Interstellar.

Review #2322: Interstellar.

Cast: 

Matthew McConaughey (Joseph "Coop" Cooper), Anne Hathaway (Dr. Amelia Brand), Jessica Chastain (Murphy "Murph" Cooper; Mackenzie Foy as 10-year-old Murph; Ellen Burstyn as elderly Murph), John Lithgow (Donald), Michael Caine (Professor John Brand), Casey Affleck (Tom Cooper; Timothée Chalamet as 15-year-old Tom), Wes Bentley (Doyle), Bill Irwin (TARS - voice and puppetry and CASE puppetry), Topher Grace (Getty), David Gyasi (Professor Romilly), and Matt Damon (Dr. Mann) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer)

Review: 

“It’s been a really interesting challenge. When you say you’re making a family film, it has all these pejorative connotations that it’ll be somehow soft. But when I was a kid, these were family films in the best sense, and they were as edgy and incisive and challenging as anything else on the blockbuster spectrum. I wanted to bring that back in some way.”

Honestly, the best way to talk about a movie like this is to just go with it. In 2006, Kip Thorne (a theoretical physicist, writer, and future Nobel Prize winner) and Lynda Obst had come up with trying to work with each other again, having previously collaborated on Contact (1997), in which Thorne's study of wormhole space travel had been incorporated into the screenplay (as written by Carl Sagan, a close friend of Obst). Thorne had theories involving “warped space-time" that eventually found Jonathan Nolan assigned to write that outline into a narrative. When the original director in mind (Steven Spielberg) had other ideas in mind to work on, Christopher Nolan expressed interest to direct and to incorporate his own ideas for the screenplay (evidently, the first hour of the film, set in the not-too distant future with inspiration taken from the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s, is pretty true to the original screenplay while one particular shape for the climax came from C.Nolan). Thorne had set out two guidelines for the Nolans in having a film that wouldn't "violate established physical laws" while having wild speculations spring in some sort of science. He later wrote a book on his experiences as a consultant on the film (The Science of Interstellar). The effects by Double Negative had the use of digital projectors to go along with miniature effects from other collaborators for spacecraft (incidentally, that one famous image of an actual black hole came out in 2019). Released in November of 2014, Interstellar was a pretty fair success in its time, with probably the visual effects receiving the most praise (for its 10th anniversary, select theaters showed the film again in 70mm IMAX).

I do wonder if I would like this film better on a re-watch a few years down the line. In fact, the reputation of the film suggests that, well, for all the engineer and craftmanship, the mysteries really can have love as one of the ways forward. It is worthy spectacle and also a mash of human interest for 169 minutes. Time is the important factor in the great vacant reaches of spaces that ultimately lend one to the immeasurable pull of hope in the strange margins. The best way to go with the movie is to watch with as little to really know about it as possible, one in which you don't look for tricks but just try to absorb the film piece by piece. It does not leave one impatient to get to space because of the general commitment shown by Nolan and company to let things breathe in a place filled with blighted surroundings (consider this is a film where textbooks talk about the Apollo missions as one of waste and elaborate conspiracy). In a film with plenty of worthwhile effects, it also happens to be a movie with a worthwhile cast to support it all, since it basically is a fable of people who have to learn to look up again, ones who cannot just be caretakers or "stay" where they are. McConaughey has the calm sense to make it all work in maneuvering charm that is worth playing out for a journey beyond the stars. That first third (rough estimate) in the fields of a blighted world with him and the on-screen youth in Foy and Chalamet to go along with Lithgow make for an earthy quartet to balance out the inevitable when one is brought into the mix of Caine (reciting one particular poem) and the reasoned grace from Hathaway. Of course, the other key is in the latecomer in Damon to round out a look on human nature in all of its facets when confronted with danger, loneliness, love, or the space between (of course, Irwin is there too to convey the robot voice and puppetry to really round out the highlights, I didn't forget that). The enjoyment of the film is in layers, really, managing to walk the frontier tightrope (as one might say) in drawing a sci-fi epic in the eyes of a family and where that leads for meaningful stakes in what really matters most when it comes to the immeasurable qualities of survival. There are plenty of moments that one will find astounding, such as say, the tidal wave sequence or the manual docking sequence to go along with the eventual "clicking together" moment that rewards the curious with threading the needle in not just being a cop out for the sake of sweeping it all up. In totality, it is a pretty neat movie when viewed all the way through in execution in ways that can only be understood for those with the patience to six through such a worthwhile journey. I can't call it my favorite Nolan movie, but it is worthwhile enough to recommend on the best screen possible to absorb for all that it brings beyond the stars. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Welcome again to December 20, the anniversary day for Movie Night, which is now 14 years old. I apologize for the lengthy delay between reviews, I simply wanted to take some time off to refresh myself so that I close out 2024 by not "phoning it in". Surprise: today is a doubleheader day.

Spider-Man 3.

Review #1779: Spider-Man 3.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn / New Goblin), Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman), Topher Grace (Edward "Eddie" Brock Jr. / Venom), Bryce Dallas Howard (Gwen Stacy), James Cromwell (Captain George Stacy), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), with Theresa Russell (Emma Marko), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Joseph 'Robbie' Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Miss Brant), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) 

Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2)

Review: 

"Where’s Peter Parker again in the second picture as a human being? He’s a kid in all these stories. They’re kind of coming of age stories and he learns aspects of growing up. Different life lessons in each of these films and often times, the comic books."

You know, it is entirely possible to make a third film of a trilogy that closes the narrative of its story with the right kind of balance and entertainment value that doesn't seem quite cluttered. Of course, doing so for a superhero trilogy is especially interesting to consider, if not for the fact that the expectations can sometimes reach grand heights. With this film, Sam Raimi was the first director to have helmed an entire superhero film trilogy. Spider-Man (2002), if you remember, was pretty well-made for the time and effort it took to get it on the screen, complete with a director that obviously had reverence for the source material that managed (for the most part) to generate warmly interesting entertainment. Spider-Man 2 (2004) continued that path while managing to be even better than its predecessor, both in its hero and villain story, and a third feature was immediately set for 2007. The story was done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, while Alvin Sargent (one of the writers of the second film) did the screenplay with the Raimis. Of course, it seems every sequel superhero film needs more than just one villain. With this one, there are three of them, distinct from the previous film (well, at least, if you count Harry as a villain in the second film). Raimi intended on just a story that was focused on the primary three folks from the first two films (Maguire, Dunst, Franco) and the Sandman (as played by Church). One of the producers suggested adding the character of Gwen Stacy, while Avi Arad (former president of Marvel and a fellow producer) suggested adding the character of Venom (introduced to the comics in 1984), with his argument being that the character had a strong appeal to fans (particularly since Raimi had made two features with his favorite villains); of course, before that happened, there had been plans to have the Vulture as one of the villains, so there is that. The film, while a hit with audiences, was the last Spider-Man film for five years, as plans for a fourth feature stalled because of Raimi's doubt over the viability of maintaining an intended release date of 2011 with a suitable script.

At the time of its release, it was actually the most expensive movie ever made, having been made for $258 million. It also was the longest of the three films at 139 minutes. I'm sure it goes without saying that this isn't a great movie to close the series down by any means. But hey, it has nearly been fifteen years since this film has come out, and six (five live-action) further Spider-Man movies have followed in its wake. Honestly, the movie is okay (besides, making a third feature involving an inverted hero already happened once with Superman III (1983), which was worse). Sure, it has a few little moments that could be made fun of (scrutiny, mockery, or whatever), but as a whole it at least manages to have some entertaining moments along with perspective on redemption that at least makes for a solid average movie. But of course, a movie that had considerable hype just can't be average now, can it? Undeniably, the big problem is that it has just one too many villains to go along with not being able to land all of its sticking points by the time it all ends. It is a messy movie, one that tries to fill itself on spectacle and drama that try to maintain the balance set by the previous two features that makes a good case for why it was good to just cap the series with three films. Maguire and Dunst maintain the sincerity in their chemistry that made for two curious (and interesting) features, but it probably doesn't help that their fragmented story here is the only one among all the other loose webbing that sticks out. Seeing their web tangle and untangle itself is the endearing aspect of the series, pure and simple. In that sense, Maguire does what he can, moving onto the next step that comes in the full-fledged stages of being an adult: finding forgiveness along with dealing with the pitfalls of pride (i.e. normal Peter Parker and symbiote Peter). He is earnest enough to make things such as "dancing" work where it could have been really silly to sit through. Dunst does just as well with matching up with withered patience (since her next step is not so much ego as it is "having a life"), doing what is needed as everything basically comes full circle with these two to useful effect. 

Franco has the weird dilemma of being a key side of the villainous triangle while having a segmented part of his time spent with "amnesia"; besides, one of the resolutions presented (i.e. next time check the wounds) is incredibly convenient in all the weird ways. Haden Church (who by virtue of graduating from Harlingen High School gets "Valley credits" from me) seems to be drawing his character from films such as The Wolf Man (1941), which works to a degree. While I understand the changes made to the character from the original origin (one that I remember because I actually did read one of those stories distinctly as a kid), I think it basically ties the story (and to an extent, Haden Church) in a knot that is way, way too convenient. Grace, best known for his role on That 70s Show, which I freely admit to watching too much of for years...does not exactly fare as well. While he does make an interesting reflection upon Maguire, it is hard to escape the inevitable "Yes, but Venom..." when it comes to actually seeing him on screen. I'm not saying the role needs a "bodybuilder" type, but it just never clicks together all the way with Grace, who almost seems a step away from making a quip more than anything (the less said about the actual lead-in to Venom, the better). Besides, having another costumed character present that likes to put on and then take off their mask is a step too far (keep it on!). Howard and Cromwell are there for segments that work right until you start to remember they disappear by the time of the climax (Harris has what she needs in the usual patience expected from her role anyway, while Simmons is sorely lacking in time). 

The contrivances that come with trying to tie it all together aren't swayed so easily with its climax (which is fine). Simply put, the dilemma of figuring out what it means to be a hero suddenly with sins that only thought in black-and-white is an interesting one, but the movie seems too mired in trying to pack in as much as possible in its frenzied focusing that it nearly loses sight of what the films meant in the first place. They were interesting movies with earnest charm and atmosphere (case in point this film seems lacking with the folks in the actual city that the film sets its action) that made it the first important group of superhero films of the new 21st century. While it may not be a great closing film by any means, it pulls off just enough tricks that keep one's interest on the level without churning into a pit. In other words: being just okay might not be the best thing to say about a highly anticipated movie but time generally shows that a movie being fine works out in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012). Must be a coincidence.

Predators.

Review #1722: Predators.

Cast: 

Adrien Brody (Royce), Alice Braga (Isabelle), Topher Grace (Edwin), Walton Goggins (Stans), Oleg Taktarov (Nikolai), Louis Ozawa Changchien (Hanzo), Mahershala Ali (Mombasa), Danny Trejo (Cuchillo), Laurence Fishburne (Ronald Noland), with Derek Mears, Carey Jones & Brian Steele (the Predators) Directed by Nimród Antal.

Review: 

Well, I suppose the Predator series needed to do something again to maintain relevancy. Robert Rodriguez had a script in mind for a film in the franchise since 1994, right around the time he was developing Desperado (1995), which he described as just a writing assignment (i.e. one that was designed to try to entice Arnold Schwarzenegger, albeit with no budgetary limitations); 20th Century Fox didn't have interest for fifteen years, and while the treatment wasn't actually used, Rodriguez did serve as producer (using his company Troublemaker Studios). Alex Litvak and Michael Finch served as writers for the film, while Hungarian-American director Nimrod Antal found his way through to serve as director; he was best known for his feature debut Kontroll (2003), which received international notice. Honestly, the movie sure has a thing for killing off the most interesting seeming people. On one side, you have a wacko Fishburne and his imaginary friend in a glorified 15-minute cameo, then on another side you have a guy with three fingers that can still use a sword that doesn't talk much, and another side you have Danny Trejo playing Danny Trejo. But sure, go ahead with Topher Grace as the totally innocent one among these weirdos. I think you can take three guesses who ends up persisting through to at least the climax, and the only curiosity is to see exactly how predictable it can get. That isn't to say that Brody is the wrong choice for what is needed, because the filmmakers wanted to home in reference points in from the first film without having a burly lead, which I can get behind. Technically speaking, the only memorable film involving the title creature is the first one, so that is a slight point. Of course, by trying to hone so many nods and references to the film from 23 years prior, the actual movie one finds is just incredibly average in comparison. 

To be fair, the movie has interest to generate, mostly with the fact that there are a few predators to look for that don't look like CGI abominations. Besides, I find they are more interesting than the ensemble cast turns out in the overall endgame, mostly because one wonders how much of a movie could be done with just the feuds between the predators as a whole. Ah, but one needs things to seem just a bit familiar to make sure you aren't watching something that dares to not sequel-bait itself. I don't even think Alien vs. Predator managed to bait itself as much as this one did, but then again it is amusing to think of one movie trying to ignore the other that really are more alike than they think (in terms of overall energy, not so much in plot). The actors are okay, but the script gives them the bare minimum to work with when it comes to anything besides cursory moments (and swearing, but that is probably expected and/or easy to see coming). As such, Brody is okay with the strong silent type that comes from a lead role intending to be a stark difference from the usual leads in the series, but really it just means that one is begging for someone with a bit more charisma than just wry disposition (i.e. dry), where grunts and gravel voices go about as far as a heavy weight put into a kiddie pool. Braga plays the peacemaker to these cardboard figures, and that is basically more of a shrug than a compliment from me. Grace is the odd duck for a movie that thinks it is going to really be clever with using him for the climax. This works about as well as you think: not very well. He isn't a bad actor, but it is such an obvious role. Goggins is kind of interesting, in that one could probably make more out of the fact that a guy playing a killer/rapist is the most interesting presence in a film like this. Taktarov and Ozawa are there to say a few words, but the latter at least gets to have an interesting sword fight. This was actually an early role for Ali in a decade that soon saw him turn into a star; naturally, this means he plays someone with the bare minimum personality slated to vanish (ditto for Trejo). Honestly,  Fishburne and his one note weirdo role is more interesting in the span of nearly 10 minutes than anything else in the film- and it isn't even that drawn out! The movie runs at 107 minutes, which is a fair pace despite my middling feelings on the matter. By the time the movie tries to bait a further adventure into the middling lives of gravel voiced elite killers, I was pretty checked out. I didn't hate what I saw, but honestly, there just isn't anything here that really stuck with me. It may be better than previous features with the Predator, but that isn't saying much. To me, this is barely better than if someone had just remade the original movie, but at that point one might just stay home. Green blood may look gooey, but that isn't enough to make a proper gore film. Well, the film was fairly successful upon release (making three times its budget, which was $40 million), and yet the next film in the series (The Predator, I am not joking) followed along different lines in its story, and it probably doesn't help that only two actors have ever been in more than one Predator film. Honestly, the only thing this will inspire is the argument that one could just stick with the original feature and not lose a beat. Having an admiration of the original film is a nice ambition, but it does not ultimately make for a nice effort.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Traffic (2000).

Review #1526: Traffic.

Cast: 
Michael Douglas (Robert Wakefield), Benicio del Toro (Javier Rodriguez), Don Cheadle (Montel Gordon), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Helena Ayala), Dennis Quaid (Arnie Metzger), Erika Christensen (Caroline Wakefield), Luis Guzmán (Ray Castro), Jacob Vargas (Manolo Sanchez), Tomas Milian (General Arturo Salazar), Topher Grace (Seth Abrahams), Miguel Ferrer (Eduardo Ruiz), Amy Irving (Barbara Wakefield), Steven Bauer (Carlos Ayala), D. W. Moffett (Jeff Sheridan), James Brolin (General Ralph Landry), and Albert Finney (White House Chief of Staff) Directed by Steven Soderbergh (#984 - Logan Lucky)

Review: 
"Well, I think a part of you has to be scared, it keeps you alert; otherwise you become complacent. So absolutely, I'm purposefully going after things and doing things that I'm not sure if it's going to come off or not."

There's a difference between one doing films for a living and one making cinema, particularly when it comes to a process-driven director like Steven Soderbergh. He had an interest in film as a teenager that led to him doing his own shorts with a Super 8 and 16 mm camera. He moved to Hollywood by the 1980s and moved his way gradually through roles such as game show composing to concert video directing. His first directing responsibility was the 1985 concert film 9012Live, which featured the band Yes. An idea for a film combined with a cross-country trip led to the development of his first feature in Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989), a film regarded as an independent classic. Soderbergh (who once described himself as a synthesist) has done a mix of independent and mainstream films over the years, with noted works including Out of Sight (1998), Erin Brockovich (2000), and Ocean's Eleven (2001) that represent a versatile director of heist and psychological movies.

The basis for this film was Soderbergh wanted to make a film about the drug trade without having it be about addicts. With the rights to a property that seemed like what he wanted, producer Laura Bickford presented him with the rights to Traffik, a six-part 1989 miniseries written by Simon Moore that dealt with the illegal trade that wove a story between suppliers, growers, and customers from Pakistan to Germany to England, respectively). Looking for scripts led to one by Steve Gaghan that was about high school students and their problem with drugs and gangs that had Edward Zwick involved as producer, but the writer got him to try and do a film together with both Soderbergh and Zwick. After spending time consulting on the outline and doing films on the side, a script was finished that would have over a hundred speaking parts and split storylines to be shot in two months. The film was released by USA Films after 20th Century Fox went through wanting Harrison Ford for the lead, getting him to sign on, and dropping out even after script changes (which Douglas liked enough to take on the role after declining it initially). Soderbergh (who also shot the film himself) wanted a distinct vision for each of the three stories in order, such as having that involved different filters and contrast, such as no filter for a blue tinted Wakefield story or overexposed film with diffusion filter for Ayala's story or tobacco filter in Rodriguez's story.

It is interesting to view the film through its numerous perspectives that says what it wants about the approach to various cultures and the way that vices inhibit their little worlds in big and small ways of cruciality that shows shades of gray in every place with no real clear answer, with a war that isn't what it looks like on television. It has a cohesive edge in most areas that will inspire curiosity alongside certain emotions that make it stick with a viewer now as it did back in 2000. It doesn't compromise itself with trying to make a definitive statement or judgement on any of the three linked stories but instead lets the viewer make their own impressions on how vices (whatever kind of substance they are) can affect us or others around us without having easy solutions whatever border you live in. Obviously there isn't just one key star in the film, but the one that seems the most prominent to focus as first is Douglas, then followed by del Toro, Cheadle, and Zeta-Jones, although this isn't to diminish the effect others have in support. Douglas proves fairly captivating, one who runs with a hard-lined naivety that makes for a high-strung and capable performance that we can at least see some of which in others or ourselves in what we believe seems right. The speech at the end for example makes a point in what it doesn't say just as much as what actually is said about a fight against substances and ourselves, which Douglas handles neatly. When it comes to del Toro (a Puerto Rico native that shifted his focus from studying business to drama at the age of 20), he sticks out just as well in his distinct storyline (told to us primarily in Spanish with subtitles, which is what Soderbergh desired) in jaded honesty that we follow with great interest because of his well-timed instincts for what seems to be necessary to eke out a living within authority and corruption. This works out best in a little scene involving tourists looking for their car and del Toro telling them about calling a man to help them find the car (after stating the police won't find their car) - it is a fascinating moment that would've probably just been a one-shot blip with a less intuitive actor (incidentally he would later star in another drug war related film with Sicario, which also rules). Cheadle does just as well in reliable nature with a sort of cat-and-mouse game involving procedure and coercion, which he does with careful tension. This reflects just as well on Zeta-Jones in her evolution of principles and moments shared with a sneaky (and fairly effective) Quaid.

There are other aspects that do well, such as Christensen in driving the angle of shocking addiction without seeming like an after-school special act, but it ultimately is the balance of its three storylines in look and tension that makes it a mostly well-done film for its era. It will hold the attention for most of its intentions in 147 minutes that rewards patience through a mostly intact plot and fair camerawork and editing. It accomplishes most of what it wants to speak to us by knocking us over in its statements said and unsaid that excels in uncompromising uncomfortability that speaks truth to hypocrisy now more than ever.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.