Resident Evil: Apocalypse.

Review #2528: Resident Evil: Apocalypse. 

Cast:

Milla Jovovich (Alice), Sienna Guillory (Jill Valentine), Oded Fehr (Carlos Olivera), Thomas Kretschmann (Major Timothy Cain), Sophie Vavasseur (Angela "Angie" Ashford), Razaaq Adoti (Sgt. Peyton Wells), Jared Harris (Dr. Charles Ashford), Mike Epps (Lloyd Jefferson "L.J." Wade), Sandrine Holt (Terri Morales), Matthew G. Taylor (Nemesis), Zack Ward (Nicholai Ginovaef), and Iain Glen (Dr. Alexander Isaacs) Directed by Alexander Witt.

Review: 

Hey, remember Resident Evil (2002)? I...uh, sort of remember it? Well, okay, I'm just going to perform straight plagiarism by reminding myself that I saw the movie was the kind of movie you could probably watch while doing your taxes. No, it did not spur me to try out the games.* But people bought tickets to see it, so I imagine there were plenty of tax forms all brought up for fun amidst a "treasure trove" of violence and effects. Paul W. S. Anderson* enjoyed doing the first movie but had commitments to Alien vs. Predator (2004) that meant he could not direct the sequel, although he served as a screenwriter and co-producer. Various inspirations ranged from the third game to Escape from New York (1981) and The Omega Man (1971). This was the directorial debut for Alexander Witt, who had been working in film since the 1970s in a variety of roles such as camera assistant, commercial director and second unit work on films such as who had done second unit work on films such as Speed (1994); Witt has mostly stayed around in second unit work in the two decades since the release of the film. The series returned with Resident Evil: Extinction (2007).

It is a movie where someone makes an entrance by crashing through a stained-glass window on a motorcycle. Honestly, the enjoyment level is a smidge above the first film, mainly because at least it tries to aim for action that isn't confined to a lab. It finds new and exciting ways of being a hack spectacle that doesn't do anything new with its zombie creatures or its new ensemble for Jovovich to blankly encounter. Some movies can coast on characters basically being described as "job description" or "the chick with the neat shorts" or "the funny guy" even with a shelf life above, say, 93 minutes. This is not one of those movies, because even horror movies in small locales such as, say, Chopping Mall (1986) had enthusiasm in its mayhem. Here, it just feels like the equivalent of going to the supermarket without a list in mind only to suffer a stubbed foot in the store has no A/C before realizing that the jug of milk expires today*. Jovovich has done little to nothing to really further a character that is doing the exact same thing as before in teaming up with a ragtag bunch to survive but not really showing leadership besides "don't die". It isn't even worth trying to talk about Kretschmann as a "villain" because the general maneuvering of the film just feels so cookie-cutter and so bland that it doesn't even feel worthy to make fun of the reveal of "Nemesis" (I know it is related to the game, because otherwise I'm surprised they didn't call it something sillier like Vengeance Knight or Deadman). It just feels like a movie you put on to, wait for it, to do your taxes while it is on in the background. Two movies in and I barely feel like I really care much about the "T-virus" or "Raccoon City", but hey, gotta move forward to see slow-moving creatures by mowed down. For whatever reason, I guess the setup of the next film will be that in addition to going around doing action sequences of shooting, our hero now has psionic abilities. Oh, and I guess Umbrella is fine with her escaping as part of their plan (some plan, the next one is called "Extinction"). As a whole, if you were a fan of the first movie, maybe you'll be right at home with this one in terms of spectacle, but it just came off as hollow middle-of-the-road noise.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*It's funny, the only horror game I played from start to finish was The House of the Dead: Overkill.

*You might remember that Anderson eventually married Jovovich. Cool, did they ever make a movie together that was actually good?

*I was going to use a bad experience in say, accidentally bumping into someone who likes to gab endlessly in small-talk, but I realize some of you may have friends that actually take the time to do so. Self awareness, pal!

United Passions.

Review #1923: United Passions.

Cast: 

Tim Roth (Sepp Blatter), Gérard Depardieu (Jules Rimet), Sam Neill (João Havelange), Fisher Stevens (Carl Hirschmann), Jemima West (Annette Rimet), Thomas Kretschmann (Horst Dassler), Julian Miller (Ludwig Sylow), Jason Barry (Edgar Willcox), Martin Jarvis (Sir Stanley Rous), Bruce Mackinnon (Louis Muhlinghaus), Anthony Higgins (Lord Kinnaird), Nicholas Gleaves (Henri Delaunay), Richard Dillane (Larsen), and Antonio de la Torre (Enrique Buero) Directed by Frédéric Auburtin.

Review: 

"What’s very hard for me is that I’m not a stupid director that took the job for a big check. I tried to do my best, and little by little because of the way the production went and because of FIFA’s involvement and because there was no marketing, now when you Google it, the film is the worst ever and biggest box office disaster."

To get myself into the mood to watch a movie about FIFA, I decided to watch the first thing that popped into my head about reacting to United Passions...a contemporary John Oliver clip. Sure, my brain may think of Oliver as a lizard that happens to be able to talk, but I did want some sort of reference for what folks thought of United Passions before it came out. Apparently, the clip showed that a screening in New York had just one person buy a ticket for the film when it premiered in America in 2015, after it had been shown around other countries in the summer of 2014 as a French production that is mostly told in English (aside from a few parts with English subtitles). Apparently, it sold about $300 worth of tickets when it premiered in a few theaters in the USA. No, not $900 in each theater, $900 combined. I could have saved even slightly more time by watching Tim Roth talk about the movie for a minute, but nobody wants to watch an actor apologize for a movie, especially when seeing them be in crap is far funnier. Thankfully, I did not have to buy this movie to see it. Generally, I try to avoid wasting my money when it comes to spending time (109 minutes this time) with movies, so one can thank YouTube for bringing curiosity to the masses. Aside from seeing a blurb designating this film being shown at the Cannes Film Festival (?), one can only expect what to see from a work of "dramatic fiction". The only reason I picked this film is because of the tremendous coincidence of FIFA deciding to hold a World Cup in Qatar (totally a place with no human rights violations, huh?) in the middle of November. Just a reminder: this film was released in America in the wake of the 2015 FIFA scandal, which saw accusations of bribery of FIFA officials and the eventual resignation of its federation president. Of course, the funny thing is the fact that the movie was released in the summer of 2014 to coincide with the 2014 World Cup, held in South Africa (with the movie ending on a re-enactment of the announcement of the country being the host of the Cup). The film was written by Frédéric Auburtin and Jean-Paul Delfino. The French director had worked as an assistant director on a handful of films from 1985 to 1998 (most notably The Man in the Iron Mask, for example). He directed three films (with one film segment, with none generally known) alongside a few television projects, but this is his most known effort. In fact, it is the last film he has directed. FIFA funded most of the $30 million project, if you did not already know (going from funding 40% of the film as intended to...much more).

Who the hell wanted to make a movie not about the game of soccer, but the founding of an organization? More specifically, who the hell wanted a movie about International Association Football Federation (FIFA)? For the rest of this review, I will refer to the game as soccer, if only because I refuse to not stop saying soccer. Anyway, this movie about a soccer federation has the dubious task of trying to tell a history that spanned many decades, whether that involves the growth of the organization in the turn of the 20th century to the first World Cup in 1930 to the delay of not holding a World Cup from after 1938 until 1950, the "Death Match" in 1942, to the Blatter era (the only word that I can think of for him is "hack"). Incidentally, FIFA saw England join it three times: 1905, 1924, and 1946, which is pretty contrary to the opening sequence of seeing England (referred to lovingly and mockingly numerous times in the films as "inventor of the game") reject FIFA. A documentary, preferably not funded by FIFA, might have proved more interesting. Hell, watching soccer itself may have been less of a timewaster than this. For one, it would have actual compelling aspects to it, if only to see the different angles of how an organization came together: the real truth, corruption and all. I feel like I am watching a really glossy PR ad, one that looks more like 1954 than 2014 in general excitement for the material it wants to show, which is "mild". There is something amusing about presenting the 1950 World Cup match between Brazil and Uruguay in a somber matter (where the host nation Brazil lost in the final group stage needing only to tie to win the Cup) when it comes and goes like all the other things that happen in the movie. The most amusing sequence is a stock montage that sees clips from various World Cups to pass time, which even has a shot of Roth standing by a closed casket of a dead person (yes, seriously). I especially like this one line that talks about how the Olympics is political, but that the World Cup is about people...before a line a couple of minutes later about South Africans and that it is impossible to "keep politics out of sport" contrary to the belief of South Africans. 

So, you have Tim Roth play a person born in Switzerland, "Academy Award-winning producer Fisher Stevens" play a Dutch man and Sam Neill play a Brazilian. Roth shows up by the hour mark, after Depardieu has dominated a good part of it and Neill has just managed to come in the picture at the 49th minute. Perhaps there is a certain irony in an actor taking a role solely for the money when the person he is playing has been dogged about claims of corruption and financial mismanagement. This is even more amusing since the film is actually mostly about the tenure where Neill's character is in charge rather than with Roth (Blatter was not FIFA president until 1998). Roth may talk all he wants about his apologies for not questioning the script ("Where's all the corruption in the script? Where is all the back-stabbing, the deals? So it was a tough one. I tried to slide in a sense of it, as much as I could", an actual quote from Roth), but he is laughably stiff here. There is a black hole where a performance should be: a vanity project that doesn't have the slightest bit of charisma from any of the performances that make the main actors look like anything other than accountants. Neill looks like he wants to be anywhere else, while Depardieu is having a ball in terms of zoned out acting. The director may say he tried to insert ironic parts past FIFA's "observation". Who came up with the idea to show kids playing soccer in a dump throughout the movie? Actually, that was the writers, who apparently came up with it to avoid having the film be connected with their first idea of an investigator looking at the history of FIFA in corruption. Is it irony or unintentional amusement in the face of FIFA wasting money on this? As a whole, the only thing to say about the movie is that it sucks. Watching eleven corporate videos in a row would be more tolerable than this movie, which is glossy in the same way a gold bucket of crap is still crap. Watching a soccer game end in a tie may actually be more entertaining than this movie, which is probably the funniest way to waste making money on a glossy propaganda mess.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Turkey Week is upon us again! This time, for the 3rd edition of this favorite project of mine of films known in some way for being "turkeys", I am going to take out the traditional method of starting with older movies and instead going in a free-form pattern to make for a few surprises. In fact, the traditional eight-course of bad movies will increase slightly...to a surprise amount. Next up in Turkey Week III: Alone in the Dark.

King Kong (2005).

Review #1540: King Kong.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), Adrien Brody (Jack Driscoll), Thomas Kretschmann (Captain Englehorn), Colin Hanks (Preston), Jamie Bell (Jimmy), with Andy Serkis (Motion capture of Kong / Lumpy), Fred Tatasciore (Vocal sound of Kong), Evan Parke (Benjamin "Ben" Hayes), Kyle Chandler (Bruce Baxter), John Sumner (Herb), Lobo Chan (Choy), and Craig Hall (Mike) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste and #1507 - Heavenly Creatures)

Review: 

"No film has captivated my imagination more than King Kong (1933). I'm making movies today because I saw this film when I was 9 years old. It has been my sustained dream to reinterpret this classic story for a new age."

I don't know if you needed to hear another description of King Kong (1933), but most probably know it as a great classic, one that has tremendous stature as an adventure in its revolutionary effects for the time (done in stop-motion and miniatures by Willis O'Brien and his crew) that can still hold its own in entertainment after over 80 years since its release. Granted, not every aspect of the film has exactly aged gracefully (with the occasional wooden actor or so), but it definitely stands true in the ace of films that came in subsequent years involving its titular gorilla. Its sequel (Son of Kong, released the same year!) was a rush job that did not capture the magic of what made things special from before. King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), while fairly decent in entertainment, is a hodgepodge of ideas that benefits its latter monster in every which way (particularly with its effects) as a Toho film (I haven't see their other production in King Kong Escapes, which is a co-production with Rankin/Bass of all things). The 1976 remake of the film was described by me as a "jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss", which translates to just not being good enough (Jackson described it as a disappointment as a kid and later called it "kind of kitsch"). I suppose it only makes sense that if someone wanted to make another King Kong film, it would have to be something really intriguing for a big effects director to make on a big budget and big scope. Jackson called the 1933 film his favorite, and he had been offered the chance to do a remake by Universal Pictures that would've been released in 1998, but worries by the studio over the upcoming releases of Godzilla (1998) and Mighty Joe Young (1998) led to them stalling by 1997, with Jackson going on to do work on adapting The Lord of the Rings to film. The success of those films led to Universal approaching Jackson to do the film he wanted, with a budget that would reach over $200 million by the time it was released, with Jackson co-writing the effort with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.

Why don't I first start with the stuff easiest to highlight. I do applaud the idea of keeping the film in the 1930s, mostly because we are talking about a film needing a reason to go to a strange island to do a movie and find a big gorilla - it would seem a bit clunky to do that in 2005 as opposed to 1933, I assert. There is great care done here to make a worthy period piece in the costumes and feel that I appreciate more than if it was just a monster film lost in itself, particularly since it fooled me a bit with its digital effect enough to make not make fun of it as a bluescreen-fest. Kong himself is a tremendous accomplishment, as they have captured a great effect that towers well over everything present. The advent of these effects and having gorilla footage to study means that Serkis accomplishes wonders in a motion capture body suit that goes with Tatasciore in vocals to make a useful curiosity. Watts handles the challenge of spending a majority of time with Kong with resilience and charm that make for an interesting 1-2 act that makes a special bond with Kong that doesn't seem forced or ridiculous. Black (weird wig and all) is generally enjoyable, seeming to have a grasp on the manner of Orson Welles with some of the drive and compelling spirit of a carnival barker that doesn't seem too much of a cheesy bit. Of the others, I would say probably Chandler has it best, mostly because he seems to be having fun playing a ham without doing a wink to the audience. 

Ultimately, it seems Jackson wanted to have his cake and eat it too in every minuet detail, considering the run-time of 187 minutes. It becomes a case of excess overriding an epic that can only go so far for enjoyment before bashing you over the head with what is believed to be needed in a remake. It seems more prescient in keeping a mix of wooden acting with fair acting than it does in making a period piece I actually want to see play all the way out for three hours (which can be extended 20 minutes longer in an extended cut if you are into that). The easiest thing to get out of the way immediately is one shining fact: Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, needs a whole thing about the backgrounds of the ship crew going to Skull Island, because very little people will actually care about it. The performances for these folks are...okay, but do I need a scene of someone discussing reading Heart of Darkness? How about details of someone being a World War I veteran? Cannon fodder-I mean creature fodder doesn't need this much time, because I am here to watch a gorilla and some creatures along with some sort of affinity between gorilla and woman, thank you very much. Of course the true offender in all of this is Brody, who easily hands in a bland performance without even having to reach the gorilla, and it is so baffling to see him present in a film that begs for some sort of charisma or interest from him when trying to act with Watts. By the time the film trudges onto the island and delivers some creatures to us, one is just begging to not have to hear from most of these folks ever again. One can appreciate the nuance of seeing vine action between creatures that we know aren't really real as opposed to having to pretend to care about a conversation about bravery or the dealings of the ship - Somehow, I remember Kong: Skull Island handling all of this significantly better twelve years later. If I don't think about the fluid quality of acting and see Kong, it works out only to the point of making an average film because of its obvious length. I almost wonder what would happen if you made a film just set on the island with no buildup on the ship and go from there (I shudder to think about a line-for-line remake of the 1933 film, although this takes lines from that film). But at least the climax back to New York works itself out in being interesting and capturing the spirit of tragedy when it comes to gorilla-on-plane action, wonderful in its execution that gives Watts and Serkis their moment to do what is needed (and keeping Brody chucked to the short-shrift where he belongs) before that repeated line to close out this film as was done before comes up. On the whole, I liked most of what I saw in the parts that matter to make a film worthy enough for a recommendation, even if its test of scope and patience may prove frustrating for others. Jackson wanted his tribute to the original mean something, and when compared to films that came following from that model, I'd say he made a commendable effort worth some credit in innovation. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Blade II.

Review #1188: Blade II.

Cast: 
Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks/Blade), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Ron Perlman (Dieter Reinhardt), Leonor Varela (Nyssa Damaskinos), Norman Reedus (Scud), Thomas Kretschmann (Eli Damaskinos), Karel Roden (Karel Kounen), Luke Goss (Jared Nomak), Matt Schulze (Chupa), Danny John-Jules (Asad), Donnie Yen (Snowman), Marit Velle Kile (Verlaine), Darren "Daz" Crawford (Lighthammer), Tony Curran (Priest), and Santiago Segura (Rush) Directed by Guillermo del Toro (#425 - Pacific Rim and #1061 - The Shape of Water)

Review: 
The cheapest way I think I could describe the film would be that if you liked the first film, you'll be fine with the sequel. It isn't wrong, however. It's a movie that has plenty of loud action, ridiculous moments, and a continuing winning combo of Snipes and Kristofferson. Its plot and some of its characters may be a bit shaky, but in the long run there is just enough here to make something worth a watch for entertainment. It isn't a particularly great comic book film, but it tries to have a balance of action and horror that makes it stick out a bit, not being too much of a copy from its predecessor, which was also written by David S. Goyer. I can't really say it is a better film, in part because of the story, which is okay in getting to its spectacle parts but sometimes ridiculous when giving deep thought to some of its motivations. The initial idea of the film (which sounds like Blade crossed with the Dirty Dozen but with vampires that call themselves the Bloodpack) is a curious one, although it is amusing in execution, since if this so-called pack were trained to supposedly terminate Blade at some point in time, I imagine they would've probably been beaten senseless in less than a hour. Obviously the movie doesn't reply on the ability of this pack to be able to beat Blade, but their lack of characterization besides Perlman and Varela, with the others feeling like fodder. Even though they do fine jobs, they are characters who can sometimes feel one-note, with the former being a bully with watchable qualities and the latter being okay but not invoking as much interest when it comes time to the plot or when with Snipes. Reedus is okay and charming, and Kretschmann is occasionally creepy, but these are cursory moments. Even Goss can't really deliver too much as a villain, perhaps because he doesn't really have much to say (which doesn't help when compared to Stephen Dorff and his villain from the original), and the Reapers (as interesting as they look) seem a bit muddled when compared to Blade; the action is fine and dandy, but after a while the film can't quite find a way to wring itself to anything other than just going through the motions between going from one dialogue piece to another before an action sequence comes in. At least it doesn't feel like an endless cutscene (although the CGI can be a bit dodgy sometimes). The climax is alright for spectacle, although it doesn't really have too many surprises. The film suffers a bit when comparing it to the first film, which felt more flexible with balancing its action and mythology without too much trouble. As okay as the film is with its execution, it still invites curiosity for anyone looking for some vampire action horror that can deliver in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Special Note for 2019 only: In an error best described as "counting sheep wrong", the review count for Movie Night had been miscounted since review #1168, which was Firewall (2006). Somehow, it was never properly cataloged into my records (which I keep for things such as ratings of each film, release year, etc), while the reviews that followed were. The numbering was done correctly for #1169 (About Schmidt), but the next review of Futureworld was mislabeled as #1169 instead of the correct #1170. This means that the reviews that followed up to now were the wrong number. The review numbers have been corrected and things are fixed, but I wanted to make sure that there is no confusion. Enjoy.

Cars 2.

Review #730: Cars 2.

Cast
Larry the Cable Guy (Mater), Owen Wilson (Lightning McQueen), Michael Caine (Finn McMissile), Emily Mortimer (Holley Shiftwell), John Turturro (Francesco Bernoulli), Eddie Izzard (Sir Miles Axlerod), Thomas Kretschmann (Professor Zündapp), Joe Mantegna (Grem), Peter Jacobson (Acer), Tony Shalhoub (Luigi), Jason Isaacs (Siddeley/Leland Turbo), and Stanley Townsend (Vladimir Trunkov/Ivan/Victor Hugo), Directed by John Lasseter (#440 - Toy Story, #441 - Toy Story 2, #539 - A Bug's Life, and #729 - Cars)

Review
The first Cars was okay. In the sense that when compared to other Pixar movies, it suffered under comparison, but the movie along was fine. This? Meh. Remember how passion made Cars into something to credit? With this, it should've been buried in a box and never opened. Ultimately the problems all come down to the focus changing from McQueen...to Mater. Look, I don't hate Larry the Cable Guy, but after a while, I started to just loathe Mater. He worked better in the first movie because of the small town atmosphere the first movie had, where Mater wasn't with spies and inferior cars trying to ruin a Prix. When did we go from small town memories to SPY FLICK? That would be like if Toy Story 2 was instead a cyberpunk opera. Actually, that would've been better than this. McQueen and Mater's bonding was actually more interesting than Mater being a spy, because I wasn't yelling at the screen, waiting for the movie to get to the point. It's something when you want to see cars racing each other more than spies. At least the rest of the cast is alright, even if there are dozens of characters (and cameos). Admittedly, it's a good looking movie in terms of animation, especially nighttime shots, with the glow of the lights. Mater drags on your nerves, especially if you have little patience. It could be argued that he is up to the level of annoyance that Jar Jar Binks was in The Phantom Menace, though at least Mater saves the day. I like the idea of McQueen going to race in a Prix around the world, to see other cultures and other racers, now that the town is well off. Instead, it's a look into how silly Mater can be in other cultures, right down to swallowing a bunch of wasabi. I wonder if it would've been funnier in live action, with real people. Of course, if I wanted to, I could watch it on the Internet.

The "be yourself" theme works in theory, unless of course you meet someone who doesn't like you, or is a bully. Yes, even when you are being beaten up, at least you can be comforted in that they were being themselves. The idea that cars can apparently kill other cars is a bit strange, though this works into my idea that the cars secretly took over the Earth and just became sentient, disguising their act by acting as friendly as possible. The movie is good for younger audiences, at least, but it should strive better. We could get into the "animation shouldn't be just for kids" argument, but there are better movies to watch. The depth of the movie is lacking with regards to other Pixar movies, but maybe that was a part of the disappointment with me. Pixar is a pinnacle of great quality animated movies, before (Toy Story, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo) and after (Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, Inside Out) this movie. If you have younger relatives, they might like it. But only if there are no other options. None.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.