentally, the book later inspired a 2013 musical). The novel leaves it to one's interpretation about what was real and not real, while Turner and Harron's script was intended to show a real effort to have things be real for the main character but at some point "sort of perceiving things differently, but they're really happening." The ending is deliberately meant to confound one over just what really happened (personally, I assume a chunk really happened because watching a movie about murders being shown only to be told they aren't real is dumb as hell). Ellis has been quoted numerous times as to finding the film either as "fine" without being entirely necessary or as one that is "in some ways a complicated movie for me. But overall I like it." As a whole, American Psycho is a worthwhile use of your time for those who are interested in seeing a film that belongs to more than one genre and thus is not instantly easy to peg in one assumption. It is a lean and mean satire with elements of horror that will sift in your head and not escape any time soon after it is finished, which makes for a pretty good time. It is the kind of really good film that may even grow on you further, which probably says a good deal about how far the film's stature has grown in two decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Beau Travail.

Pump Up the Volume.

Review #1686: Pump Up the Volume.

Cast: 

Christian Slater (Mark Hunter), Samantha Mathis (Nora Diniro), Mimi Kennedy (Marla Hunter), Scott Paulin (Brian Hunter), Cheryl Pollak (Paige Woodward), Annie Ross (Principal Loretta Creswood), Ahmet Zappa (Jaime), Billy Morrissette (Mazz Mazzilli), Seth Green (Joey), Robert Schenkkan (David Deaver), Ellen Greene (Jan Emerson), Andy Romano (Mr. Murdock), Anthony Lucero (Malcolm Kaiser), Lala Sloatman (Janie), and James Hampton (Arthur Watts) Written and Directed by Allan Moyle.

Review: 

“[Pump Up the Volume] is my favorite movie I’ve ever done. … It wasn’t a typical high school movie, and it really did get into some of the darker, more gruesome details of what it’s actually like to be a teenager in high school.” - Christian Slater

“I don’t know how to make a good movie, but I know how to make a bad movie, and that’s try to appeal to everybody.” — Allan Moyle

There are quite a few things one can be hard-pressed to admit when it comes to looking back on films like this from the era of the 1990s. Movies involving teenagers and angst or life seemed to take on a new phase that were different from ones made by John Hughes, even if there were a few outliers like Heathers (1988), which featured Christian Slater. Of course, the hard-pressed truth is that film is actually quite inferior in its teenage angst angle than this film, which actually manages to do better in every aspect from characterization (and actually sticking to it!) to music to gracing the ending (each move to the logical point one might see coming, but it seems more right with this). I kid you not, each film also would inspire a musical production. Each failed at the box office, but Heathers has had the cult following befitting an exploitation movie (at least the one it may or may not have ripped off) while Pump Up the Volume isn't even readily available on many release outlets (owing to music licensing). So be it. Besides, this film has the real angle of aiming for a message about free speech alongside its angle about finding one's voice as a teenager in a weird world that makes it an underrated gem. It is funny to consider that it came out from a director who had meant to stay retired. Allan Moyle was born in Shawinigan, Quebec, Canada. Moyle had a classmate in his high school that had an amateur printing press that would be used for offbeat papers to spread around school; the student took his own life, and it affected Moyle. In fact, the original script that Moyle wrote for what would be this film revolved around a pirate DJ saying that he will end it all with his final broadcast (...or will he?). Moyle had gotten into film writing with Montreal Main (1974) and directing with The Rubber Gun (1977). Times Square (1980) was his second effort, but the meddling of producer Robert Stigwood (who seemed to have aspirations for another film success like Saturday Night Fever) to the final cut meant that Moyle would swear off directing for a decade. Moyle wanted to only do writing, but it was the meeting with a producer in Sandy Stern that proved a key to directing again (he had grown up with radio shaping his teenage years). He saw the fairly green script by Moyle and brought himself to work on re-writing the script (mainly in that there wasn't an ending) for a year. At any rate, the film eventually found a production company with New Line Cinema, and the experience spent by Moyle and Stern was reportedly very cooperative (of course Moyle has often noted that he did not generally get to use his more experimental tendencies with his films).

Honestly, I am curious to what would have happened if the idea of the film had come around a decade later. Heck, if this was 2021, we might see a lead character that probably does a podcast in a shed. Teenagers not being taken seriously isn't exactly a new one, but Moyle has made a movie where self-awareness is a curse for the young or old when not being taken seriously. Of course, any soundtrack that has Leonard Cohen is on the money. Sure, folks might be more interested in hearing Sonic Youth or Beastie Boys, but there is generally a song for everyone when it comes to something that resonates with the beat of the film without feeling pre-packaged. So basically, it is a movie with plenty of chutzpah that is backed up by the presences of its actors. Slater is the easiest standout, because he is basically playing two sides of the coin of a performer in the persona that reflects against the one behind said voice. The rebel voice on the radio might not seem like a hard job to do, but eventually finds it to not just be a bit for easy crude jokes, because it gets balanced with the quieter man in the daylight (i.e. soft-spoken) that hits right at home for the supposed Generation X crowd (after all, how many movies are there existing to admire the 60s when compared to ones that tell the 60s to go stuff it?). In other words, it proves quite fit for the crowd at large without alienation or pap detected in those monologues. When it comes to that exchange involving someone troubled about how serious they are about a life-or-death decision, it still strikes a chord, one that is relevant to our day in its striking tone. Following along is Mathis, making her film debut (she had dabbled in television for two years). There is a certain kind of spark to her performance that is inviting in curiosity that goes quite well with Slater in interesting passion (of course it also can read as an offshoot of the figure/fan dynamic). Pollak and Morrissette stand out well among the teen-folk, whether that means in a preppie that lets it all it out or a punk kid having fun away from school. Kennedy and Paulin make for worthy parental figures for what is needed - well meaning without being caricatures, while Ross plays the adversarial adult figure with worthy patronizing charm; incidentally, the other standout figure is Hampton, who has a brief role in the end as an FCC man under siege by teenagers that is quite amusing. As a whole, the ending is probably the one thing that keeps it from really being a great movie (really what can one do when having kids on the run from the FCC?), but in a changing tide of teen movies, it sure packed a fun wallop. It is the kind of movie that would sneer at you for calling it ripe for the teenage vision of a new era, but there is something to enjoy for everyone in an experience that is generally aware of what it wants to say for 105 minutes with a cast and crew that seem ripe at home for a worthy gem of the era.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Super Mario Bros.

Review #736: Super Mario Bros.

Cast
Bob Hoskins (Mario), John Leguizamo (Luigi), Dennis Hopper (King Koopa), Samantha Mathis (Princess Daisy), Fisher Stevens (Iggy), Richard Edson (Spike), Fiona Shaw (Lena), and Mojo Nixon (Toad) Directed by Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel.

Review
Since today's the 30th anniversary of the release of Super Mario Bros, I decided to review the movie based off the video game. Before talking about this movie, let me talk a little about Super Mario. Let's be honest: The plot of the original game is simple: A plumber named Mario tries to rescue a princess from Bowser (also known as Koopa). To make a movie out of it, you have to have more plot. Whatever Super Mario game you played first (Mine was Super Mario Bros 3 on the NES, which my dad bought at a sale five years ago), Mario's legacy is one that can never be stopped, and it is has crossed over into the realm of television, cereals, anime, comics, and of course, this movie.

Yep, this one. The one from the same people that worked on Max Headroom (never heard of it)...which has had a reputation. Not just from people, but from the actors themselves. Dennis Hopper described this film as a nightmare that went over budget. Bob Hoskins said it was not only the worst job he ever did, he also said it was both his biggest disappointment and the one thing he'd change about his past. Leguizamo said in his own memoir that he and Hoskins got drunk constantly while filiming this. It's strange that Mario and Luigi's last names are both Mario (I guess that explains the Mario Bros. part)...but that's not the least of the movie's problems. The main problem is that the movie really doesn't have much of a focus to it in terms of tone. Is it supposed to be a comedy? Light hearted family flick? Adventure? Sci-fi? Dark fantasy? What is it? The lack of consistency with the tone clouds a movie that is already pretty strange. I do kinda like the idea of an alternate dimension for the Mario Bros, but it's still not done very well because it just flies by too quick to make an impact. The acting is certainly...notable. Hopper looks like he doesn't care. Now whether that means that he doesn't care about the movie or his performance in it is the question. Hoskins and Leguizamo evidently did not enjoy their experience in the movie, and it shows. Pretty much every actor is just there to say lines...though Stevens & Edson provide occasional moments of mild enjoyment

Let's talk about some of the video game stuff briefly, because I know at least something about video games. I wonder if the Princess is named Daisy because of Super Mario Land (released four years earlier) or because being known as Princess Toadstool (The name she was referred to as in the US prior to 1993) would be too weird. The Goombas are an okay effect, though them being taller than the Mario Bros doesn't make too much sense, given that in the game they are the easiest to kill. I find it very strange that Toad is now a guitar playing rebel...but then again Toad wasn't exactly endearing in the video games to begin with. Yoshi...is there for about 20 seconds. Apparently Yoshi was an animatronic effect controlled by cables and radios. It's not a bad effect, but he's only there briefly.  Koopa (also known as Bowser) is now evidently half-human, half-lizard. Nuff said. Remember Big Bertha? That fish from the third game? Big Bertha is now a big woman. The Bob-omb at least resembles the one from the game, and is probably the only thing in this movie that is loyal, sadly enough.

The movie's effects are hit and miss. The design of the city is okay, but you could honestly confuse it for any movies with a  The portal effects look more like soup and the Goombas have a certain washed out pale look to them. The movie ends on a cliffhanger...that will never be resolved. Super Mario Bros was a flop at the box office, and rightfully so. It's a movie that tries to cover too many bases to focus and please everyone while managing to be a tangled mess with no clear focus. It's sad how it seems no one who made this had fun making this, but at least it's not unwatchable. It's not a terrible movie, it's just isn't any good either. I did find it interesting that there's actually a comic strip dedicated as a "sequel" to this film, so at least something came out of this. Ultimately, this a movie that lags alongside other weird 90's movies, though not the good kind. Happy 30th, Mario. You deserved better than this.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Broken Arrow (1996).

Review #336: Broken Arrow.

Cast
John Travolta (Vic Deakins), Christian Slater (Riley Hale), Samantha Mathis (Terry Carmichael), Delroy Lindo (Max Wilkins), Bob Gunton (Pritchett), Casey Biggs (Novacek), Frank Whaley (Giles Prentice), Shaun Toub (Max), Howie Long (Kelly), Vondie Curtis-Hall (Sam Rhodes), and Kurtwood Smith (Secretary of Defense) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off)

Review
It's almost amazing how an action film can feel so familiar, feeling like other films without even trying. There's something about this film that dooms it (for me) from the start. Our two leads. Maybe its just me, but Travolta is actually more interesting to go for. With Slater I just have this mild feel for, even with the leading actress. The acting is mediocre, not too bad, but not exactly anything either. I do like Delroy Lindo though, though it may be due to missing him and his performance in Get Shorty. Oh, and Kurtwood Smith. The film's action is okay, with the usual explosions of stuff one might expect. But honestly, I have absolutely no investment in the two main plot devices (Nuclear weapons) of the film. The timecodes get switched consistantly, giving not much time to care. While Woo does a fine job directing, it's obvious that his next film after this would be better (That would be Face/Off), and while it can have some fun by Travolta, it's not one of his best. If you have zero expectations of great quality that actions films wish they could do, you might get some enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.