Her.

Review #1566: Her.

Cast:

Joaquin Phoenix (Theodore Twombly), Scarlett Johansson (Samantha), Amy Adams (Amy), Rooney Mara (Catherine Klausen), Olivia Wilde (Blind Date), Chris Pratt (Paul), Matt Letscher (Charles), and Luka Jones (Mark Lewman) Directed by Spike Jonze (#1308 - Being John Malkovich and #1533 - Adaptation)

Review:

“There’s definitely ways that technology brings us closer and ways that it makes us further apart — and that’s not what this movie is about. It really was about the way we relate to each other and long to connect: our inabilities to connect, fears of intimacy, all the stuff you bring up with any other human being.”

If you make four feature films in the span of fourteen years, one can only yearn to have the breadth of curiosity and interest generated by the ones done by Spike Jonze. Filmmaker in features, short films, music videos, this is the fourth feature film (and most current as of 2020) for the director that are interesting for their distinct features in terms of genre that nevertheless verge on the point of yearning to connect with something or someone. Jonze was inspired to do the script in part on the experiences that he had briefly involving a website where one could exchange messages with an artificial intelligence program - and he wanted to capture the excitement of that moment of interaction between person and AI that he wanted to see play out longer than a few minutes. To me, it reminds me of Cleverbot, which I remember getting a brief kick out of having a "conversation" with a program that relies on human input to do said speech (of course one could also just find familiarity with Siri, but one does not engage in references to Apple). In any case, what could be a starting point for some sort of farce or something strange with AI on the loose is actually a film not about the technology but instead about the connections we have and don't have in the modern sense.

What we have is a film about what it means to have romance in an age of technological differences that make it clear about just how one can square a romance up into a neat little package ready for delivery. In other words, finding something to appreciate and care for is one thing, finding someone to connect with and find a place in is another. Love can be passionate, fleeting, star-crossed, or all the other words to draw upon when making their own love story for film. None could have gone as strangely or as off-kilter as this could have been, and none prove as interesting to see play out in most of its execution as this film does. It isn't exactly the best feature that Jonze has made, but it certainly proves a worthy curiosity for what it sets out to do with its lived-in look and color scheme that creates an intriguing challenge for its main star and voice to prove worthwhile without being a weird duck. If one can find themselves making pen-pals with people miles away from them or find friends on the Internet in certain communities, I can see where you can go with a virtual assistant that can either just be an organizer of your stuff or have it grow into something more. 2013 and 2020 are more than just years to say in a sentence when it comes to connectivity versus what really goes on in the little hole we make for ourself and hopefully for others, perhaps now more than ever, where numbness could almost be thought of as fashion sense. With all of that in mind, Phoenix is exactly the one to make this come across with the instinct and integrity required here, one that is meshed in clay of numbness that grows upon a path with romance that we do at least see some sort of connection to - loving the voice from a box is more than that when you share a smile that isn't a pained movement. Johansson was brought in to replace Samantha Morton (who Jonze liked, but he felt that the film needed someone different) - she does what is needed in terms of running the vocal gamut that is quite caring and useful in carrying the film in gentle marvel without having to even bat an eye. Others contribute to the other degree of varying connectivity, whether that means a sparkful Adams or an honest Mara (when compared to what we view and then hear of her) and brief interludes with television presence Wilde and Pratt. What we have here is a film structured on what we see and believe when it comes to feelings that can be consuming just as quickly as they seem fleeting, and there really are no easy answers beyond trying to keep growing and not become stuck with all the other voices of other lost souls. With a 126 minute run-time, it surely makes for an interesting original work that will leave the viewer by its ending with a chance to go out and find their own place to sit upon and connect the dots for themselves.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Adaptation.

Review #1533: Adaptation.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Charlie Kaufman / Donald Kaufman), Meryl Streep (Susan Orlean), Chris Cooper (John Laroche), Cara Seymour (Amelia Kavan), Brian Cox (Robert McKee), Tilda Swinton (Valerie Thomas), Ron Livingston (Marty Bowen), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Caroline Cunningham), Judy Greer (Alice), Bob Yerkes (Charles Darwin), Jim Beaver (Ranger Tony), and Litefoot (Russell) Directed by Spike Jonze (#1308 - Being John Malkovich)

Review: 
It begins with a customary quote from someone involved with the film, since Robert had felt was a fun way to differentiate reviews from 2019 to now, with this one being from Charlie Kaufman.

"I really thought I was ending my career by turning that in!"

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT
Robert sits on his couch, appalled at what he tries to write on his laptop, working at 7am like usual on yet another display of adapting words of thought of someone else's work of brilliance. He looks at his screen and some basic data about what he saw, his eyes begging to be shut for some sleep rather than yet another nap built to cheat himself until the next time. He wonders about how to start a review about a film about writer's block and originality while acknowledging the sheer talent of its cast without seeming repetitive after over 200 reviews in a year, wanting to also acknowledge the accomplishment of a writer that solved his problem by simply putting themselves into what they wrote. Perhaps he should take up making pizzas. He takes a left and then a right with his fingers as he starts typing.

It never hurts to talk about actors, particularly one involving a talented award-winning trio of actors for a film packed with such originality and talent within a main trio of actors. One can make whole paragraphs about Cage and his self-described "Nouveau Shamanic" style of acting that has made him an object of curiosity since Valley Girl (1983) with his style of mega acting. That might be enough for a film, but Meryl Streep elevates it further, since she has made a career of versatility and range since her start in theater in 1975 that evolved to television and film with productions such as The Deer Hunter (1978), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), and Sophie's Choice (1982). The third and final key to the puzzle is in Cooper, who actually took up acting after initially doing theater for set design as a way to overcome shyness and subsequently worked for years in theater an construction before shuffling the ranks to supporting roles with Matewan (1987). The Orchid Thief began originally as an article that Susan Orlean wrote for The New Yorker (published on January 16, 1995) that detailed John Laroche's efforts to poach orchids (looking for the rare ghost orchid) in a Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve with a group of Seminoles, having believed to have found a loophole in studying Indian law with the case of Chief James E. Billie, which the film mentions as having avoided conviction for hunting an endangered species of panther. Writer Charlie Kaufman was tasked to write a screenplay adaptation of the subsequent 1998 book The Orchid Thief. However, he suffered through a lack of ideas in making a film out of it (since it wasn't particularly suited for a basic film, which is why executives had approached Jonze to direct an "unfilmable" book), so Kaufman decided to use his frustrations into making an exaggerated script with a fictional twin brother, and Columbia Pictures found it fairly suitable enough to make a film of (with filming starting in 2001). Orlean, when approached about the screenplay, was not exactly supportive of what she read, but she did not get in the way of allowing the film to move forward; Orlean found that it turned out to be "very true to the book's themes of life and obsession."

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT, HOURS LATER
Now the writer is pleased and can go on with his night, confused over the fact that his cluttered table seems rearranged and his computer tabs seem smaller for 6am. He motions to acknowledge the real meat of what is meant to be writing and not words on a screen before he decides to take a nap instead. He struggles to wonder what the true difference between a 10-star film and a 9-star film in terms of "really good" and "great" without automatically tracing back to what was thought of either category. 

What we have here is a fairly playful film, one that writes the book on what it means to adapt and persist within a sense of longing and disappointment that come from trying to reach a certain passion without getting lost in its process. After all, this is a film about a writer trying to adapt a writer's tale about orchids while also getting caught up in a tale stranger than fiction. In this sense, Cage is exactly the type of actor for an dauntingly ideal situation - two performances for the price of one, complete with a fat suit and split-screen photography. In this sense, Cage does great because of how he holds true to making each Kaufman a distinct presence that isn't merely just one talking to themselves, capturing equally the weariness and foolish abandon that comes from belief (or perhaps fear) in one's ability to tell a good story that can be splattered on screen. While it does have comedic elements in it, Cage never takes the meta aspects too far into stretching credibility or making it a self-centered work. In between scenes with Cage and Cage are conversations spent between Streep and Cooper that border the lines of fact and fiction, and it takes a dedicated person like Streep to not have the other author get lost in the process of adaptation. She captures an essence of longing in passion that results in an excellent performance, engaging and right at home in conviction. Cooper has the task of playing someone once described by Orlean as "pale-eyed, slouch-shouldered, and sharply handsome, in spite of the fact that he is missing all his front teeth." - to which I say he does a tremendous job in conveying someone filled with charm that captures the essence of a man with nuance for doing things his way with no sort of false pretense or cheap tricks needed to push his passion to something we can understand. Others in the cast do fine with gradual moments, such as Cox and his portrayal of the only other real figure in lecturer/story consultant McKee, which he does quite well in measured

The writer looks upon his work. He notices that yet again he has to make that lasting decision over how much he really enjoyed this movie. It isn't like flipping a coin, because at least the coin doesn't really seem to somehow look right and wrong. You win this round, writing voice in my head.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Three Kings.

Review #1521: Three Kings.

Cast: 
George Clooney (Major Archie Gates), Mark Wahlberg (Sergeant First Class Troy Barlow), Ice Cube (Staff Sergeant Chief Elgin), Spike Jonze (Private First Class Conrad Vig), Cliff Curtis (Amir Abdullah), Nora Dunn (Adriana Cruz), Jamie Kennedy (Specialist Walter Wogeman), Saïd Taghmaoui (Saïd), Mykelti Williamson (Colonel Ron Horn), Holt McCallany (Captain Doug Van Meter), and Judy Greer (Cathy Daitch) Directed by David O. Russell.

Review: 
"I just love real characters; they're not pretentious, and every emotion is on the surface, they're regular working people. Their likes, their dislikes, their loves, their hates, their passions; they're all right there on the surface."

Some people are cut out for writing and others are cut out for directing. David O. Russell found his way into both through filmmaking that elevated him to rising star in the 1990s. A graduate of English and political science from Amherst College, he had worked a variety of odd jobs after graduation that ranged from community work to teaching. He did some work with documentaries and shorts (having found inspiration from classics watched such as Chinatown), such as with Bingo Inferno: A Parody on American Obsessions (1987). He was given grants to do a feature involving fortune cookies and microphones in a Chinese restaurant that he would instead use to do Spanking The Monkey (1994), debuting in feature films at the age of 36. The film was originally written by John Ridley (a standup comedian who later turned to writing for television along with novels), who wanted to experiment in making and selling a script in very little time; the script was done in a week and it was bought eighteen days later. However, Russell (brought in for his first major studio film) would do his own writing changes to the draft, and Ridley had to go through arbitration to get a story credit.

There had been quite a share of war films over the 1990s, but this sticks out as one involving the Persian Gulf War (1990-91); a war film involving a heist has been done before with films such as Kelly's Heroes (1970, which involved AWOL soldiers getting gold bars out of a bank vault). Russell accomplishes a distinct war film with its look, involving vibrant color though Ektachrome transparency stock (noted for its distinct look used for photographers like National Geographic) and one-shot explosions that was shot in the desert of several states such as Arizona that featured Iraqi refugees as advisors and extras. It is a reckless film that makes the best out of touching upon the consequences and spoils of war with a balance of humor and humanity that makes for a fairly clever movie that benefits from a formidable main quartet that shows its disconnect between war and the reality that comes from its perceived end without becoming absorbed in cliché or lingering on the soapbox too long. Clooney got the part after actors of various age targets were thought of/approached (such as Clint Eastwood and Nicolas Cage). He does a commendable job here, curious in a burnt-out stage of cynicism and lost values that we gravitate to with smoothness in a journey that means most to filling in the layers the film seeks to show through heist and war. Wahlberg does fine with being the middle man, an observer of being done from war on both ends with a careful brow. Rapper-turned-film star Cube makes the most of his time in conviction in handling the tension presented in faith handily. In the same year that Jonze debuted as a feature film director with Being John Malkovich, this was his first (and so far only) prominent role as an actor, doing so in a part that was written for him as a way to shake things up from the established actors, which he does in adequate comic relief. Curtis does well with providing perspective for what we know (or think we know) about the people around a simple trek for gold, which applies just as well for Taghmaoui in his scenes against Wahlberg. Dunn provides hard-edged zeal as the eyes of a fleeting moment, while the others in the cast do fine when needed.

On the whole, the film pulls itself off well within 114 minutes in delivering a clever film on the other sides of war beyond just the battlefield through a game cast and well-timed movement in pace and timing that make it as bitingly endurable as fellow war film M*A*S*H (1970) with its own style and presence worthy for its time of 1999 that still sticks a punch now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Being John Malkovich.

Review #1308: Being John Malkovich.

Cast: 
John Cusack (Craig Schwartz), Cameron Diaz (Lotte Schwartz), Catherine Keener (Maxine Lund), John Malkovich (John Horatio Malkovich), Orson Bean (Dr. Lester), Mary Kay Place (Floris), and Charlie Sheen (Himself) Directed by Spike Jonze.

Review: 
Have you ever wanted to be someone else? Did you ever find yourself with an opportunity to step into someone else's mind for a moment? The first question is an interesting one to think about, while the second is certainly imaginative enough for a film to make for quite a ride, one that is full of desires, interesting imagery, and plenty to talk about after it ends. Writer Charlie Kaufman had written the script for this film in 1994, a combination of separate ideas he had, one involving a man falling for a woman that wasn't his wife, and the other being a discovery of a portal into John Malkovich. His attempts at selling it to studios were not successful, but it eventually reached the hands of Francis Ford Coppola, who showed it to Jonze (who was involved with his daughter Sofia) in 1996. Jonze, who had been known for his work on music and skate videos, agreed to direct the film (which served as his feature debut). 

Sometimes you really have to just keep an open mind and let the film go where it feels like going in its run-time, and this sure is one of them, where one does not get left off the hook easily in its 112 minute run-time when it comes to overt sympathy for these characters and their human nature when it comes to choices. Being someone else isn't just wish fulfillment or a case of touch and go, really. In that sense, there is a fairly picked trio to go along with the dimensions of finding themselves with a portal to a famous person's mind: commercialization and experimentation, where they are not so much easy to like as they are just people we can at least understand on a basic level. Cusack does a fine job in that regard, capturing someone with plenty of self-involvement and neurotic devotion to his craft of puppeteering (in whatever form it may take itself) without becoming wrapped in too much pity. Diaz sinks into a homely role without much hesitation, a quirky person that is seemingly trapped in their marriage but finds their own means of escape and actualization. Keener is the bold part of the triad, filled with self-confidence and desire, which serve as a pretty clear contrast to the other two from the very moment she is introduced to the film. Malkovich (playing Malkovich) had initially wanted to just produce the film and find a different star to be the focus before ultimately signing on. In that sense, he serves as the highlight of the film, a man faced with the task of playing a version of themselves that happens to be intruded by people in your head alongside the usual trappings of being famous. He composes himself well in each scene is in, most notably when faced with being in his own head. Bean and Place prove quite eccentric when needed, and Sheen is exactly the kind of off-balance cameo one needs for a fantasy comedy-drama, really. 

Once the film gets itself going, it moves with weird confidence, appropriate for delivering useful entertainment without tricking or angering its target too much. This is a film with plenty of weird things to say and show that handles itself without too many bumps in the road, where offbeat seems to meet The Twilight Zone (such as with its ending, a can of worms that goes off fine for discussion) and conventions aren't all necessary. On the whole, this is a fairly good movie, utilizing its imagination to fine heights through a well-rounded cast and careful execution that make for quite a debut for its director and writer.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.