Legend (1985).

Review #2385: Legend (1985).

Cast:  

Tom Cruise (Jack), Mia Sara (Lili), Tim Curry (Darkness), David Bennent (Honeythorn Gump; voiced by Alice Playten), Alice Playten (Blix), Billy Barty (Screwball), Cork Hubbert (Brown Tom), Peter O'Farrell (Pox), Kiran Shah (Blunder), Tina Martin (Nell), Robert Picardo (Meg Mucklebones), and Annabelle Lanyon (Oona) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, #739 - The Martian, #1076 - Thelma & Louise, #1524 - Gladiator, #1879 - The Last Duel)

Review: 

"I could have taken this script and gone two ways. One would have been dark and Celtic, which would have limited it. The other was the Disney route, and as I made Legend primarily for children, my children to be precise, that’s the avenue I pursued. Having visual references to Snow White, Fantasia and especially Pinocchio were clear cut decisions by me."

Once upon a time, you really could just flop around with a fantasy movie. Ridley Scott's fourth feature film was a dark fantasy movie that he had been cultivating for years. He actually conceived the idea when filming The Duellists (1977) because his plans to do a movie on the medieval legend Tristan & Isolde fell through. However, he went with doing Alien (1979) because of his belief in a lack of audience appeal for Legend. After his time spent developing Dune saw him drop out, Scott went back to that fairy tale project that took inspirations from the Brothers Grimm. Scott met American novelist William Hjortsberg (writer of books such as Falling Angel [1978] and one other screenplay with Thunder and Lightning [1977]). and interested him into writing a fairy tale. Their shared appreciation of Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast (1946) based their working relationship. The script was worked out from a rough storyline by 1981 into further revisions over the years before shooting began in 1984. There exist three cuts (complete with modified endings) of the movie because of audience perceptions. The first cut was 125 minutes long before Scott trimmed it to 113 minutes long for testing in America....that was apparently too long for folks to be entertained by, which saw over 20 minutes trimmed (such as the clockmaker's cottage sequence) to go with replacing the music score by Jerry Goldsmith for music by Tangerine Dream, Jon Anderson, and Bryan Ferry. International audiences in 1985 saw a 93-minute film while American audiences in 1986 saw an 89-minute film that was a flop with audiences, but at least Rob Bottin got an Academy Award nomination for his makeup on the film. In 2002, home video saw the release of a 113-minute Director's Cut that restored cut sequences and the Goldsmith score (which is what I saw; also, for whatever reason, there is a site detailing the road to getting the DVD there). Scott never has returned to the world of fantasy since, although obviously he continued directing, with his next movie being Someone to Watch Over Me (1987).

Part of me can't help but wonder why I found this to be a very, very, very average movie to experience despite the visual interest. For what it's worth, you are reading words from someone who had to look back to recall that I seemed to like Krull (1983) a bit better than Willow (1988). With Legend, you get a bit of a fever dream. It takes a hell of time to really get going but is at least held up with one notable presence to make its strange whims worth a trip, mainly because I can't find myself hating where it all ended up. It goes to the inevitable places that come with big red creatures and attempts at showing an adventure of light and darkness that may very well be fascinating for all of the right and wrong reasons possible, whether one finds themselves in the cult classic argument or not. Is it too murky? Maybe, but I go with murky. It's funny to cast two actors on dueling sides of getting to be known better. You've got Cruise just two years removed from Risky Business [1983] while Sara (five years younger than Cruise, I might add) made her debut before appearing in Ferris Bueller's Day Off [1986]...and then there's Curry being cast because of his film and theatrical experience.* Cruise is probably a bit too green to really make this role anything more than a middling hero (apparently it inspired him to suggest input for his next project with Top Gun [1986]), but his shakiness is somewhat palatable to watch. Sara fares better, mostly because she gets to play with the definition of innocence with the whole other getup worn around the climax. Sure, the chemistry between the two leads is shaky, but we are talking about folks in a strange unnamed land that go around throwing rings in water. I cannot imagine the time spent wearing makeup and iron frame lifts for Curry. But it sure seemed worth it with such a tremendous presence captured here. He oozes a certain type of devilish curiosity that really does seduce one into finding solace in shadows that makes the best type of threat: booming and a great threat in the eyes of eternity. It is kind of curious to have one person voice two characters (Bennent was dubbed over because of his accent), but I like the distinct levels of mischief played in voice/physical performance anyways, so I guess they got me there to accept that one talks in a handful of rhymes. Well, at least the movie is sometimes funny with people such as Barty and Picardo, at least. Its buildup to the big finish (well, a finish, because light, darkness, yeah, get it?) proves to be worth the journey in fun, and saying "oh but the cliche of good vs. evil" seems easy to then say "hey, I like some of those good defeating evil movies". In the end, it basically is the kind of movie you either "hum" with or you just let go by the wayside, but it has a sort of energy to me that I liked enough to accept on its own terms and find worthy to recommend with an open mind, at least.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*See, at least one good thing came from the overrated The Rocky Horror Picture Show, because Scott watched the movie in thinking about casting Richard O'Brien to play the role later played by Robert Picardo. Also, did I miss anything in the last three weeks?

Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.

Review #2384: Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Hayley Atwell (Grace), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Simon Pegg (Benji Dunn), Esai Morales (Gabriel), Pom Klementieff (Paris), Henry Czerny (Eugene Kittridge), Angela Bassett (Erika Sloane), Holt McCallany (Serling Bernstein), Janet McTeer (Walters), Nick Offerman (General Sidney), Hannah Waddingham (Rear Admiral Neely), Tramell Tillman (Captain Bledsoe), Shea Whigham (Jasper Briggs/Jim Phelps Jr), Greg Tarzan Davis (Theo Degas), Charles Parnell (Richards), Mark Gatiss (Angstrom), Rolf Saxon (William Donloe), Lucy Tulugarjuk (Tapeesa), and Katy O'Brian (Kodiak) Directed by Christopher McQuarrie (#1117 - Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, #1119 - Mission: Impossible – Fallout, #2040 - Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One)

Review: 

Once upon a time, there was just a movie that loosely adapted elements of an old television series. Sure, the original television series (as created by Bruce Geller in 1966) might have been thought of as a "mind game", and sure, some people may have thought the movie was too different from the source material (cough cough, Martin Landau), but let's be real for a second. The first film, released on May 22, 1996 (as directed by Brian De Palma and scripted through a variety of people in David Koepp, Steven Zaillian, and Robert Towne for a production that didn't have a finished script at the start), was merely cutting out the fat that came around with trying to make totally legit ideas of espionage that ranged from "making a dude remember his wife was killed by Hitler" to "cats being used as part of a detailed robbery"* and instead focus on some interesting action with dazzling execution. Sure, the movies hemmed and hawed in quality (if I rewatched the movies, perhaps one of them might have challenged Fallout is terms of being the best in that measure), going through cast members like a deck of cards (remember Jeremy Renner? Oh...), but I suppose it is nice to see a film that reckons to use the word "final" (as opposed to just calling itself Part Two to follow the original plan) for the eighth and presumably last one of these movies, at least with Tom Cruise as star. As was the case with the last movie, the script was written by Erik Jendresen and Christopher McQuarrie.

Sure, 170 minutes is a bit steep of a runtime. Sure, it might seem a bit absurd to encounter the number of flashbacks and little callbacks that come through here.** Sure, sure, sure. But it is the kind of movie that will still find ways to captivate you once it cuts down to all-around viewing when it comes to staging and action, and it does at least make for a worthy enough bow for Cruise and company to at least be proud of. Let's play a bit with some quibbles first, which namely is with the first hour: it really does seem that they wanted to make sure the bases are cleared for even the most possibly confused person, particularly with the flashback to remind that a person with a stomach scar was in fact, totally fine from the last movie. There are other quibbles, but you can check that under "spoilers", I suppose.***, but most can be summarized as just, well, not all action movies are created equal. But the underwater sequence is a generally involving one to really get things moving in interest, one with minimal dialogue that just lets you feel the pressure that comes with making the type of popcorn-chewing curiosity. With that in mind, Cruise hasn't lost a step in the conviction that arises in handling stunts and making you buy the calamity and importance with a smile. His energy is infectious and I will surely miss the audacity to want to ride a plane or go underwater for the audience's enjoyment. You might say he dominates the show, since a good chunk of the movie divides him from say, the charming Atwill and company, but at least the odyssey is worth seeing in dwelling a tiny bit on why choices and coincidences matter, as opposed to just being "it's that guy, remember?" Tillman is a pretty fair highlight alongside Saxon, admittedly. I do wish Morales was a bit more involved in the movie. The general threat being an AI and a wannabee devotee craving power can only go so far when he isn't in it that much and the general threat is really more just the sense of danger (uncertainty?) that could befall our heroes rather than one guy (there is a movement mentioned early, but I suppose they went the way of the Occupy guys). Instead, he does exactly one thing for nearly two hours before he shows right back up to cackle in a plane, and even Whigham or Czerny seem more apt to serve as accidental players in oppositional menace. The attempts at generating tension in the, shall we say, war-room, is probably a bit played out, but I guess a played out rendition is better than if it wasn't there at all. The action involving a couple of planes and wires and time (duh) is fairly satisfying, winding itself up with enough "oohs" for awe to ensure the movie will at least stick most of its ideas about making choices and actually sticking to it. As a whole, it may have been a hard mission to deliver a satisfying type of closure for a near-thirty-year franchise of movies with one key center and commitment to spectacle, but The Final Reckoning delivers a worthwhile enough experience to make one appreciate the journey.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Look, I've only seen the first two seasons of the original show. Hell, the "second show" had a handful of episodes that were just remakes of the original!

**Nothing is as good as remembering that yes, Hayley Atwill is in the movie.

*** (in light text, you know what to do): Okay, maybe this is a two-fold point: What's the point of introducing folks to be on the team if only one of them end up dead? I think we saw more examples of the prices being paid for being a member of the IMF in M:I III nineteen years ago. The other little quibble is that I forgot about Czerny and Whigham in terms of motivation for a good chunk, and let's be real: even when knowing someone is "Phelps Jr", were you really going to think that would matter for the end of the climax? Also, the death of Morales' character really is a bit too funny. You might say there's something to critique in what McQuarrie and company think AI is, but computer nerds aren't that interesting anyway.

Collateral.

Review #2325: Collateral.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Vincent), Jamie Foxx (Max Durocher), Jada Pinkett Smith (Annie Farrell), Mark Ruffalo (Ray Fanning), Peter Berg (Richard Weidner), Bruce McGill (Frank Pedrosa), and Irma P. Hall (Ida Durocher) Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, #1713 - Manhunter, #2091 - Miami Vice)

Review: 

"I wanted to compress time, to imagine the psychological extremes when two lives collide unexpectedly. Small [details] become very important when, for example, you don’t change wardrobe, when the time of day doesn’t change, when the color of night or the cut of a suit becomes crucial."

Admittedly, taking a ride with a stranger is not a particularly new concept for a film. You've got quite a few movies dealing with strangers on a train, for example, or hitch-hiking with, well, The Hitch-Hiker (1953). Incidentally, the original basis for the script came from a cab ride home that Stuart Beattie (probably best known for his co-credit on the Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl script) had when he was a teenager in which he made an idea about a maniac sitting in the back of a cab with the driver right there in implicit trust that he soon turned into a treatment. Sure, the script and film are only superficially similiar (it had subplots that are entirely not in the film, like a relationship between the cabbie and a librarian), but the efforts of Julie Richardson (who ended up co-producing the film with Mann) eventually paid off. The eighth film of Mann's career, it was his decision to shoot the film primarily with the Viper FilmStream High-Definition Camera (i.e. not film, although the nightclub sequence is shot that way) as a way to capture the urban environment of night-time LA. Incidentally, the original cast members in mind for the lead roles were Russell Crowe and Adam Sandler (or perhaps even Sandler paired with Cruise), but so it goes. The movie was a relative success at the time of its release, done just two decades ago.

You can see pretty quickly the appeal in a movie that is set in one night with such a compact goal in mind in tight thrills with characters that match each other like a glove for a neat movie. It maneuvers curiosity for its locale and machinations for two hours that deserves consideration for any thriller type of night. It has a murky feel with its locale that extends right to its trips through LA that feel distinct like a vignette, whether that involves a nightclub or a hospital visit. Undeniably, Cruise delivers the most in his role, where he apparently took inspiration from Alain Delon's character in Le Samouraï [1967] (one might wonder if there was something to draw from the silver-haired fox of Lee Marvin). Wrapped in grey attire and silver hair, there is something unnerving about his mannerisms in how he just "clicks" as an erudite and efficient killer that still makes one curious about what makes him tick. It basically is a cat-and-mouse game where one is curious where the cat wants to guide the mouse next. The character doesn't even that much of a backstory, one can just picture in their heads a guy who seeps in and out of his assignment as one who really could just lurk in the shadows and have no one notice, much in the same way that Foxx's character is just as one to be thought of in the background for most people (hey, do you know your cabbie?); go figure, it was Foxx that recieved the Academy Award nomination that year. But yes, Foxx is pretty effective here in his own terms of instinct of human nature, one who we like as someone learning to not lie so much about themselves. Smith makes a suitable presence to fit the ends of the film required in snap timing while the others fit the fragmented pieces required in a trip where you have a highly efficient (and smart) killer on one side and a tense but equally interesting presence worth watching on the other, such as the nightclub sequence when it comes to building a release of just who one really is when around other people. The film eventually delves into a chase that works out pretty well in the hands of Mann, who finds time to look upon an office from a distance to build tension. I especially like the ending in just settling on the most soothing of  possible resolutions when it comes to rising above collateral nature to be one's own man that circles back to earlier in the movie involving people fading into the background. As a whole, it's a neat movie that has two worthy players with worthy staging and a look to make a useful neo-noir fit for the eyes of the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tropic Thunder.

Review #2089: Tropic Thunder.

Cast: 

Ben Stiller (Tugg Speedman), Jack Black (Jeff Portnoy), Robert Downey Jr (Kirk Lazarus as Lincoln Osiris), Nick Nolte (Four Leaf Tayback), Steve Coogan (Damien Cockburn), Jay Baruchel (Kevin Sandusky), Danny McBride (Cody Underwood), Brandon T. Jackson (Alpa Chino), Bill Hader (Studio Executive Rob Slolom), Brandon Soo Hoo (Tran), Trieu Tran (Tru), Matthew McConaughey (Rick "The Pecker" Peck), and Tom Cruise (Les Grossman) Directed by Ben Stiller.

Review: 

''I was trying to push it as far as you can within reality. I had no idea how people would respond to it.'' 

Ben Stiller spent a couple of years making an idea involving actors filming a war movie. He would know, because this idea came about when he had appeared in a small part in Empire of the Sun (1987). He had seen a number of his friends undergo boot camp training for their roles that found them talking like they had become part of a real military unit that seemed like a "sort of self-important, self-involved thing". He kicked around ideas while getting his turn in television such as The Ben Stiller Show and directing with Reality Bites (1994) and The Cable Guy (1996) before appearing in There's Something About Mary (1998) made him a more name presence. At any rate, the script for what became this film was developed by Stiller and Justin Theroux while Etan Cohen helped them write the screenplay. Oddly enough, Stiller intended to cast Keanu Reeves in the lead role and himself as the agent, but when this did not come to pass, he instead took over the lead role. There also is a bit of improvisation present when it came to parts of the storyboard that didn't have scripted dialogue. Spoof, satire, parody, I think you get the idea of what you have with a film that seems right at home with others such as Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991), the documentary that detailed the "rough" time in the production of Apocalypse Now (1979). It sure must have been a surprise that the film attracted minor controversy (something involving disabilities or "blackface", but 2008 crowds had their own standards of ignoring that), because Stiller was even quoted as saying once it has "always been a controversial movie" while noting it as one he is proud of it.

I vaguely remember watching this film about over a decade ago, and I thought it was decent back then before somehow forgetting about it. I wondered a bit how the film was going to look now that it was past the 15-year mark. Hell, I should have realized it was going to be a good time, because, well, it is a fine time to spend in the art of making light of war moviemaking. It makes a solid 107-minute ensemble with plenty of fun spent making light of the excesses that come in moviemaking for those in front of the camera and behind it. The array of spoofs starts right from the get-go with the faux trailers that begin the film by showing four degrees of a star, whether that involves method acting, has-been action stars, Chris Farley models, or, well, rappers trying to be actors. Stiller proves pretty well with the insecure has-been that comes with flailing in the face of rising and dying stars in Hollywood, which includes trying to veer in "Oscar bait" for worthwhile silly insecurity. The best way to describe Downey Jr's performance is, well "dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude." He is so absorbed in playing someone so different from himself (both in appearance and, well, personality) that is quite amusing in the fact he is all in for trying to trigger emotions like a man pressing buttons on a conveyor. You could make the argument that the actor he really seems to hone is not so much Daniel Day-Lewis (method acting and all) but in fact Peter Sellars (hey, The Party (1968) has its own debate over playing race versus playing comedy). Black succeeds fairly well in pathetic addiction, at least when compared to the moments of film acting for the fart-based trailer or those moments in the "war film", I mean. Jackson and Baruchel round out the cast with their own lingering flailing at the insecurities that infringe all of them in the jungle (technically Baruchel is the straight man, but the only different quality for Jackson is a punchline but stay with me on this). The adversaries presented are pretty one note, unless you try to posit that war movies sometimes have their own one-dimensional outlook, but one thing that is delightfully one note in the best way is Nolte, because his gruff outlook in the face of lies is endearing (particularly since he contrasts McBride). Cruise seems to be enjoying himself in the loudest and most obvious cliche (name me one benevolent studio head), which I was surprised to realize actually involved prosthetic hands, and it works out to a few decent jokes (I don't actually believe that a spinoff film would've been the best idea though, but you do you). As a whole, the gags work out pretty well for silly enjoyment over how much insecurity one can have with actors with a biting pace and tone that holds its own in all of the right ways. 15 years hasn't made the humor lessen in impact for those who are up for it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.

Review #2040: Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Hayley Atwell (Grace), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Simon Pegg (Benji Dunn), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilsa Faust), Vanessa Kirby (Alanna Mitsopolis), Esai Morales (Gabriel), Henry Czerny (Eugene Kittridge), Pom Klementieff (Paris), Cary Elwes (Director of National Intelligence Denlinger), and Shea Whigham (Jasper Briggs) Directed by Christopher McQuarrie (#1117 - Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation and #1119 - Mission: Impossible – Fallout)

Review: 

I know it sounds absurd, but it really is something to look upon a long running film series reach a seventh film that has not lost a step despite the passage of over 25 years since the very first one in 1996. Granted, Mission: Impossible had bumps in the road as an offshoot adaptation that took loose inspiration from the original series as devised by Bruce Geller, but one can see the lingering consistency that became most apparent with Ghost Protocol, the first one of the series that had Christopher McQuarrie involved (albeit as an uncredited writer). This time around, McQuarrie is listed as co-writer with Erik Jendresen on what is part one of a two-part adventure that evidently will not be the end of the series (of course, "Dead Reckoning" is also a term involving how to find one's position in sea by direction and distance rather than other means). Presumably, Part Two will be in 2024, but one never knows considering how "2020" caused the delay of this film to the point where it has nearly been five years since Fallout. The runtime of the film is the longest of the series at 163 minutes. 

Well, if you want to see a man rid a motorcycle off a cliff and parachute to the ground or deal with a grand train sequence, here is your chance. Honestly, I am conflicted on just how good the film is, mostly because Fallout was apparently so good that I labeled it the best of the series five years ago. One can only remember certain things within these films (hell, remember when Jeremy Renner was in two of them?). I would say that this film is about the second or third best in the franchise (they all play second to Fallout), depending on one's mood goes. The key threat here is a bit more of a challenge for the series than usual, if only because it deals with something that lurks within modern society: rogue AI. Granted, it isn't exactly on the level of say, Skynet from The Terminator (1984), but I think you can see where it seems pretty timely to talk about AI and the weird people that could use it for their own gain. In that sense, with a fairly game cast and plenty of spectacle to back up most of its narrative stepping points, Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One is a solid reminder that it is the one of the best film franchises running today because of how it handles the expectations laid upon it. The viewer is enchanted with where the film can go in thrills within its leaps that keep them right in check without insulting the craft. The journey for any good film is valuable, and the filmmakers know how to use your time wisely. Cruise, in that sense, is the ideal standard-bearer for a franchise like this, one that shows a cipher of a man that we nevertheless love because he is the thrill-seeker in us. He and Rhames may be the only two people to be in every one of these films, but it doesn't mean we like them any less by seeing these folks again and again when they are clearly game for whatever they have to bring to the conundrum. Of course, that isn't selling other regulars like Pegg or Ferguson short, because they don't get lost in the hubbub. The thrill is in seeing new people make their mark on the series more than wondering what surprises might lie ahead (like Czerny, returning for the first time since the first film 27 years ago), which benefits Atwell and her cheerful timing for chaos. It will be neat to enjoy the return of folks like her in the next film, that is for sure. Morales and his act as essentially a religious disciple (the AI might as well be some sort of God) is a bit opaque as a threat, but a decent threat is still a threat to watch nonetheless, mostly because Klementieff is at least a useful adversary to watch within pieces of the spectacle, such as a fight in a really tight space or a chase scene with a neat little yellow car. Kirby is the huckster in the middle that is delightful in charm, obviously. I do think the overall threat within an AI that has managed to calculate many possibilities of whatever it wants to plan (and the folks would rather control it rather than destroy the crap out of it) is at least a useful change to the general threats presented in the action thriller series, if only because it doesn't plod itself with too many leaps in logic. The stakes still matter because the mission still seems impossible to all but one group. Generally, one would wonder just how many films are needed to keep a franchise going, but with Mission: Impossible, the seventh film is just as captivating as what had happened way back in the first while setting itself up for the audience to eagerly await another quality sequel.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Born on the Fourth of July.

Review #2031: Born on the Fourth of July.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Sergeant Ron Kovic; Bryan Larkin as Young Ron), Willem Dafoe (Charlie), Kyra Sedgwick (Donna; Jessica Prunell as Young Donna), Raymond J. Barry (Mr. Kovic), Jerry Levine (Steve Boyer), Frank Whaley (Timmy), Caroline Kava (Mrs. Kovic), Cordelia Gonzalez (Maria Elena - Villa Dulce), Ed Lauter (Legion Commander), John Getz (Marine Major - Vietnam), Beau Starr (Man #2 - Arthur's Bar), and Michael Wincott (Vet #3 - Villa Dulce) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street, #1090 - Platoon, #1265 - Natural Born Killers, #1523 - Any Given Sunday, and #1595 - Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps)

Review: 

“I’m puzzled by life, horrified by the daily newspaper. The only sane response is re-creation, drama . . . an ordered series of events that arouse pity and terror, to paraphrase Aristotle. Making movies is my way of exorcising demons, of creating an ethos, a philosophy of life. I’d go crazy without fantasy.”

Every so often, I am reminded that my father was a war veteran. I don't have many memories of him talking about his service in Vietnam, aside from once seeing his dog tags and remembering his burial a couple of years ago at a cemetery for veterans. But men are not defined only by if they served for their country or not, they are served by who they are for those who end up alive to talk about it. One such man who found meaning in the (difficult) time that came after his service was Ron Kovic. After he graduated from Massapequa High School in New York (where he was raised to a family of Croatian & Irish ancestry), he quickly volunteered to serve in Vietnam in 1965. He was a member of the United States Marines, for which he made two tours of duty. It was on January 20, 1968, that he was shot and severely wounded that resulted in him being paralyzed from the waist down. After intensive recovery led to his arrival back home, Kovic found curiosity within peace demonstrations, starting in 1970. This happened not long after the events of May 1970 that had seen numerous student protests in universities such as Kent State University and Jackson State University, for which each saw anti-war demonstrators killed (the former by Ohio National Guard, the latter by local patrolmen). Kovic wrote Born on the Fourth of July in the span of over a month in 1974 that was published in 1976 that he stated was written to show people about the "hospitals and the enema room, about why I had become opposed to the war, why I had grown more and more committed to peace and nonviolence." Not long after, Kovic gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention, four years after him and other members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War had protested the Republican Convention (the war did not end until 1975). Even now, with his 77th birthday, Kovic serves as a constant anti-war presence. Cruise, Stone, and Kovic were each nominated for Academy Awards that year for this film (Best Actor, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Picture), with Stone winning for his efforts in direction (don't ask who won Best Picture). Stone would do one further film in what was later called his trilogy of Vietnam War films with Heaven & Earth (1993).

Relating to all of this is the production struggle to get things moving, as there had been interest in doing a film from the very moment Kovic spoke at the DNC, specifically Al Pacino. Oliver Stone, who had served in the United States Army with service from 1967-68, was brought in to try and write for the screenplay in 1977. Incidentally, Kovic served as a consultant on Coming Home (1978), a film involving a disillusioned Vietnam War veteran left in a wheelchair. It was not until the success of Platoon (1986) that Stone could get the chance to write (alongside Kovic) and direct this film. With Platoon, one would find that it argued most that the first casualty in war was innocence. With this film, now one finds how it goes for those who have arrived home after said innocence was lost, not to a hero's welcome but a state of indifference. The illusion of going off to a just war to fight for your country has been shattered into one of unimaginable agony, one where a love of country is warped by some into the idea that they somehow don't love it just because they want to speak up (of course, there are many perspectives when it comes to returning home from war that would shudder at folks who seem to toil in "self-pity" or other characteristics, but that is a different can of worms). As Kovic once said, you aren't meant to avoid conflict and pain in life but instead shape it into something beneficial. So, one minute you may be on the side of wanting to yell folks to "love it or leave it" and the next you may find yourself looking along with Abbie Hoffman (he appears in the film for a moment in a film released months after his suicide at the age of 52). This is conveyed in a mostly factual tale (the character played by Sedgwick is a composite, for example) that is carried near wholesale by the performance of Cruise. The 145-minute runtime is his to carry alone in the odyssey from idealism to the road back from hell, one that requires an actor who can convey the gravity of the situation, and he does a tremendous job here, never striking a false note in those human moments. The burrowing of idealism is handled with honesty with such commitment that Kovic gave Cruise his Bronze Star Medal after filming. The rest of the cast do reasonably well in support from the bits and pieces that arise from before and after time of war, whether that involves protest in Sedgwick or familiarity with Whaley and vulnerable parenting in Barry and Kava. Dafoe actually doesn't show up in the film until the last third of the film (set in Mexico with prostitutes), but he is on point in those moments of animus that only he could bring in a scene where he and Cruise are bickering on a dirt road. As a whole, the movie is a general triumph in communicating what it means to see a person go through the fight of their lives in terms of withering innocence and conscience for what it all means when back home and not "out there". There is no one solution fit for all, but a level of understanding for who one is a virtue that all people can see as worthwhile, American or not. As such, it is a tough sit for audiences in the ways that matter, thanks to the efforts of Cruise, Stone & Kovic.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Happy Independence Day, folks.

Top Gun: Maverick.

Review #1844: Top Gun: Maverick.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Pete "Maverick" Mitchell), Miles Teller (Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw), Jennifer Connelly (Penelope "Penny" Benjamin), Jon Hamm (Beau "Cyclone" Simpson), Glen Powell (Jake "Hangman" Seresin), Lewis Pullman (Robert "Bob" Floyd), Ed Harris (Chester "Hammer" Cain), Val Kilmer (Tom "Iceman" Kazansky), Monica Barbaro (Natasha "Phoenix" Trace), Charles Parnell (Solomon "Warlock" Bates), Jay Ellis (Reuben "Payback" Fitch), Danny Ramirez (Lieutenant Mickey "Fanboy" Garcia), Greg Tarzan Davis (Lieutenant Javy "Coyote" Machado), Manny Jacinto (Lieutenant Billy "Fritz" Avalone), Jack Schumacher (Lieutenant Neil "Omaha" Vikander), and Bashir Salahuddin (Bernie "Hondo" Coleman) Directed by Joseph Kosinski (#343 - Tron: Legacy)

Review: 

"With Top Gun: Maverick I hope it shows people why we make movies for theaters. The film was designed to be enjoyed on the biggest screen with a packed audience."

Admittedly, the original Top Gun (1986) was a film of its time in terms of spectacle and flavor. It was a movie made by committee with the efforts of director Tony Scott, star Tom Cruise and producers Jerry Bruckheimer & Don Simpson. It was a quality movie that lived and died on the heights of its aerial sequences with enough instinct and style. The idea of doing a sequel started in 2010 with Paramount Pictures offering each of the main core of Bruckheimer, Scott, and Cruise to return, although the suicide of Scott in 2012 obviously changed things (as such, the film has a dedication to him in the credits). The screenplay was done by Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer, and Christopher McQuarrie (who has collaborated with Cruise on the most recent Mission: Impossible films) while the story was done by Peter Craig and Justin Marks (the two had first finished a screenplay draft in 2012 after writers like Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz were approached in 2011). Joseph Kosinski had worked with Cruise on Oblivion (2013) and Teller with Only the Brave (2017). He ended up becoming director when he made his pitch to Cruise on what his approach would be to making the film (i.e. the relationship between Cruise and Teller's characters and also the "Darkstar" sequence), complete with shooting practically with a camera system in the cockpit. The crew had to work for months with cooperation from the Navy to get "six IMAX-quality cameras" in the cockpit and also train the actors in pilot training (keep in mind, they also did underwater training before being allowed in a F-18). Shooting was done from 2018 to 2019, but the film ended up being delayed multiple times: once because of needing more time to shoot complex action sequences, another time because of the pandemic and finally because of scheduling conflicts.

As stated by its opening card: On March 3, 1969 the United States Navy established an elite school for the top one percent of its pilots. Its purpose was to teach the lost art of aerial combat and to insure that the handful of men who graduated were the best fighter pilots in the world. They succeeded. Today, the Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School. The flyers call it: You get the idea. It's funny how the movie is in all aspects better than the original feature despite the fact (or perhaps because of it) that it really takes several of the same beats from the previous one, from its opening sequence where a chewing off of the  lead character for recklessness before getting sent somewhere he wants to go right down to its own sequence of playing on the beach (complete with a nameless enemy once again, although you can argue over if that is because it isn't necessary or because the movie doesn't want to fearmonger people). You thought Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) copied previous movies? Try this one for size. It does handle the balance of spectacle and sentiment better in that it actually tries this time to really make riveting drama as a rite-of-passage of movie rather where it bumbled before. Of course, the chemistry between Cruise and the leading woman is better this time around by the simple act of it looking like they care to build a script with one level of depth rather than the script of vague-ness that occurred before. Cruise doesn't seem to have missed much of a beat from before, one filled with confidence in the air to go alongside a semblance of lingering doubt over things in the ground. In other words: it finds a way to let go without becoming cheap about it. Teller is okay, one with collected calmness that matches well with Cruise in simmering tension that at least makes sure he doesn't get lost in the shuffle of playing the pilot angle like a sports movie, only with a bit more chuckles that are on purpose. At least Powell seems to enjoy the role of overconfidence and chuckles, since Pullman and the others exist on the margins for moderate engagement on par with a high school movie. At least the movie utilizes the only other actor to return from the first film to poignant effect. Kilmer had his voice altered due to treatments for throat cancer in recent years (an AI program was developed to mimic what he sounded like), and the movie shows him for a brief time for a useful sendoff that is both the most inevitable part of the movie and yet the least cheesy. Harris and Hamm play the stand-in foils that are basically the equivalent of the characters played by James Tolkan and Tom Skerritt, and they do okay (of course, an over 90-year-old Tolkan might have made me crack of a smile rather than Harris, but that's just me). 

The action choreography is nearly what one would expect from a movie in 2022: something good to look at, but this time without as much evident CG to think about, if only because if Cruise is a showman who prefers to do his stunts, then heaven help the idea of trying to cheapen out on putting people in planes with IMAX cameras and let them fly. The level of inevitability could not be higher here, because to me I never really thought there was a semblance of danger present, which seems fitting to match the first film in making one not really think about the danger for just enjoying the ride (in other words, you know damn well Cruise is not going to die). In essence, the product from 1986 has been updated with useful updates that don't make one want to demand a recall. If the violence is going to seem bloodless to the point where war only seems to be the next level of a board game, then at least the movie wings it all the way to the most natural conclusion. Would I want another one of these? No, of course not, but at least as an attempt to hone back to the adventurous spirit of the first film, it at least does a suitable job in exceeding the standards set by the original without losing sight of what mattered most. In other words: it has the showmanship of the original with a degree of intelligence this time around. I don't think it quite elevates the material past "fine", but it will probably age a bit more gracefully in legacy because of its coherence in the face of adventure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Top Gun.

Redux: #029: Top Gun.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Pete "Maverick" Mitchell), Kelly McGillis (Charlotte "Charlie" Blackwood), Val Kilmer (Tom "Iceman" Kazansky), Anthony Edwards (Nick "Goose" Bradshaw), Tom Skerritt (Mike "Viper" Metcalf), Michael Ironside (Rick "Jester" Heatherly), John Stockwell (Bill "Cougar" Cortell), Barry Tubb (Leonard "Wolfman" Wolfe), Rick Rossovich (Ron "Slider" Kerner), Tim Robbins (Sam "Merlin" Wells), Clarence Gilyard (Marcus "Sundown" Williams), Whip Hubley (Rick "Hollywood" Neven), and James Tolkan (Tom "Stinger" Jardian) Directed by Tony Scott.

Review: 

"Jerry was the first person to see the energy and dynamism that ad directors could bring to movies because he was from a commercials background himself."

A main core is only as successful as the parts that come with it. Tony Scott was born in Tynemouth, England as the youngest of three sons; when his older brother Ridley shot his first film in 1962, he cast his brother as the lead. At any rate, the younger Scott studied at Sunderland Art School and the Royal College of Art before he decided to join his brother in making advertisement films (as was the case with other soon-to-be directors like Alan Parker and Adrian Lyne). Of course, he did do his own shorts with One of the Missing (1968) and Loving Memory (1970) before his feature film debut came with The Hunger (made in 1983 to minor attention), but it was his filming in advertisements that would keep him steady for a number of years, and it was his advertisement for automaker Saab (which had a car racing a fighter jet) that raised interest from Jerry Bruckheimer to do this film. Of course, as a young man, Bruckheimer had worked in advertising before moving to producing films in 1972; it was his meeting years later with Don Simpson, who also had years of experience with film production that later led to their first collaboration: Flashdance, released in 1983, would be Bruckheimer and Simpson's first major hit as producer. The movie was inspired by an article called "Top Guns", written originally for California magazine in May 1983 by Ehud Yonay. The article detailed a F-14 pilots training with the Navy Fighter Weapons School program that was noted for its prose and still photography that conveyed what flying a fighter seemed like, as stated by two pilots named "Yogi" and "Possum". Bruckheimer and Don Simpson liked it and thus got Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr to construct a first draft, although there would be considerable differences before it finally made it to the big screen (which reportedly saw a last-minute rewrite from Warren Skaaren). This also extended to their work with the Department of Defense (a key backer that wanted to maintain that the movie honored the fine points of security, accuracy, policy, and propriety with the story (i.e. a character not suffering a mid-air collision or the love story being changed from between military personnel to a military man and civilian). The technical advisor utilized for the film was Peter "Viper" Pettigrew, a former "Topgun" (as the actual term is referred to) instructor at the Miramar Naval Air Station in Miramar, California.

As stated by its opening card: On March 3, 1969 the United States Navy established an elite school for the top one percent of its pilots. Its purpose was to teach the lost art of aerial combat and to insure that the handful of men who graduated were the best fighter pilots in the world. They succeeded. Today, the Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School. The flyers call it: You get the idea. The last time I saw the film was over a decade ago, and I remember that the film was a "cheesy flick", one that worked best with its action sequences more so than its overall mood and atmosphere. But time does find a new way to write more clear words about a movie that has now reached over three decades of age. If one gets even a fraction of how Yonay felt when he flew in an F-5 for an hour in terms of aching muscles or the thrill of wanting to get up there again, then the movie has obviously succeeded. The sequences in between talking are quite effective in their choreography, ones that serve as a useful tool of conveying action with the strange duality of not churning itself in its look but also conveying violence without drops of blood. Admittedly, the movie served as a useful tool to one thing in particular: the United States Navy, who not only helped support the film but also found plenty of recruits after the movie was released. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Oliver Stone (director of Platoon, which won Best Picture the same year as this film) felt the movie was fascist. Honestly, the parody Hot Shots (1991) might actually be the most appropriate feeling about the movie: a movie that made light of its overt macho nature that doesn't have time to think, instead acting on instinct and not much else. I think the mediocrity that my eyes saw as a fourteen-year-old only slightly changed very slightly as a 25-year old. The best thing about the movie is still the style first and Cruise second. One can see the persistent charisma oozing from Cruise (who had his breakthrough with Risky Business three years prior) that molded him from casual leading man to one with a formula fitting for a big-name presence, and he essentially walks over most of the folks here, to the point where McGillis can't catch up even when "Take My Breath Away" is blaring. Edwards provides warm energy to the early part of the proceedings for a movie that set a tone as a so-called movie for the "bros", if you will. Kilmer (who had early success in comedies like Top Secret!) has his own kind of icy charm that is just as confident and self-assured as Cruise. Skerritt and Tolkan are useful tools for authority foils, ones fitting of a sports movie filled with recognizable people meant to induce a wise-ass remark or smile. Besides, sports movies could only wish to be as eccentric with their opening besides seeing someone take a photo from up above. I think the opening with Stockwell going through a panic attack in the air is probably the best actual sequence of dialogue and visual sense; the volleyball sequence may be talked about to death, but honestly it only seems to exist as an offshoot to all of the other scenes that seem shot for a commercial rather than anything to seriously dissect. I respect the craft while also recognizing that the script quality is essentially on a level equivalent to an adventure movie where inevitability is king. It is probably how driving a car from the 1980s would turn out: it may look sleek, but one has to watch out for the simple things. For a number of years, the idea of a Top Gun sequel came up a couple of times in the 21st century, even with the suicide of Scott in 2012, and after a number of years in film/development, Top Gun: Maverick was released in late May 2022. It isn't a surprise that this followed along the lines of other sequels to movies long ago, because Top Gun is a curious representation of its era: bold, set firmly in its time, and possibly ripe for further viewing if one is in the mindset for what it wants to sell.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Review: Top Gun: Maverick.

Edge of Tomorrow.

Review #1569: Edge of Tomorrow.

Cast:

Tom Cruise (Major William Cage), Emily Blunt (Sergeant Rita Vrataski), Bill Paxton (Master Sergeant Farell), Brendan Gleeson (General Brigham), Noah Taylor (Dr. Noah Carter), Jonas Armstrong (Skinner), Tony Way (Kimmel), Kick Gurry (Griff), Charlotte Riley (Nance), Franz Drameh (Ford), Dragomir Mrsic (Kuntz), and Masayoshi Haneda (Takeda) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper (2008) and #1256 - Mr. & Mrs. Smith)

Review:

"I never want to repeat myself. I can’t imagine anything else as upsetting as realizing I’m redoing something I did before. For some reason, when it comes to film, I’m very good at not repeating myself. Even though in the rest of my life, I’m constantly repeating my mistakes."

It is a strange thing to note this as one of Doug Liman's best features, since he has made a steady career for himself over nearly three decades of work, primarily in action or comedy. The son of a painter and a lawyer, Liman found himself interested in film at a young age, which led to study at the International Center of Photography and Brown University before studying at the University of Southern California and their school of Cinematic Arts. He started with small-scale features that resulted in notice such as Swingers (1996) before moving on to bigger budgets with The Bourne Identity (2002) and other various features. The film is adapted from a Japanese sci-fi novel named All You Need Is Kill, written by Hiroshi Sakurazaka and illustrated by Yoshitoshi ABe originally published in 2004, with subsequent adaptation into manga and graphic novel; one can only imagine how they might find inspiration from playing a video game and dying over again and make their own story from that, as was the case of inspiration for Sakurazaka. The film (which Warner Brothers mandated have their title rather than the title of the novel or Liman's preference for the tagline as the title) had gestated in pre-production for years, starting with a spec script done by Dante Harper in 2010, although this would be discarded for reworking by other writers such as Joby Harold. Before filming started, Harper's script was mostly discarded by Liman, and the resulting screenplay that eventually came out was done by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth (which did not have a set ending at first).

What an interesting time one could spend with this film. It is a neat little action film, finding an edge in terms of making repetition involving action come across as useful entertainment with amusement. Is it more than just "Groundhog Day (1993) but with killing aliens"? In parts, sure. It proves to be a fun one, particularly for those who desire some sci-fi thrills with a light story that is right to follow along with for 113 minutes without becoming stuck in a loop. Cruise does fairly well with this role, one that invites curiosity for the challenges needed in playing a hero who has to fail over and over again and grow with the feature in capability and charm. Blunt proves efficient here, just as capable in handling action without hitting a false note, who makes her time of tough heroism roll along with guidance with enjoyment that never wavers from our attention once properly introduced to us. In other words, they make for a good team together in beat-by-beat training. Paxton and Gleeson make up useful support, generating some wry amusement when Cruise shares the screen with either of them (since each seem right at home with action fare like this). Taylor and the others do fine in parts, since the main threat is making sure to handle bulky suits and effects-driven adversaries, which is useful to follow along with. The ending does fine for what is needed in closing the loop for an action film without short-changing itself too much, relying on its effects to carry through without being too murky or unclear to follow (although novel fans will note its clear departure with its ending). The film was a modest success for its lofty budget (because one needs to spend over $100 million for either action movies or in marketing), and it isn't hard to appreciate the film as a useful example of an action movie that bets on itself in captivating the audience with flair and a degree of intelligence to it. In any case, there are supposedly plans to do another film (called Live Die Repeat and Repeat, because words fail me), but who knows how intriguing that could be? As a whole, while it certainly seems more polished for its first half over the second, it generally works out well in capturing the challenge of trying to make a breezy film with thrills that weaves a decently conceived idea together with a useful cast and visuals to go alongside it for a useful time to have time and time again.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Jerry Maguire.

Review #1513: Jerry Maguire.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Gerald "Jerry" Maguire), Cuba Gooding Jr (Rodney "Rod" Tidwell), Renée Zellweger (Dorothy Boyd), Kelly Preston (Avery Bishop), Jerry O'Connell (Frank "Cush" Cushman), Jay Mohr (Bob Sugar), Bonnie Hunt (Laurel Boyd), Regina King (Marcee Tidwell), Jonathan Lipnicki (Raymond Boyd), Todd Louiso (Chad the Nanny), Jeremy Suarez (Tyson Tidwell), and Jared Jussim (Dicky Fox) Directed by Cameron Crowe.

Review: 
"I'm proudest of the fact that I've been able to make a few movies in the studio system that are slightly unorthodox and personal. But it's never quite as easy as you dream that it could be."

Cameron Crowe had his own little path towards filmmaking: writing about music. He graduated from high school at 15 before being hired to write for Rolling Stone magazine, travelling with bands such as the Allman Brothers Band about travels on the road with them and their voices. In 1981, nearly ten years after graduating high school, he finished writing his first book based on the idea to pose undercover as a high school student in San Diego, which resulted in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and a film the following year. Crowe wrote another look into teenagers with The Wild Life (1984) before James L. Brooks took interest in the writer that would result in him producing Crowe's first directorial effort: Say Anything... (1989). This and Singles (1992) were mild successful romantic comedy hits with audiences and critics before Crowe did this for his third effort.

Truly, if you work hard enough, you too can make a heartfelt, overproduced romantic comedy just like the ones your parents made, complete with hokey lines (having me at hello goes straight to the garbage can) that threaten to shake the agent parts out of actual interest. Beyond a long 139 minute stretch that seems to be intricately built on too many characters and plot threads while trying way too hard to be anything other than just a decent "sports" film. When it tries its hands at romance, it doesn't really spring as much enthusiasm beyond what you could find in anything else. It is built on the idea that one really wants to hear much about the plight of a sports agent (with Leigh Steinberg being the inspiration that Crowe would follow around for significant amount of time in 1993 for research) and their crisis of conscience (money isn't everything when it comes to customers-I mean clients, story at 11). In a way I care, but if you zero in on just Cruise and Gooding Jr without most of the others in building itself, you may very well have a better film, or at the very least one that doesn't seem so choked in selling itself short. Rom-com clichés or sports clichés, I'll take the latter any day. Sap has become the way to try and teach someone empathy for years so at least Crowe can say he made something that looks different from the typical film without really doing too much different, complete with a third-act breakup after having them marry (ooh, different from the usual breakup before marriage).

I suspect Cruise wanted to do a role to challenge him from the usual charismatic charmers he usually played, one where he has to bring himself up from narcissistic loneliness. It isn't really that hard to like Cruise anyway, and he does fine with generating some carefully controlled interest, wracked with doubts and zeal. In a sense, Zellweger does fine. She has a zip and interest to her that seems to suit her in trying to elicit charm even while having a script that seems lacking in really giving her something to really do beyond idealism and "cute" moments with Cruise or her on-screen son. Actually, it is Preston and her ferocious honesty that seems more suited for this strange little film, amusing in zippy honesty. Gooding delivers a well-faceted performance with charm and humor, confident and well-suited against Cruise when showing the connection of agent and star beyond just the memorable lines of showing one the money, which is a good highlight in of itself, although the scene near the end with them hugging is probably more poignant than anything else in the film. Lipnicki and Mohr seem to be in competition for who I don't care to see more deliver what is meant to be charming/funny lines (whether out of a child actor with one trick of trying to tug at the audience's heart or a comedian with...one trick of trying to be smarmily hilarious), but I actually enjoyed the resistance displayed by Hunt far better in managing to display the point-of-view of the audience in skepticism. On the whole, I did think the film was at least somewhat successful in generating interest in its agency world, where one has to see beyond big profits and egos to really see something fresh in life. If one can't find something to like in life, it will be hard to sell something in it as well. It might be a bit plodding and cliched, but it is at least passable in most of the right places of quippy humor that shows some heart without needing to become consumed in itself.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Rain Man.

Review #1488: Rain Man.

Cast:
Dustin Hoffman (Raymond "Ray" Babbitt), Tom Cruise (Charles "Charlie" Babbitt), Valeria Golino (Susanna), Jerry Molen (Dr. Bruner), Ralph Seymour (Lenny), Michael D. Roberts (Vern), Bonnie Hunt (Sally Dibbs), Beth Grant (Mother at Farm House), and Lucinda Jenney (Iris) Directed by Barry Levinson (#383 - The Natural and #561 - Diner)

Review:
"On a day-to-day basis, he's like an actor who's making his first movie, with the enthusiasm and energy to want to make things happen and try things and experiment."

Winners can come out of nowhere when it comes to film, and it takes several individuals and some luck to really make something meaningful. Rain Man is no exception. Its director was Barry Levinson. He started his way in show business through writing for comedy and variety shows, most notably for The Carol Burnett Show. He soon moved to writing for films, collaborating with others on a few films such as Street Girls (1975), Silent Movie (1976), and ...And Justice for All (1979). He made his directorial debut in features with Diner (1982), which he drew from experiences living in Baltimore, Maryland. The film found first life with the script of Barry Morrow, who had met Kim Peek, a megasavant that had exceptional memory on a considerable scale but also social difficulties. He had previously known Bill Sackter, a mentally disabled man that had spent 44 years in a mental institution for those thought a "burden on society" before working his way through a variety of jobs that led to the two meeting and eventually becoming Sackter's guardian. Both of these individuals played inspiration in Morrow's writing, which later had screenplay contributions by Ronald Bass (who finished just before a writer's strike). Three directors came and went before Levinson signed on, which included Martin Brest, Steven Spielberg, and Sydney Pollack. Hoffman would study Peek along with spending time with autistic individuals (coincidentally, he had worked at the New York Psychiatric Institute as a young adult) and compiling notes. Oddly enough, he actually wanted to quit early into filming, believing the early rushes to be his worst work.

Sometimes a film really does just find the proper road to one's heart. It was a good film in a year with other good movies that found an audience (whether it's your favorite film of that particular year or not is up to you). What we have here is a road movie, but it is one with two enterprising stars spending time with each other with a meaningful and fairly-guided foundation that achieves a majority of what it aims as a story of bonding. I think we all know at one least one person like Raymond or Charlie in our lives (I used to have an autistic friend myself), and it is watching their journey of discovery that makes something more than what could have been exploited for elaboration or over-sentiment- in other words, it's a movie about people that would've either been an interesting consideration in a previous decade or overanalyzed in a later one (now we might just yammer on about how not all autistic people are savants, which misses the whole point of daring to make a film about someone like Raymond in the first place). We first start with Cruise, enterprising and alluringly arrogant in dealing with others that make an interesting performance for the yuppie crowd that grows with you. Hoffman, with a quieter voice and a bit of a shuffled walk that makes a worthwhile performance of someone in the spectrum of life different from what we know that we care to appreciate over the course of the film, being in his own world that we can understand about. The film is really just for these two, but Golino makes a fair impression regardless. What matters most to the film in holding up is how we feel about this particular duo and their journey together as human beings. For the most part, the film works in that regard, going from place to place with little moments of appreciation we feel about these folks. They go through different but similar pathways on the long winding road without becoming a lightning rod for stereotypes and ableist bleating. Probably the most effective sequence is the dance sequence, where they just share a moment as brothers shuffling their feet. By the time they finish their quiet but meaningful last words with each other, we might reflect ourselves on what it really means to know someone and maybe smile a bit.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Outsiders.

Review #1469: The Outsiders.

Cast:
C. Thomas Howell (Ponyboy Curtis), Matt Dillon (Dallas "Dally" Winston), Ralph Macchio (Johnny Cade), Patrick Swayze (Darrel "Darry" Curtis), Rob Lowe (Sodapop Curtis), Emilio Estevez (Keith "Two-Bit" Matthews), Tom Cruise (Steve Randle), Glenn Withrow (Tim Shepard), Diane Lane (Sherri "Cherry" Valance), and Leif Garrett (Robert "Bob" Sheldon) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13, #1139 - Supernova, and #1460 - Apocalypse Now)

Review: 
"I used to be a great camp counselor, and the idea of being with half a dozen kids in the country and making a movie seemed like being a camp counselor again. It would be a breath of fresh air. I'd forget my troubles and have some laughs again." 

The 1980s were an interesting time for coming-of-age dramas along with Francis Ford Coppola. It was the busiest decade of his career, if not the most difficult. Having reached a peak with Apocalypse Now (1979), he tried to further innovation in films with the music fantasy One from the Heart (1982), which proved a failure with audiences and wrecked his finances with Zoetrope Studio (now known as American Zoetrope). He would ultimately direct six further films in this decade (including a segment for New York Stories in 1989) while trying to get out of his debts, and two of his films were uniquely released in the same year that were adaptations of S.E. Hinton novels in Rumble Fish and this film (based on the 1967 novel of the same name). The inspiration for the film came from an interesting source: a petition on the behalf of middle school students of Lone Star Elementary School in Fresno, California by school librarian Jo Ellen Misakian, since the students felt that Coppola would be a great director to make a film out of such a key book of reading from the famed author in Hinton (who wrote it as a teenager inspired by rival gangs in her high school in Oklahoma, where the film would be shot). She was very involved with the making of the film, having numerous moments of enjoyment spent with the actors of the film. One can only imagine how much interest can be generated from a film with so many young and aspiring actors present in one film: Cruise (in the first of four key roles in a breakthrough year), Swayze (a talented dancer in his second film role), Dillon (a teen idol that starred in two other Hinton adaptations in Tex and Rumble Fish), Lane (making her transition into older roles after debuting in theater at age six and film at 14), Macchio, Lowe and Estevez (with this being a breakthrough for the latter three).

There exists two different versions of the film: The original version of the film ran for 91 minutes after Coppola edited it down from 133 minutes of shooting because of studio fears of it being too long. In 2005, he decided to do a new version of the film, inspired to do a version that restored the film to be more faithful to the book that his granddaughter could watch. The newest edition of the film, called "The Complete Novel" release, runs at 114 minutes, since Coppola re-incorporated 22 minutes of deleted footage while also taking out footage from before while also replacing most of Carmine Coppola's musical score with comtemporary 1960s music. Regardless of how one sees the film, there is a fine sense of craftsmanship in making a captivating coming-of-age story with touches of realism and style that reach most of what it desires to say about the nature of teenagers when it comes to class and adapting to the way one was raised by a family (whether the traditional one or not). Nothing comes easy in life, particularly when it comes to trying to belong in society - that applied in the 1960s and it applies just as much now more than ever, as trying to find a place to belong with others doesn't change the struggle within us no matter the supposed evolution of community over the years. With a young and hungry ensemble like this, there is plenty to generate interest in making things come alive. As our focus for a primary amount of time, Howell proves himself worthy of our attention, a complicated kid on the crossroads that we can buy into fairly well. It is Dillon who commands attention with an irresistible and irascible hardened spirit. Macchio follows along with well-done conviction to follow along with Howell, with a sequence involving the sunset being a key highlight for each in idealism that will inevitably clash with reality. Swayze (the oldest of an teenaged/twentysomething ensemble at 31) is a weary but worthwhile presence to see help lead his family of brothers and outsider brothers. The others in Lowe, Estevez, and Cruise make their own interesting impressions (the best likely being a short scene of Estevez waiting for a conversation to end with Howell and someone else by cracking wise), while Lane proves a steady counterpart of the other side of town, bright in conviction.

In the end, The Outsiders still manages to reach an audience today because of what it can say about youth on the fringes. By the time it reaches its rumble for the end, one can find themselves swept over whose actually fighting who, as if the lines of conflict can muddle between what really matters, as signified by its true ending (or at least in its burning sequence), poignant in hardened reality without drowning its viewer in what really matters - to belong. In that sense, I would say Coppola certainly made a film worth belonging to, which all came together from kids that wanted to see the folks try to "stay gold" on screen.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Interview with the Vampire.

Review #1141: Interview with the Vampire.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Lestat de Lioncourt), Brad Pitt (Louis de Pointe du Lac), Christian Slater (Daniel Molloy), Kirsten Dunst (Claudia), Antonio Banderas (Armand), Stephen Rea (Santiago), Domiziana Giordano (Madeleine), and Thandie Newton (Yvette) Directed by Neil Jordan.

Review: 
This film was adapted from the novel of the same name by Anne Rice, written in 1976 as her debut novel, which was a hit with audiences. Subsequently, this inspired more installments in what became known as The Vampire Chronicles (which would be used as this film's subtitle), of which is still being written by Rice. In any case, when it came time to make an adaptation of the book into a movie, Rice wrote the screenplay, although Jordan heavily re-wrote it (although Rice would be the only one who would receive credit for the film).

In any case, this is certainly a different kind of vampire film, one that likes to bask in Gothic horror but also bask in darkness and brooding characterizations in an attempt to stand out from the vampire films of yore - while having some violence and blood, naturally. While I can't quite hold this film up as any sort of great horror classic, I will say that it does have enough sense of entertainment and positive qualities to pass through some nagging elements. Undeniably, the cast is a key highlight. Cruise, who Rice had initially disliked for the lead role before viewing the film, manages to do a fine job with such a strange role. He shows a degree of animalism with such a compelling character without devolving into overbearing camp, although I did take amusement at his first big scene involving him carrying Pitt's character up in the air - which is quite the silly thing to describe. He's fun to be around with how weird he is whenever on screen. Pitt comes off alright with trying to balance both being the storyteller of his sad tale and being someone to follow with said tale. He broods along with the nature of being a vampire just fine, but I find that he words best when with Cruise than when it is just himself. There's just something about how they work well with each other that makes the first half a bit more interesting that the latter half. After all, this is a movie where all of the main characters in the tale told by Pitt are immortals who rely on blood to live, especially since Cruise and Pitt differ in the nature of how to get said blood. Dunst, appearing in only her fifth role in a film, is pretty adept at making such a strange role for a child actor to play work without wrecking the mood, especially since the role involves a 12-year old turned into a vampire. The family dynamic that the three share for a time does work alright for the most part, since the differences between how each treat the other stand out enough to work for drama. Slater does fine with what he's given, since he is only present for the interview parts in the beginning and end (with occasional bits in the middle) that doesn't distract at any part. Banderas shines for his time on screen, having a clear sense of charm. The other actors are okay for their time to shine. The movie certainly ends itself on a fair note to close out on, complete with a cover of "Sympathy for the Devil" by Guns N' Roses.

The film earns its pace of 122 minutes just enough, never having too many boring moments while having just enough high points of energy to carry itself amiably. It invites interest and keeps the audience satisfied just enough, whether with some blood or with some of its character moments. It generally has enough chilling moments that work over the ones that don't while never becoming too boring for comfort. The visual effects by Stan Winston and digital effects by Digital Domain are pretty well done, particularly with the vampire appearance, aided by stencilled blue veins by having the actors hang upside down for 30 minutes. Rice seemed to enjoy the film herself pretty well, noting her appreciation of numerous categories from its look to its acting performances, while citing minor quibbles (such as the fact the film was rated R rather than PG-13). For the most part, this is a movie that works just fine as entertainment in Gothic horror that is just compelling enough at the right points to make a solid little film for the night.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible – Fallout.

Review #1119: Mission: Impossible – Fallout.

Cast:
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Henry Cavill (August Walker), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Simon Pegg (Benjamin "Benji" Dunn), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilsa Faust), Sean Harris (Solomon Lane), Angela Bassett (Erica Sloane), Michelle Monaghan (Julia Meade), Alec Baldwin (Alan Hunley), Vanessa Kirby (White Widow), Frederick Schmidt (Zola), and Wes Bentley (Patrick) Directed by Christopher McQuarrie (#1117 - Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation)

Review: 
For a film series that has lasted 22 years and six films, one would wonder if the Mission: Impossible series would ever seem to be slowing down in its execution and quality, and then I realize that Cruise, like the films themselves, seems to be more durable than ever. After all, how can one not be impressed by someone who insists on doing their stunts for a film that showcases a HALO jump and numerous chase sequences to the point where one said sequence led to him breaking his ankle? Stunts aside, this is a film that certainly sticks out from the other installments in the series in more ways than one. For instance, McQuarrie returns to direct and write once again for the series, and he certainly makes a great follow-up to Rogue Nation, amping the stakes and action while not sacrificing the spirit of what makes these engaging films to watch, particularly since each one has improved on the last one since the third one twelve years prior. This one manages to have a story that piles itself with motivations and turns that certainly try to keep up with the action sequences thrown in from time to time, which is helpful for a movie that lasts 147 minutes but never manages to come off as plodding or too long. Some of its beats and motivations with its adversaries may feel a bit obvious before the movie wants to show its hand, but there isn't anything too complicated or insulting to the film's detriment.

The cast all do a fine job with what they are meant to do. Cruise has a talent for enduring as long as he has as an action hero by being adept at his feet along being adept at being incredibly easy to follow, never letting the audience down once. Cavill does a fine job, playing his role with a raw sensibility that has a blunt consistency that plays well against Cruise. It is nice to see Rhames and Pegg again, proving fine character moments once again while serving well with whatever the plot wants to throw with them and not just being put aside. Ferguson proves capable to the task given for her, having a charm and energy to her that zips with everything neatly enough. Harris (the first recurring villain in the series) manages to still have a menace to his performance that works enough for the time given without feeling stale. Monaghan does fine with her time on screen, being interesting to see again. Bassett and Baldwin make for capable authority figures in their own ways. Kirby is fairly refreshing with her brief moments with Cruise, having a casual but crucial nature that is sold well. The film has a good deal of intensity with its suspense while trying to not cheat its audience with computer trickery while not going overboard too much. The action can be brutal at times, but there is never a point where the lines become blurred or too unsettling to enjoy, confident in what it shows without risk. The best action sequence is the climax, involving helicopters that certainly has a good deal of air to it, being the peak of excitement. Ultimately, I found this to be an enjoyable piece of entertainment with enough action and charm that one can expect from the series that sets the bar as high as it has ever been for the franchise but also likely for action films as a whole. It is a thrill ride from start to finish that accomplishes everything it sets out to do for its audience and more that I think makes it the best Mission: Impossible film yet.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.