Snakes on a Plane.

Review #2571: Snakes on a Plane.

Cast: 

Samuel L. Jackson (Agent Neville Flynn), Julianna Margulies (Claire Miller), Nathan Phillips (Sean Jones), Rachel Blanchard (Mercedes Harbont), Flex Alexander (Clarence "Three G's" Dewey), Kenan Thompson (Troy), Keith Dallas (Big Leroy), Sunny Mabrey (Tiffany Engelhard), Bruce James (Ken), Lin Shaye (Grace), Terry Chen (Chen Leong), Elsa Pataky (Maria), Mark Houghton (Agent John Sanders), David Koechner (Rick Archibald), Bobby Cannavale (Special Agent Hank Harris), and Todd Louiso (Dr. Steven Price) Directed by David R. Ellis (#437 - Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco, #2137 - Final Festination 2)

Review: 

Hey, this is a month dedicated to the flops from audiences in its time, and this technically counts. 20 years ago, New Line Cinema believed they were on the cusp of a pretty good hit on their hands with an "internet phenomenon"...and then it wasn't. I'm not kidding, there were magazines that put it on the cover and asked if the "Hokey Horror Flick" could "Change The Movie Business". The project was first discussed in 1999 after a Dreamworks executive in Craig Berenson read a script called "Venom" by David Dalessandro, an administrator at the University of Pittsburgh and first-time scriptwriter that had been inspired by reading an article about Indonesian brown tree snakes climbing on cargo planes in World War II and eventually was inspired to have a script, with, well, lots of snakes. Berenson found that script and on a "happy hour" type of party, he pitched it as "Snakes on a Plane" and thought, hey, maybe there is something to it, which is where he got the services of John Heffernan to work on the story. Years of pitching and re-writes (which added one more credited writer with Sebastian Gutierrez) eventually got it to New Line Cinema and Ronny Yu to direct and Jackson to star in it, mainly because of the title. Sure, they quickly lost Yu due to disagreements (which led to the hiring of stuntman-turned filmmaker Ellis, behind films such as Final Destination 2), and sure, New Line tried to rename the project "Pacific Flight 121" (others report it as "Pacific Air 121"), and sure, they initially aimed for a PG-13 rating even during shooting, but eventually there was a movie ready to go for people to speculate on (such as screenwriters) online. New Line aimed to engage with fan-generated speculation and take the movie seriously. Debuting for audiences (with no screenings for critics) on August 18, 2006 (other choices that month included films such as Barnyard, The Descent, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, World Trade Center, Step Up, The Illusionist) and released on a budget of $33 million, the movie made almost double its budget that was labeled as just an "Internet-only phenomenon" and a "dud". Ellis directed three further films (one direct-to-video), with the last being Shark Night in 2011 prior to his sudden death in 2013 at the age of 60.

For a movie that shows at least a dozen people joining the body count movie, it sure doesn't feel like a horror movie (that "hokey" label seems more like a joke). The opening seems more of a reworking of the crap you saw in those Airport movies (27 minutes, mainly) but it eventually becomes obvious where they tried to shoehorn it being an R-rated movie (with the occasional shot of blood). It may interest you to know that most of the snakes in the film are either CG or animatronic, especially the ones that don't attack people or encounter Jackson. I suppose it could make a doubleheader with Cocaine Bear (2023) in the "hey, it's a movie with a title like that, why not?" department*, although most people probably are more spooked by bears than wondering about what type of snake is venomous. To be honest, as a person who actually has had a snake around their shoulders (as I vaguely remember from a trip to a nature center), I'll take the snake over flying right about now, trusting a tin can flying in the air where you could theoretically get blown up or deal with aircraft decompression or deal with, well, a crappy-made plane. I guess I'm stalling at trying to understand what all the fuss about this movie was, which, really, is it known for anything other than that one line said about 80 minutes into its 106-minute runtime about having had enough of these [you know the swear] planes on this ... plane? Anybody? It's an overgrown B-movie made for way too much money to be considered one that has exactly one joke (tongue in cheek because ha ha, get it, it's a movie that can be used in a punchline of a sitcom) and the bare minimum to actually have fun with. You've got three folks better known for TV (Margulies, Alexander, and Thompson*) paired with basically nothing from Phillips for a movie that thinks throwing snakes around the compartments and having the bare minimum of carnage is enough. Nope. I like Jackson, and he seems to be having some fun here, but this is a movie that begs to just be an Air Force One (thought be some as a Die Hard pastiche) ripoff rather than pairing him with basically nothing to really engage with (imagine if it was say...Gans Hruber threatening to release snakes from a time-controlled crate unless he gets money while also motioning to kill the witness anyway - it would be the most delusional movie ever). Creature features can't really reach the levels of Jaws (1975), so folks basically try to get on the level of trying to rise above say, Anaconda [1997] (honestly, that movie might be a bit more interesting, at least it has an actual adversary in the mayhem).

Oh, but you don't need to know much about their personal lives besides the intro, well, I want to at least feel like people are going to go through peril, and it's not saying much when Shaye's character going down under is the highlight of seeing sacrifices and "into the jaws of death" moments (you could count a yapping dog being thrown into the path of a snake, but, well, really?). You'd think going around using a taser on snakes and having a kickboxer character would be enough, but it just feels like a movie going through the motions with an assured feeling of doing enough without actually proving anything. The snakes just aren't that spooky enough to make me unsettled beyond the "will they take down any of the comedy relief?" (get it, the musician with guards is actually a germophobe? get it? get it, one of them gets bit in the ass? get it? get it, the movie rests on the power of PlayStation* flight simulating? get it). There are certain movies that feel like "fast food movies" that basically go through you with one viewing and satisfy the bare minimum, and some of them accomplish the job of satisfying the general expectation laid out by its viewer (action movie with explosions, horror movie with scares*, whatever). Snakes on a Plane just feels like microwaved leftovers: you've done this before and you just don't feel like it matters to actually do it again (to say nothing of those mockblusters that come out from folks such as The Asylum - a waste of time if there ever was one!*). Some movies can get on by with an decent lead among its cast and middling tension, but this is one that has no actual fangs in it that results in an overhyped, overblown mediocrity.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: who knows? 

*Also the department of "includes kids in the peril but in the mildest possible way that totally isn't cowardly". 

*The three in particular for 2006 was ER*, One on One and Saturday Night Live. Anyway, The only modern TV show I really got into when it was *new* was Lucifer (before Fox was too stupid to cancel it) and The Blacklist. as for Margulies, what the hell is a The Good Wife?

*Lmao, Nintendo forever.

*I don't care what they say, you do have to be a bit scary in your horror movie. 

*Sharknado was made for television but at least that went into a few theaters for midnight showings. But most of their crap goes direct-to-video, which is something I explicitly do not aim for. 

Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

Review #2540: Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

Cast: 

Matt Lanter (Anakin Skywalker), Ashley Eckstein (Ahsoka Tano), James Arnold Taylor (Obi-Wan Kenobi / 4A-7 / Medical Droid), Dee Bradley Baker (Captain Rex / Commander Cody), Tom Kane (Yoda / The Narrator / Admiral Yularen), Nika Futterman (Asajj Ventress / TC-70), Ian Abercrombie (Chancellor Palpatine / Darth Sidious), Corey Burton (Ziro the Hutt / General Loathsom / KRONOS-327), Catherine Taber (Padmé Amidala), Matthew Wood (Battle Droids), Kevin Michael Richardson (Jabba the Hutt), David Acord (Rotta the Huttlet), with Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), and Christopher Lee (Count Dooku) Directed by Dave Filoni.

Review: 

Imagine, it is the year 2008, for a moment. All you've got with Star Wars is six theatrical movies (and a bunch of television that, what, twelve people cared about?)...and a new film coming out, one that's animated. Then you ask what the hell is The Clone Wars? Well, your immersion has expired, but I might as well run it down anyway. Well, there are two shows under that title, with the first coming around in 2003 via animated shorts that was developed by Genndy Tartakovsky with digital 2D animation (and select cel-shaded 3D). Then you've got the 2008 animated series (now with "The" in there because, well, why not?) that came around because of George Lucas. Lucas had thought about doing this as early as 2002, once stating that Star Wars was "a sandbox I love to play in"; Lucasfilm Animation was created in 2005*. Dave Filoni was among the team of people (described by The New York Times as "young Star Wars-obsessed artists") hired by Lucas. The Mt. Lebanon native had studied animation at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania prior to serving as a storyboard artist/assistant director on a variety of television such as King of the Hill and also directed/wrote a number of the first season episodes of Avatar: The Last Airbender. The first season was pitched around to TV networks in 2007, but nobody initially went with it. Regardless of this, encouraged by the animation results he saw, Lucas decided to produce a theatrical Clone Wars movie, which only then got Warner Bros. interested in the show. Essentially, a couple of episodes were stitched into what you see for a 98-minute movie, with Henry Gilroy, Steven Melching, and Scott Murphy being credited as writers for this film. Released in August 2008 (the first and so far, only, Star Wars movie released in that month) with a reported budget of $8.5 million, the movie was a light success with audiences. Two months later, Star Wars: The Clone Wars aired on Cartoon Network and ran for five years (before returning for stints on Netflix and Disney+ because, well, why not?). 

It may actually be the most vacant Star Wars film of its ilk, managing to do the bare minimum in "space battles" and plot that probably does make one appreciate the live-action filmmaking of Attack of the Clones [2002] (especially when one realizes that the war is basically window dressing for one guy acquiring further power anyway). Things happen in a vacuum that probably are explored in televised form, but it all feels like the paint has rusted off a familiar format with little to really back it up. The animation was deliberately meant to be "a little bit of anime, a little bit of feature animation", one that basically was inspired by the Gerry Anderson Thunderbirds as opposed to say, Beowulf. With that understanding in mind, I can't stand the animation in the same way that I just couldn't stand Thunderbirds in all of its off-putting ways (but with no strings). There are moments when it looks like something you could create with a bunch of foam cups, honestly. The voice cast is in that odd spot where going from folks such as Hayden Christensen/Natalie Portman/Ewan McGregor can only go so far in a movie that doesn't really give them much to actually show off anything beyond the most perfunctory of things (this is a fetch quest movie to save a gassy aged soccer ball looking kid, after all, and I totally will never hear the phrase "Rotta the Hutt" ever again)...to contrast with the bit moments of Jackson and Lee (paycheck time). The banter between Lanter and Eckstein is, well, not exactly endearing, mainly because it feels like a workshopped encounter between siblings more than anything. I remember having basically one question about this film as a person who didn't see the show as either a teenager or an adult: what exactly is the point of Ahsoka Tano? Okay, sure, there were other questions (namely if the animation ever looked better), but really, what is the big fascination about this character that they have their own show nearly 20 years after this film? (going as someone who just watches the films, anyway, since this character never showed up physically in any of the movies, which suggests they were somehow important for the show, but not the main saga*). All I got from this film was a bunch of chuckles at the banter and that was about it. With such sluggish amusement all the way around, it only seems appropriate to call it a middle-of-road misfire, one that did not exceed my expectations in mediocrity.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Incidentally, the only other feature film Lucasfilm Animation has been involved with came with Strange Magic seven years later.

*What the hell is The Mandalorian? Also, I fudged a bit, there is one Clone Wars "bit" I did see: "I am coming back from my ten minute ban.."

Django Unchained.

Review #1932: Django Unchained.

 

Cast: 

Jamie Foxx (Django Freeman), Christoph Waltz (Dr. King Schultz), Leonardo DiCaprio ("Monsieur" Calvin J. Candie), Kerry Washington (Broomhilda "Hildi" von Shaft), Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen Warren), Walton Goggins (Billy Crash), Dennis Christopher (Leonide "Leo" Moguy), James Remar (Butch Pooch / Ace Speck), David Steen (Mr. Stonecipher), Dana Gourrier (Cora), Nichole Galicia (Sheba), Laura Cayouette (Lara Lee Candie-Fitzwilly), Ato Essandoh (D'Artagnan), Sammi Rotibi (Rodney), Clay Donahue Fontenot (Luigi), Escalante Lundy (Big Fred), Miriam F. Glover (Betina), Don Johnson (Spencer "Big Daddy" Bennett), and Franco Nero (Amerigo Vessepi) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, #1307 - Jackie Brown, #1551 - Inglourious Basterds)

Review: 

"I want to explore something that really hasn't been done. I want to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to."

It should only figure that Quentin Tarantino had his eye on Sergio Corbucci. Tarantino was actually writing a book about the director when he found a way to tell a story that he wanted to make in a tribute to Spaghetti Westerns, one where he found inspiration in what he saw as Corbucci's "this evil Wild West, a horrible Wild West" in his feature. Specifically, Tarantino is doing a tribute to Corbucci's Django (1966), a film that the director co-wrote that featured Franco Nero as star involving a drifter and a companion mixed into a deadly feud between Confederates and Mexican revolutionaries. The film was made to capitalize on the success of Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars (1964), which in turn was a "loose" remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961). If you remember, Inglorious Basterds (2009) was made by Tarantino as his desire to make a Spaghetti Western but as a World War II film, and we all know how that went: good for some, okay for others. Here, he has made a film that he calls a "Southern" that is part of his long line of tributes to genres of film such as revenge films, road-rage movies, and martial arts films.

Honestly, I enjoyed the film far more than I thought I would, with my hopes being that it would be a slightly more interesting of sprawling alternate history than the weird jumble that came from his last feature. Of course, Waltz and Tarantino won Academy Awards for their work on the film (both winning their second award for acting and writing, respectively), so who knows what kind of expectations were to be had here from Tarantino's seventh feature. I felt it was a consistent pulp experience that shows its respect for the filmmakers of the past in terms of classic Western types without becoming just a carbon copy of the things that were. It packs a message about slavery and racism in a revenge movie that conveys a sense of scope and scale worth all of the attention it has received in the ten years that have passed since its release. It is dignified mayhem seemingly split into two segments: a movie about the repertoire of its two main stars and a movie about revenge through the eyes of Foxx. History is taken to the woodshed in a glorious manner, with Tarantino saying that he wanted to show two types of violence: the brutal reality of slave life and the violence of retribution, since he believes the genre of the Western reflects the time it was made in more than any other genre to go along with reflecting the morals and feelings of its audience. The Western may not be the most prevalent genre of the past few decades, but they sure do pull an interesting punch when a director is interested in generating fresh voices of the West. It is funny when you think about the fact that DiCaprio and Jackson don't show up until the first hour has passed in a 165-minute movie. And yet, the pair of Foxx and Waltz are ideal to hold everything together, making a great pairing in both chemistry and their distinct approach to the art of hired guns. Foxx is confident and capable to the task at hand, and it is interesting to see that he was not the first choice approached, since Tarantino wrote it with Will Smith in mind, but he rejected it (he wanted to make a love story, not one about vengeance, go figure). Foxx knows what he wants to do and say as a knight of vengeance that is never consumed in self-parody. Oh, the film does have little moments of humor between the two, particularly since Waltz plays dignity to an amoral(ish) killer, which he plays magnificently: they are fun together without making one think the whole film is just them and nothing else. DiCaprio is magnificent in clear-cut villainy in his time on screen that makes him suitably intense when you see him on screen. Jackson is the ideal foil in as the off-center moral compass with resourceful timing and the expressive nature you expect from him that makes him an ideal actor that has collaborated with Tarantino countless times. The rest of the cast proves worthwhile in their own contribution to the terror of dignity in 1858, whether that involves Johnson and his huckster plantation act or the oozing menace in Goggins or the weary fear in Washington. The movie has a wonderful design and atmosphere to it, but I am sure you already know that.

Well, the movie is probably not for everyone, which you might say for a number of Tarantino movies depending on one's patience for violence or language, particularly with the use of one particular word. However, the movie sat fine with me, since Tarantino has a keen eye for what he wants to show in violence and atmosphere without going up his own nose in gratuitous excess (he actually trimmed the film's violence down a bit before release anyway, even though it already received an R rating from the MPAA), despite what critics may think of his interest in not just making a message movie with the usual trimmings. What's not to ponder in a movie that seems a reference of phrenology, people being used as human shields, fighting to a pulp, supremacists dwelling on how hard it is to see out of a hood, and action that might as well be called Shaft (1971) on a horse? You know what really is more of a problem than violence in movies? Folks who really believe that toning things down is better than confronting them head on. It is the grisly Western that represents its era in all of the ways it needs to be: honest without condescending, brutal but not exploitative, and entertaining but not inattentive to the matter at hand. It is the sensation you would hope from Tarantino in the art of making fresh kinetic cinema. He may not hit the mark on every moment of bold brutality, but he knows where he is going without wandering too far from wanting to entertain himself and others.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Patriot Games.

Review #1847: Patriot Games.

Cast: 

Harrison Ford (Jack Ryan), Anne Archer (Cathy Ryan), Patrick Bergin (Kevin O'Donnell), Sean Bean (Sean Miller), Thora Birch (Sally Ryan), James Fox (Lord William Holmes), Ellen Geer (Rose), Samuel L. Jackson (Lt. Commander Robby Jackson), Polly Walker (Annette), J. E. Freeman (Marty Cantor), James Earl Jones (Admiral James Greer), Richard Harris (Paddy O'Neil), Alex Norton (Dennis Cooley), Hugh Fraser (Geoffrey Watkins), Alun Armstrong (Sergeant Owens), and David Threlfall (Inspector Robert Highland) Directed by Phillip Noyce.

Review: 

In 1984, Tom Clancy wrote The Hunt for Red October, the first novel in what became his most notable line of books with the character of Jack Ryan, one that saw him take a "play by the rules" approach to showing and getting certain details correctly that he felt was a moral obligation to his readers that made him one of the noted espionage writers of his time. Up until his death, he wrote sixteen further novels in what is referred to as the "Ryanverse" (Patriot Games, published in 1987, happens to serve as a "prequel", oddly enough); the book series has been continued by further writers with the support of the Clancy estate. That first book was adapted into a film in 1990 with Alec Baldwin as the lead character and John McTiernan as director that was most noted for its other main star in Sean Connery. At any rate, the success of the film meant that the filmmakers (producer Mace Neufeld, who optioned the first novel after reading proofs in 1985) wanted to make another feature quickly. However, Baldwin elected to star in a Broadway production of A Streetcar Named Desire rather than reprise the title role (which he did not regret, as Paramount producer David Kirkpatrick forced him to pick between the two, for which Baldwin later described him as a "beady-eyed, untalented fool"). Phillip Noyce was recruited to direct the film to replace McTiernan, who wanted to adapt Clear and Present Danger with a script by John Milius; he apparently felt uncomfortable as an Irish American directing a movie with IRA characters (he proceeded to direct Medicine Man instead). He was known for films such as Newsfront (1978) and Dead Calm (1989), but Ford's appreciation of seeing the former film is what got him to endorse Noyce. W. Peter Iliff and Donald E. Stewart (who had wrote the screenplay of the first film) wrote the film, with later un-credited rewrites done by Steven Zaillian. A cursory reading will reveal gradual differences: for one, the assassination attempt involved the Prince and Princess of Wales rather than a fictional lord (complete with Ryan getting a knighthood) that sees him deal not only with a splinter group of the Provisional Irish Republican Army but also "the Movement" (a black domestic terrorist group). I guess having a climax involving Ryan and company (including the Prince!) fighting a kidnap attempt at his house that sees the authorities round up the remaining terrorists for arrest seemed just a tad much (the earlier movie was mostly faithful despite considerable technical changes). 

Before release, Clancy denounced the changes made from adapting his book to film but seeing a rough cut had him say that there was “some good things in the movie"; on June 5, 1992, the movie came out to considerable box office success, which meant that Noyce and Ford would return for Clear and Present Danger (1994). Whether one has watched The Hunt for Red October or not doesn't really matter much, as one would hope from a film series with a sense of calmness and tension about international affairs (a professor and analyst played by Ford? No sweat). For a 117-minute trip, it generally works out for the best with a useful cast and semi-solid plot foundation. If you didn't know, the character of Jack Ryan in his appeal is the fact that he is an everyman kind of lead focus, an analyst rather than an action hero who only gets involved because his family is involved (the assassination attempt in the beginning of the film happens to occur when Ryan is with his wife and kid, for example). In that sense, Ford (approaching the age of fifty at the time of production) is appropriate here, because he gets to play family man alongside the occasional action beat without seeming hamstrung by boredom, while Archer and Birch make for fair contributors to a solid family triangle. Bean makes a decent adversary to go alongside him, filled with fanatical energy that (intentional or not) overshadows anything done by his adversary partner in Bergin or with Geer. Others are there for cursory moments here and there, whether that involves a young Jackson or Jones returning from the previous 1990 film or Harris, a bewildering choice. The use of technology with survey satellites and heat-sensitive photography when scouting the camp is fairly interesting to see play out among other scenes of "analysis" and thriller parts (the assassination scene along with the rescue of Bean from a van are noteworthy, even if the latter might be privy to realism). Of course, the climax is a bit forced, because the studio had them change the original intended climax of an underwater fight near rocks to what became a boat chase, which is only slightly easier to see when one is fighting someone in a rainstorm. Really it just reminds me that even Thunderball (1965) knew better than to have a boat-fight be in the dark. At any rate, the movie doesn't lose its footing when sticking the general landing, setting the stage for other possible peeks into the Ryan window without begging for anything.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Other Guys.

Review #1707: The Other Guys.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Detective Allen "Gator" Gamble), Mark Wahlberg (Detective Terry Hoitz), Eva Mendes (Dr. Sheila Ramos Gamble), Michael Keaton (Captain Gene Mauch), Steve Coogan (Sir David Ershon), Ray Stevenson (Roger Wesley), Samuel L. Jackson (Detective P.K. Highsmith), Dwayne Johnson (Detective Christopher Danson), Lindsay Sloane (Francine), Natalie Zea (Christinith), Rob Riggle (Detective Evan Martin), Damon Wayans Jr. (Detective Fosse), and Viola Harris (Mama Ramos) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, #693 - Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, #1574 - The Big Short, and #1706 - Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby)

Review: 

Well, if you can make a movie that has fun with the conventions of the sports movie in stock car racing and make it intriguing for the whole family (at least the teenager kind), why not do a buddy cop movie? The idea for the film sprung from a dinner that McKay had with Ferrell and Wahlberg, as McKay noticed the chemistry present between the two that seemed ripe for a project. Of course, with the handful of buddy cop movies present, having it involve white-collar crime probably seems to prove an interesting way to mark it away from other examples (like 48 Hours or even stuff I haven't seen like Hot Fuzz) or seem too much like a copy of something like Law & Order (I joke, but listen carefully to who narrates the film anyway). This is the fourth of fifth collaborations between Ferrell and McKay, and it is the only one with Ferrell not serving as a co-writer (in this case, McKay wrote it with Chris Henchy), although he did provide input on ideas.

As a whole, it certainly has its hits and misses when it comes to landing its gags and moments, but it manages to land enough times for 107 minutes to make a somewhat worthy story about the ordinary (at least, for the police); it rides the clichés out for enough humor to make worthy entertainment, one that doesn't suffer when compared to McKay or Ferrell's other works. McKay certainly has an eye for trying to make each of his films have their own distinct little features that don't keep him pegged as just an improvisational director, and this works to his advantage when it comes to keeping interest on the level for the story at hand without being derailed by distractions. The film rides hard on how one views the chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg. It takes a bit of time for that dynamic to really hit it off, but it eventually gets its footing down with how they click within their differences (namely in their neuroses of manners and temper). While I might be more curious as how it would have been if they had reversed the roles (Ferrell playing a tough guy probably isn't a bigger stretch than Wahlberg playing an accountant), at least it seems like a game collaboration that doesn't seem constrained or forced, and Ferrell rides it out for a quite a few chuckles. Wahlberg adjusts fine to what has to happen with a film that could make either the straight man (depending on the scenario), and it does mean that he draws some laughs that eventually give way to a few action beats that work more to his advantage. Coogan plays things well when it comes to offbeat brashness that serves him well with the climax with Wahlberg & Ferrell, while Stevenson proves just as engaging as the snappy heavy. Mendes does fine, placed with Ferrell for a few little moments that hit okay as the one couple to show that a bunch of cop movies usually dance around. One can't tire of seeing Keaton on the screen, because even him playing a beleaguered captain (with a baseball reference I can appreciate) doesn't mean he can't make it charming to see from bit to bit. I do appreciate the brief moments between Johnson and Jackson, who get to chew on action clichés for a bit that makes for a worthy zinger (namely in trying to jump off more than one can chew). On the action side, the movie certainly does well enough with spacing out its sequences that doesn't delude the senses, and the story generally holds enough water to keep it mostly as a dutiful procedural. The chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg combined with a few supporting presences as a whole make for an engaging experience, one firmly in the middle as a buddy film that doesn't have too many hitches while hitting its overall targets with useful enterprise from folks who certainly know best.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Juice.

Review #1641: Juice.

Cast: 

Omar Epps (Quincy "Q" Powell), Tupac Shakur (Roland Bishop), Khalil Kain (Raheem Porter), Jermaine Hopkins (Eric "Steel" Thurman), Cindy Herron (Yolanda), Vincent Laresca (Radames), Samuel L. Jackson (Trip), George O. Gore II (Brian), Grace Garland (Q's mother), Queen Latifah (Ruffhouse MC), and Victor Campos (Quilez) Directed by Ernest Dickerson.

Review: 

"A lot of the people said that 'Juice' was another 'Boyz N the Hood,' but it wasn't. Just because you have a story dealing with young black males of the same age group doesn't mean you have the same story. The forces that are working in L.A. with the kids are different than the forces at play in Harlem with the kids."

Directors can come from anywhere, so it should not be a surprise to see a cinematographer step right into doing filmmaking on their own. Ernest B. Dickerson had an interest in movies from a young age (such as David Lean's Oliver Twist), but his first line of study was architecture at Howard University. After a row of work in photography, the New Jersey native soon shifted to film study with the Tisch School of the Arts (New York University's film program), and it was through studying with film viewings such as Passing Through that helped shape his desire to take the craft of filmmaking very seriously. One fellow student at the school that he met was Spike Lee. Dickerson would do the cinematography from Lee's student film Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads (1983). Dickerson would move on to shooting a variety of media such as music videos, television, and films (including Lee's first few films as director), but his interest in doing his own films was never away from his mind, and it eventually resulted in his first chance to make his own film, for which this served as his debut. He and Gerard Brown had wrote the script together when at film school in 1984, but it gestated for a couple of years and even went through more than one film studio (The Donners' Company wanted to lighten the tone). Inspired by works such as Claude Brown's Manchild in the Promised Land and films like White Heat (1949), he aspired to make a worthwhile noir with a group of mostly unknown leads.

It certainly fits the mold one might think of with a noir-like film involving trying to earn respect in the streets, even as a growing man. It is the story of people trapped in a situation that warps beyond their control until all that is left is a withered use of what seems like respect. It does so by moving through the routines of a group of four individuals with careful pacing that eventually makes for a powder keg of tension involving the damage caused through one decisive action that creates a web of nightmares that can't be solved by a simple phone call. In short, it makes for a pretty good film that rides the wave of moral greyness with a fair share of terror to go with a useful quartet. Among the quartet, Hopkins had the most acting experience of the group, since he started acting at the age of 13 with Lean on Me (1989), while each of the actors were making their first feature appearance. Epps is the primary key of focus, and it is easy to see why he would garner further roles in future years, because he pulls off a soothing lead performance, one with conflict and persistence that sells the moments required through collected charm - one highlight involves him forging a chance at being a DJ that mixes with the conflict of keeping alliance with his friends, where his moment of pride is followed by the looks on the faces of the quartet into what has to be done. This was the first starring role for Shakur, who proves to be just as magnetic on the other side of the coin. A student of the Baltimore School for the Arts (studying acting, poetry, and ballet), he had started in music with Digital Underground as a roadie and backup dancer and soon after made his impact known on the rap scene in 1991 with the release of his first album. This would be the first of just six films with him in a main role before his death in 1996. One can't take their eyes off him, mostly because he proves quite spontaneous in what you can and cannot see coming from him, menacing but still on one's mind with the soul of a poet in his own way. Kain and Hopkins accompany them with useful charm, never falling into the background because of their dutiful warmth. Others fill the moments in between, such as a caring Herron that pairs with Epps for two scenes, or figures in the grey area like Laresca and Jackson. At any rate, the film does well with its 95 minute run-tie in setting up a mosaic of life within Harlem without being trapped into too many clichés or absorbing itself too much.

Of course not all films can end easily. Upon doing test screenings, the studio insisted upon changing one detail about the ending - the primary moment still happens as it (namely, someone falling off a building), but the nature of the moment was changed by having it resemble an accident (with an added scream) rather than being a calculated move, much to the regret of Dickerson (imagine Paramount Pictures thinking "a measure of hope" was needed to be reflected, as if somehow noirs of the past needed to be a bit more jolly). With a budget of $5 million, the film made four times its budget back, and it is easy to see why. With a fresh cast that makes the most of their gun morality tale, Juice makes for a fine time to sit through in curiosity for what it wants to say about respect and youth that proves worthy nearly three decades later.

A side note. I do apologize for the delay these past five days. Honestly, the cold rush didn't look as bad on Friday compared to the days that would come next...particularly Sunday night, as I was hoping to avoid a power outage at all costs. My thoughts go out to folks affected by the winter storm across my state of Texas alongside all the folks affected across the nation, since no one should be dealing with a lack of power at a time like this. In any case, I am going to make sure these next few reviews are pushed out with care and hopefully without a hitch. 

Next Time - A basket case of stars that really could've inhabited two movies. In any case, it's time to swing around with Boomerang.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Jackie Brown.

Review #1307: Jackie Brown.

Cast: 
Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Samuel L. Jackson (Ordell Robbie), Robert Forster (Max Cherry), Bridget Fonda (Melanie Ralston), Michael Keaton (Ray Nicolette), Robert De Niro (Louis Gara), Michael Bowen (Det. Mark Dargus), Chris Tucker (Beaumont Livingston), LisaGay Hamilton (Sheronda), Tom "Tiny" Lister Jr (Winston), Hattie Winston (Simone), and Sid Haig (Judge) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, and #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)

Review: 
For a crime film, a well-detailed story can go a long way to make an experience worth remembering. Quentin Tarantino certainly had plenty of films to showcase interesting people and the environments they inhabit, and Jackie Brown proves no different, showing plenty of wit and charm through a 154 minute leisure that has a solid cast and pretty good execution that leaves one fairly satisfied. This happens to be the only Tarantino film where he adapted a previous work, with the source material being Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard (which Tarantino did over adapting Freaky Deaky or Killshot after re-reading), for which there were a few changes made involving its title character alongside her race that Leonard approved of, reportedly saying that this was the best screenplay he had ever read. For his third directorial effort, Tarantino uses a little less violence and a bit more chronology when it comes to telling his story, which works pretty well within some casual confines, featuring six distinct players in something reminiscent of blaxploitation films (having Grier helps in that regard) without losing itself too much in clear style. The main group of actors do pretty well in that regard, starting with its main lead. Grier, already a trail blazer for female action heroes in the 1970s, proves just as capable in sinking her teeth into a towering presence, capable of holding her own with whoever is on screen without even having to use a gun all too much. Jackson exudes ruthless confidence to a tee here, capable of sticking any kind of line involving unseemly things (such as trying to get someone in a trunk as a favor) without too much reluctance. Forster seems completely in his element here, a world weary straight-laced player with complete professionalism and subtle chemistry with Grier that makes for a well-deserved comeback for the character actor that ended up with an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor - the film's only Oscar nomination. Fonda and De Niro also provide welcome players, casual and raw for the moments that need to happen, which all comes full circle with the parking lot sequence in terms of emotion and payoff (sometimes you just need to see it all play out to make it really count). Keaton doesn't have as much time, but it sure is nice to see him and the rest of the supporting cast in those little moments to surround the environment of the plot. It has its choices when it comes to music or homages, doing so with careful ambition that extends to a plot that plays by the book in gathering these characters to the moments that matter without shortchanging them with cheap gags or rushes. The film has its amusing moments, but it knows when to drive itself with sharp senses of focus with characters who all seem to have been around the block a few times and seem weary for it. It's a nice movie that drags itself with daring regard for plenty to see with its characters and its sudden turns that make it all feel worth it. Sure, it isn't his best film, but it does prove a worthy one to view once if not twice to see how the run plays out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: Far From Home.

Review #1243: Spider-Man: Far From Home.

Cast: 
Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Jake Gyllenhaal (Quentin Beck / Mysterio), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Zendaya (MJ), Jacob Batalon (Ned Leeds), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Angourie Rice (Betty Brant), Remy Hii (Brad Davis), Martin Starr (Mr. Harrington), J.B. Smoove (Mr. Dell), Jorge Lendeborg Jr (Jason Ionello), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), and Numan Acar (Dimitri) Directed by Jon Watts (#966 - Spider-Man: Homecoming)

Review: 
In eleven years of Marvel comic book films, there has been a healthy stream of elevating heroes onto screen, familiar and not-so familiar that has certainly made its impact onto entertainment, for what its worth. I've enjoyed most of the twenty-three films just fine, although it certainly can prove tiring to go through yet another one of these kind of films this year, particularly after Avengers: Endgame. Being the film after such a big narrative event (for these films, anyway) is a tough task, with this feeling like an epilogue and a new beginning that justifies continuance without being a gasp for doing the same thing over and over again, having the same director and two of the co-writers of the last one (Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers) back in the saddle. I went into this with mild expectation, having been shaped by the good quality of the earlier film (alongside Sony's attempt at making a Spider-Man with Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse last year, which ruled) and such. I found it to be an adequate sequel that keeps the boat steady with its narrative while having a few charming moments and fanning the flame of interest for further stories with Holland shining at the helm.

What better way to make a film with a bunch of sights in Europe that happens to be interrupted by a superhero movie, which can surely help shake up the familiar dynamics seen in these kind of movies (or more specifically, this century, which now has had eight Spider-Man films released) without being completely out of its element. Holland works to his level with reasoned charm, capable of getting a laugh but also capable at keeping interest with the web-slinging hero for zippy effects scenes (sorry, action scenes) and moments besides that. With worse hands, it can prove hard to make a villain worth following up for a comic sequel. I enjoyed the previous film's adversary just fine, so I wondered exactly how they would do with an illusionist con-man character like this. I must admit, the idea of someone trying to forge success in life with a bunch of tricks can make for an interesting motivation in the big picture. Gyllenhaal lives up well to such standards, balancing charisma under said facade with relative ease, and he makes for a fine theatric when its needs him to do so for its second half. Jackson gets a few moments to shine as well, mostly when interacting with exposition or getting a snappy remark on occasion that makes him nice to show up as this character again. Tomei and Favreau both do fine, even if their respective time to shine is spread out a bit thin. Zendaya does well once again, having capable charm and chemistry with Holland when the moment requires it. Batalon and the others do their part without hesitation or interrupting the film's flow for the most part.

It's a summer flick that has some well-done action and a fairly decent story to go alongside things that will work out for the moment needed with not too many bumps in the road. Honestly, the only thing that got me was the way it dumped its villainous plot into gear through a toast, of all things, although at least the climax makes up for it just fine. Its 129 minute run-time tops out just fine, and it will surely prove a charmer for entertainment while keeping the door open for more with these folks in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.

Redux Review #144: Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.

Cast: 
Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi), Natalie Portman (Senator Padmé Amidala), Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker), Ian McDiarmid (Supreme Chancellor Palpatine), Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu), Frank Oz (Yoda), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Christopher Lee (Count Dooku / Darth Tyranus), Jimmy Smits (Senator Bail Organa), Matthew Wood (General Grievous), Silas Carson (Ki-Adi-Mundi / Nute Gunray), Temuera Morrison (Commander Cody), and Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca) Written and Directed by George Lucas (#113 - Star Wars, #141 - American Graffiti, #142 - Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, and #143 - Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones)

Review: 
Countdown to 150 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...
At last, the end. The best of the bunch of prequels gets what I hope to live up to with the standard review, especially a redux - even if is more a blend of praise and slight criticism this time around. Enjoy.

Admittedly, finishing a trilogy can prove daunting, particularly when it is the culmination of a saga of a character as memorable as Darth Vader. This time around, there actually seems to be a real emphasis on making a tragedy alongside being entertainment. There are plenty of spectacle sequences along with a bit of depth - while also still having things to make light of. It isn't as inconsistent as the other two films, managing to find a heart of darkness that does seem to make this trilogy mostly worth it. For one thing, I actually seemed interested to view Anakin on screen beyond just lightsaber dueling. Sure, he always seemed to have problems with impulsiveness, anger issues, jealousy - and occasional lapses into ridiculous line reads. Christensen still struggles at times with the clunkier aspects of the dialogue at times - such as when he nonchalantly says to his wife that she'll die in childbirth. He shines best when conversing with McGregor or McDiarmid more so than Portman, who mostly is around just to linger in one set at a time without as much to really do. Their chemistry together isn't really too great, middling above teenage lyric posts on the Internet. McGregor proves efficient as ever, filling the noble roots set by Alec Guinness and completing the circle with charm. McDiarmid takes his time to go the ham of an actor on stage set by himself with Return of the Jedi (1983) - and I enjoy it just the same. Instead of being a phantom menace (pardon the pun) to the events around him, now he gets to be involved with actual fights, complete with snarls and cackles. Jackson gets something to do (and say), which I do enjoy when it comes to the film's key point for its first hour. Oz keeps the interest flowing as expected. Naturally, Lee is given four lines, disposed as quickly as expected from a trilogy that likes to jump from adversary to adversary before allowing its true puppet master to try and shine through. I would say that it might have been more interesting to have one villain throughout a whole trilogy before being disposed of (ignoring any sort of middle ground television show, of course) - but we're past that point of complaints, I guess. Smits is fairly serviceable; Wood is okay as a mediocre threat, which is quite the thing to say about a cyborg with four arms. Once the film disposes with the pretense of trying to build paper threats and actually showcases the true threat and Anakin's descent is when the film really does become an actual winner, complete with a worthy climax to alongside it.

I had forgotten to mention John Williams and his music score throughout these films, which it goes without saying are pretty well, but it really does shine here with the mood and pacing throughout the movie here, such as the aforementioned climax but also subtle moments such as the rumination sequence, where it carries a 90-second moment that shows off on a visual level with effective choice in composition. It isn't a perfect film by any means. It still meanders with wooden dialogue on occasion, while also feeling a bit too ridiculous with its justifications for Padme's fate (losing the will to live being a thing only a robot doctor would assume, I guess), but at least there is an actual sense of adventure present without being completely lost in a virtual screen. Sure, it does try to be a bit tidy with its ending, trying to seal things up with plenty of connections to before (much in the same vein that the other two had done), which does seem a bit overboard - but at least it sure has a well-done last shot to close on. Revenge of the Sith strives for a glut of action and story in a 140 minute run-time with plenty of drive and spectacle, managing to succeed on the last go on the prequel merry-go-round with very little in terms of hitches to interrupt the ride.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones.

Redux Review #143: Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones.

Cast: 
Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi), Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker), Natalie Portman (Senator Padmé Amidala), Ian McDiarmid (Chancellor Palpatine), Christopher Lee (Count Dooku / Darth Tyranus), Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu), Temuera Morrison (Jango Fett), Frank Oz (Yoda), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Daniel Logan (Boba Fett), Leeanna Walsman (Zam Wesell), Silas Carson (Nute Gunray and Ki-Adi-Mundi), Ahmed Best (Delegate Jar Jar Binks), and Jimmy Smits (Bail Organa) Directed by George Lucas (#113 - Star Wars, #141 - American Graffiti, and #142 - Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace)

Review: 
Countdown to 150 Reviews, 10, 9, 8, 7...
As promised, a redux of the second prequel film. I described it as better than the first film, but not by much, and not much really does change, does it? At least these are reviews I can feel proud of, which I hope you enjoy.

These films, if distilled into a basic premise of the portrayal of the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker, from adolescence to adulthood, could have made for some weird and wonderful tragic drama. The first film proved that trying to cover details from the past mixed with ill-advised story choices made for a film that collapsed under its own weight of hubris and anticipation from others. The only thing that changes this time around is that the anticipation is more of a dead calm, and the film manages to find time for improvement at the pace of a snail. While Lucas once again served as director and writer, Jonathan Hales was brought in to help co-write for the film, refining the script until right before production was to begin. The dialogue can't quite help the actors out again, a villain is introduced and wasted once again, and story motivations seem more appropriate for an opening film than a middle movie. You really could skip the previous movie and not really lose too much grip on the story, since you could basically sum up key events in one line or less. As I mentioned earlier, having to switch actors for your main character doesn't help matters, especially since the dynamic between McGregor and Christensen only really comes into focus on occasion. In trying to make a grander, more epic scale Star Wars with plenty of plot-lines, Lucas has succeeded in making two mediocre movies to drive his trilogy, finally finding some sense of focus by the time of its climax, with its Clone Wars aspect.

The film builds itself on the blooming relationship dynamic between Christensen and Portman's characters, having the passion of lines spoke by a computer program. A film romance works best when it actually seems the actors are truly invested in what the script wants them to say. The previous trilogy had a romance that was subtle without being overbearing in the slightest. Lucas wanted something more than just a scoundrel and a princess - a forbidden romance with a Jedi involved. Again, this works best when I actually feel that these actors really seem invested in what they want to do, and it slowly rises from slightly weird to slightly palpable, but that isn't enough in a film that plods along for 142 minutes. The acting still plays hit-and-miss, but McGregor and McDiarmid do turn out to be the key winners of the bunch, the former seeming much more interesting to be around with this time around - whether when bantering with Christensen like an odd couple or in battle, and the latter being as conniving as ever. Christensen doesn't fare too well with such a big role to fill as the eventual Darth Vader, feeling a bit too flat and occasionally grating, falling into the same trap as Lloyd had with being stuck with offbeat lines that make a shadow of a character. Portman is okay, but not too particularly inspired as the other side of the token, faring a bit better when running onto an action set than on some grass trying to talk about politics. Highlights include complaints about sand, attempts at humor that go hit-and-miss, and eventual action sequences on dusty planets that can't help but be like cutscenes once again. Lee is criminally wasted as the main adversary behind the true power, a character cut from bare cloth that isn't too particularly menacing, even with a legend like Lee. The fight with him and Yoda is amusing to picture and weirder to try and describe, since it's a CGI muppet against a mix of Lee (then in his late seventies) and a stunt double. Morrison is quiet, but alright for the necessary time needed. Jackson and Oz are given a few lines to carry, so that's a nice repeat of before I guess. The action sequences here doesn't seem as involving as one would hope, and the political drama is only slightly less pale this time around. The question isn't so much if this is a better film than the previous one as is it really a question of how it took so long to drive the story to some sort of meaningfulness. Lost in a shroud of effects, flashy costumes, and questionable motivations, Attack of the Clones is a mediocre sequel to a mediocre movie that is made lesser by comparisons of past and future of Star Wars films. I wasn't exactly bored by what I saw - I just felt much of the same mood that I did the last time.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Pulp Fiction.

Review #1218: Pulp Fiction.

Cast: 
John Travolta (Vincent Vega), Samuel L. Jackson (Jules Winnfield), Uma Thurman (Mia Wallace), Harvey Keitel (Winston Wolfe), Tim Roth (Ringo/"Pumpkin"), Amanda Plummer (Yolanda/"Honey Bunny"), Maria de Medeiros (Fabienne), Ving Rhames (Marsellus Wallace), Eric Stoltz (Lance), Rosanna Arquette (Jody), Christopher Walken (Captain Koons), Bruce Willis (Butch Coolidge), Bronagh Gallagher (Trudi) Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, and #1180 - Reservoir Dogs)

Review: 
It isn't hard to say that this is a wonderful film. 25 years since its release, Pulp Fiction is a wonderful exercise in film-making and storytelling, managing to be entertaining from start to finish with the stories and characters weaved through the story work of Tarantino and Roger Avary. It has its share of violence and vulgarity, but it is a fun kind of movie that also has its share of humor and people that roll with what is going on that seem like it is culled from an older time without choking on its own homages and references. In an interview talking about inspiration for the idea in the film, Tarantino stated that these were "...ones you’ve seen a zillion times—the boxer who’s supposed to throw a fight and doesn’t, the Mob guy who’s supposed to take the boss’s wife out for the evening, the two hit men who come and kill these guys.” Tarantino knows where to go with his movie in part because of his love for them, knowing the best way to go isn't so much a straight line but a circle. This love is pretty apparent with the scene in the restaurant, having people dressed up as film stars and others and having plenty of posters around (such as Attack of the 50 Foot Woman). Travolta and Jackson shine brightest whenever on screen, eliciting plenty of interest and chuckles when in conversation, such as when talking about the way they survived as a sort of miracle or about Royales with cheese. Travolta in particular is wonderful, casual yet inviting - highlighted when he dances with Thurman, for example. Jackson isn't hard to forget, however, and it's the closing sequence involving him trying to make a way out of his current path and onto something else that makes the whole film complete, selling the whole exchange with Roth without hesitation. Thurman plays well with her gun moll type character, having plenty of spry charm with her time on screen. Keitel is efficient in his brief time on screen, controlling the room with intimidation that fits just right for his scene. Roth and Plummer are quite effective with their roles when needed. Rhames does quite well with his role, rough and compelling even when just shown with just the back of his head. Walken has one scene in the film, but he sure makes it one worth viewing, telling his story without fail. Willis plays a familiar character type with raw charm and effectiveness one would expect from him without having to say too much. With a run-time of 154 minutes, it never proves to be overlong or plodding in one story too much without purpose. Even when it makes references, it never feels like it is being done just because one could, and there's plenty of depth to go around. It is quite the accomplishment for a film made on a budget of $8 million and a quality cast to go with it. At the Academy Awards ceremony months after release, the film recieved plenty of nominations to go around, three of them for its leads alongside Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture. While the film lost in six of its categories (most notably losing to Forest Gump for the latter category), Tarantino and Avary received an Oscar for their screenplay, which is certainly well warranted by the film's result - a modern masterpiece for the ages. You could highlight at least five scenes to show someone how the film is and still wonder if you could add another to say how much fun it can be.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Captain Marvel.

Review #1200: Captain Marvel.

Cast: 
Brie Larson (Carol Danvers / Vers / Captain Marvel), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Ben Mendelsohn (Talos / Keller), Djimon Hounsou (Korath), Lee Pace (Ronan the Accuser), Lashana Lynch (Maria Rambeau), Gemma Chan (Minn-Erva), Annette Bening (Supreme Intelligence / Mar-Vell / Dr. Wendy Lawson), Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson), and Jude Law (Yon-Rogg) Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck.

Review: 
There have now been 21 films produced by Marvel Studios that is part of their cinematic universe, for which they have managed to set stages for the rise of numerous heroes for the past decade. Just as the era seems to possibly reach its peak with the final Avengers film comes another hero to join the fray, barely a month before said release. The film has certainly taken its time to get to the finish line, moving from an initial script done in 2013 to eventually enlisting a director/writer duo in Fleck and Boden in 2017, who had previously done films such as Mississippi Grind (2015) along with work on television programs. How many times can one make a superhero origin movie full of effects and action held together through a formula that seems as familiar as ever? I find myself liking these type of films just fine, but there is likely a point where the product doesn't resonate as entertainment, and it will likely be when the story and themes can't be held up from its main hero, when one just doesn't care about the stakes. I don't usually re-watch films often, and I can't particularly say that I really go back to these comic book films too much either (regardless of what brand is behind it). Perhaps it would be best to say that while I did find the film to be just fine, I would hope that a future installment manages to give its lead character a bit more conflict, particularly with its main threat.

Granted, there is plenty of galactic action to go around, but it doesn't have as many compelling levels as it probably should. There isn't a bad performance in the bunch, with Larson, Jackson, and Mendelsohn being keys to giving the film a steady balance. Larson does seem at first to be like a blank slate to fill details in gradually, which goes okay. As is the case with most heroes, it is nice to see her put a suit on and beat some enemies, even if the story that surrounds her is just alright for the course. It is nice to see Jackson (albeit with some digitally de-ageing that takes some time to get used to) deliver some enjoyment and a few laughs in a part that feels just fine for a buddy cop movie. Mendelsohn is also fairly amusing to stick around with, particularly when in his human disguise. The other members of the cast are okay, although they don't feel too particularly developed with much to do, such as Law or Bening. At least the 90s references are amusing without being obnoxiously self-aware. Comparing the film to more recent films of its ilk (such as Wonder Woman or Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, for example) does tend to make the film seem a bit average. It is surprising to see how many films can persist on in showing people with their newly found heroic powers and the responsibility that comes with it - some do better with showing conflict and adventure than others. The film takes its 124 minute run-time and runs just fine with showing spectacle while trying to make sure its story has a few connections for its audiences without gasping for relevance, which delivers decent results. It may not be unique with its motivations (or its character types), but it sure pushes itself amiably. This one will check the boxes for people already in line for these kind of movies, and while it may not be as interesting as it could have been (in terms of its story and pace), it is at least something you can take without many regrets.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Glass (2019).

Review #1184: Glass.

Cast: 
James McAvoy (Kevin Wendell Crumb / The Horde), Bruce Willis (David Dunn / The Overseer), Samuel L. Jackson (Elijah Price / Mr. Glass), Sarah Paulson (Dr. Ellie Staple), Anya Taylor-Joy (Casey Cooke), Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn), Charlayne Woodard (Mrs. Price), Adam David Thompson (Daryl), and Luke Kirby (Pierce) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense, #902 - Split, and #1183 - Unbreakable)

Review: 
There is a certain absurdity to the fact that this film exists, acting as a sequel to two different movies while being the final part of a trilogy labeled by some as the "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" that are fairly different from each other in tone from film to film. Unbreakable (2000) was a mystery kind of thiller, Split (2016) was a horror thriller, and this film certainly feels like a psychological thriller. I suppose the tradition must follow that the last installment is the one that helps deliver satisfaction and/or answers to its audience that makes it stick out from the previous ones. Well, there are certainly answers given in this film...along with more questions. What can one expect from something that resembles One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) for comic books? It is the kind of movie that clearly has ambition to inspire discussion and interest over a variety of things (specifically within human nature) while trying to play with the expectations of the audience within the script, which ultimately plays into a flawed but interesting result. It definitely feels like the weakest of the three films, but I did find something worth watching, even if it perhaps took a bit longer than it should have, particularly with something that lasts 129 minutes. There are clear highlights on a technical level such as Mike Gioulakis and his cinematography (which certainly shows off a variety of colors) and West Dylan Thordson with the music, and Shyamalan does manage to make something worth inspiring curiosity in, even if he can't quite resist trying to trick the audience perhaps one too many times with twists.

In the long run, the film rests on the shoulders of McAvoy, who is the shining light among the others, managing to once again showcase the numerous personalities of the character he plays with effectiveness and no touch of tiresomeness. He inspires his share of terror and humor while keeping the movie rolling, and his scenes with Jackson or Willis are an enjoyment. If you thought that Willis was bit too subdued before with Unbreakable, then I suppose you will have quite the experience in seeing how subdued he is here, since he doesn't have as much presence (or lines) to speak of, although at least the climax does give him something to do. Jackson finds his footing and voice gradually, and it is interesting to see him to try and pull the strings as a take on the brilliant mastermind that works fairly well. The others don't have as much strength to their presence or as much interest. It is the character (and narrative) that Paulson plays that don't stir as much enthusiasm, since I am more interested to see her consequence for the idea that one can simply lock up super beings (the cliche of believing they can't escape is even present here) than what makes her tick. The returning three characters from the previous parts of the series are okay in the small amount of time they have. It is nice to see Clark return to reprise a role from nineteen years ago, but he doesn't really have too much to do before the last half. Taylor-Joy is fine, but the dynamic between her and McAvoy takes some time to get used to again, and the last scene is a bit of a weird sell. Woodard is alright in her small role. Honestly, this is an okay movie, but it is certainly one that require patience and some understanding to really help get a foothold on its thought process, one that likes to deconstruct the tropes of the hero and villain, which has its share of potential. It just so happens that the twists that occur within said narrative that make the true payoff a bit muddled but also one to give thought to. If one is expecting a big showdown for a climax, they won't get exactly what they may expect - but they may instead get something a bit more interesting if not offbeat. Time will tell what will occur to the reputation of this film as a whole - after all, the first film managed to develop a cult following over time. I can't say it is as consistent or as entertaining as the other two films, but this film does at least serve its purpose for a trilogy about super beings without serving as a letdown.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Unbreakable.

Review #1183: Unbreakable.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (David Dunn), Samuel L. Jackson (Elijah Price/Mr. Glass), Robin Wright (Audrey Dunn), Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn), Charlayne Woodard (Mrs. Price), Eamonn Walker (Dr. Mathison), Leslie Stefanson (Kelly), Michaelia Carroll (Babysitter), Whitney Sugarman (Physical Therapist), Bostin Christopher (Comic Book Clerk), Elizabeth Lawrence (School Nurse), and Chance Kelly (Orange Suit Man) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense and #902 - Split)

Review: 
What would the world be like if a super human suddenly existed? Unbreakable (the fourth film directed and written by Shyamalan) puts forth the possibilities of what could happen through its own take on the superhero origin story that has stood out in the years following its release. When it was released in November of 2000, films involving superheroes (with their respective origins) were not as vast as they are today, particularly one like this that takes itself seriously as a mystery thriller and make it work for the most part while having its parallels to the three-part structure of a comic book story.

Undeniably, it is the performances from Willis and Jackson that really dominate the film, whether when by themselves or when they act against each other. Willis delivers a subtle performance, being easy to follow along with his pursuit of meaning without needing to make a quip or feeling bland. On the other side of the coin, Jackson does well with his performance with a good degree of subdued nature that is interesting to watch. One particular favorite scene of mine involves him arguing with a customer wanting to buy a comic book drawing for his 4-year old son, as one can see his point (in some way) about being insulted at the idea that his collection is like a toy store in his delivery of said lines. Clark is certainly one to take time to get used to, but he does a fine job with acting opposite Willis as an on-screen son that drives the points for the film home handily. This can be applied to Wright as well, who shows off a human element for her parts on screen.

The movie doesn't rely on action to drive its point home, relying on music from James Newton Howard and cinematography by Eduardo Serra to carry a mood of suspense, with only one fight sequence occurring near the end, which is quiet but effective in its own way. Admittedly, the part that doesn't stand quite well as the other aspects of the film is the nature of the ending. I find that the twist is fairly clever and that it likely works just as well upon a re-watch, but it is the sudden nature of the ending (complete with a title card) that makes the execution feel a bit abrupt. The best thing that can be said is that at least the problem isn't that there needed to be a big grand climax to make this tale more interesting, since the movie works just fine without needing too many effects. With the entertainment that the film delivers, it is no wonder that the film eventually received a follow-up, although not certainly in the way one expected. Although the film was a moderate success that made back three times its $75 million budget, no direct sequels followed for over a decade. Sixteen years later, Split snuck into theaters as a psychological horror thriller through the eyes of a super-villain (who had a presence in early drafts for this film before being dropped) with a subtle connection to this film that eventually resulted in a sequel (and the third part of what is considered a trilogy) named Glass (2019). In any case, this is a rewarding movie with an interesting story and characters that is light on spectacle but filled with perspective on the human element for a superhero tale.

Next Review: Glass (2019).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Incredibles 2.

Review #1097: Incredibles 2.

Cast: 
Craig T. Nelson (Bob Parr / Mr. Incredible), Holly Hunter (Helen Parr / Elastigirl), Sarah Vowell (Violet Parr), Huck Milner (Dashiell "Dash" Parr), Eli Fucile (Jack-Jack), Samuel L. Jackson (Lucius Best / Frozone), Bob Odenkirk (Winston Deavor), Catherine Keener (Evelyn Deavor), Brad Bird (Edna Mode), Jonathan Banks (Rick Dicker), Sophia Bush (Karen / Voyd), Phil LaMarr (Krushauer and Helectrix), Isabella Rossellini (The Ambassador), John Ratzenberger (The Underminer), and Bill Wise (Screenslaver / Pizza Guy) Directed by Brad Bird (#083 - The Iron Giant, #128 - Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, #153 - The Incredibles, and #158 - Ratatouille)

Review: 
I figured that the best way to get myself prepared for a sequel after 14 years of waiting was to re-watch the original Incredibles film, and it was a refreshing choice to do so since I have fond memories of how entertaining it was. Naturally, it still held up well as as entertaining superhero film that doubled as a family movie with the styling of a retro age in terms of its heroes and spy elements that is best suited for its cast and makers that I find myself adoring each time I watch it. With the decision to follow up directly from the first movie (complete with a sequence teased at the end of the other one, drawn out to its conclusion here), this is a sequel that undoubtedly relies on nostalgia in more ways than one, but it also has enough heart and care in making a quality piece of entertainment that ultimately succeeds. It isn't as exceptional as the original, but there are enough pieces in its 118 minute run-time that fit correctly.

The family dynamic isn't lost here with the main group of five (baby included, naturally), with the group of Nelson-Hunter-Vowell-Milner-Fucile proving to be adept at having their own moments to shine, the first two especially. The structure is flipped a bit on its head from the previous one, but Nelson handles it fairly well, having some amusing moments while also still having the strong spirit that made him easily watchable all those years ago without resorting to cliches. Hunter also does a fine job in elevating her role and making her character feel fresh and interesting to follow throughout most stretches of the film. Vowell and Milner aren't as prominent, but they do manage to contribute with making their plot-lines resonate well enough to what the film wants, for the most part. The parts involving Fucile and the baby are pretty amusing and interesting to watch play out without being typical fare resorting to playing down to the audience. Make no mistake, this is a movie for any type of audience, and it is nice to see that it is a film that doesn't pander to anyone - whether to kids or adults, which the original also shone well at. It manages to rise above being just a "greatest hits" kind of sequel to something different nature.

Other returning members such as Jackson and Bird are nice to see again for their time on screen, having a few laughs that work out fine. Odenkirk and Keener round out as the most important of the new additions to the cast. With Odenkirk, he does a fine job with his character, capturing an earnest yet endearing spirit that is charming if not amusing at times. It reminds me of how the first film also had its own variation of the fanboy with regard to superheroes, and while they certainly have key differences, it is nice to see where the films have their divergences. Keener is okay, showing her differences in her style of her interaction with the plot and the heroes (in contrast to her brother), even if she sometimes feels like she falls into the background at times (which you could say about others, too however). There are a few heroes introduced here that share some time on screen, particularly around the climax, with Bush coming out the best in being pretty interesting in sticking out. Admittedly, the weakest part of the movie is the villain, although it isn't for lack of trying. The Screenslaver is sometimes interesting to see on screen (although some will likely have trouble with the flashing lights that encompass the movie at times), and there are some relevant points that come along with dealing with the nature of society and its role with what superheroes mean to that world. However, I feel that it falls a bit short (and for some a bit predictable) with where it ultimately goes, and while the basic nature of the villain can work, I just don't think it really worked as well as it probably could have. It's hard to say how that it could've worked better without spoiling the fun, but I'll just say that it is a bit hard to follow up a threat as interesting as the original film's villain was without falling prey to comparisons, as one would probably expect. While I can't say that the adversary is great, I can see why the choice was made to do so and at least see some of the motivations for said villain.

The animation and style is beautiful to look at once again, and there are enough jokes and riveting action sequences to make this good entertainment. It never gets to a point where things are too bright or dark or glossy, and there a few touches that will certainly check well with people. What we have here is a movie that manages to deliver in the right places in its characters, action, and story to be a welcome piece of entertainment for audiences in any kind of year beyond summer. In a sea of sequels over the past few years, this one manages to stick itself just fine, especially for animation standards. Maybe there will be another one, maybe not, but at the very least it is nice to say that there is more than one movie involving this interesting family of heroes. It may not be purely incredible, but it is purely worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.