Strange Days.

Review #2494: Strange Days.

Cast: 

Ralph Fiennes (Lenny Nero), Angela Bassett (Lornette "Mace" Mason), Juliette Lewis (Faith Justin), Tom Sizemore (Max Peltier), Michael Wincott (Philo Gant), Vincent D'Onofrio (Burton Steckler), Glenn Plummer (Jeriko One), Brigitte Bako (Iris), Richard Edson (Tick), William Fichtner (Dwayne Engelman), and Josef Sommer (Palmer Strickland) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark, #2361 - Blue Steel)

Review: 

"Well, I don’t see Strange Days as a pure action genre piece. I think of it as a character-driven piece. It’s got a tremendous amount of dialogue and story—at one point we thought of it as science fiction as if written by David Mamet. The pauses in Strange Days are motivated more by story and character than by the need to linger on the mise-en-scène. That’s not to say we don’t fill every frame; your eye wanders outward to this complex environment that the principal characters don’t bother to acknowledge. They take it for granted that there’s an ad hoc revolution taking place, a civil war."

Inadvertently, I stumbled onto this movie when looking around for further movies involving Kathryn Bigelow. This was her fifth film as a director that just happened to be in between Point Break (1991) and The Weight of Water (2000). It came around after years of script development from James Cameron, who first envisioned it in 1985 and apparently wrote it mind for Bigelow (incidentally, they were once married) to direct it. They then collaborated on working the elements that interested them into the film, with Bigelow striving for grit while Cameron strove for the romance that resulted in a treatment. The treatment was then worked by Jay Cocks into a script that happened to get developed around the time of the Rodney King beating and the L.A. riots (incidentally, Bigelow was involved with the city cleanup). Cameron was more involved with the effects than being on set as a producer (he noted he visited the set just twice as a co-producer), particularly with wondering how the opening scene would look like in showing someone being part of a robbery that sees them swarmed by cops to see one run up a staircase and then have a jump from a ledge that had special cameras and rigs for it. This film and True Lies (1994) were part of a deal between 20th Century Fox. Set in the then future year of 1999 on December 30 and December 31, the movie was released in October of 1995 and somehow flopped with audiences, making less than half of its $42 million budget*, but there is a slight cult audience for the film.

  

Okay, so here's one: an electronic device (SQUID: Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) that lets you experience recorded memories and physical sensations of other people that happens to have little discs for storage (older film lovers might remember that interfacing oneself to record their sensations on tape for others to experience came a bit earlier with Brainstorm [1983], although that dealt with the military trying to get their hands on it). Memories were meant to fade, particularly when doomsday or redemption is on the line. This is a fascinating film that is hard to really piece down as belonging to any one genre, mainly because it makes the mark for sci-fi thriller just as much as it does belong to the noir genre, complete with plenty to astound the audience with beyond its violence. Sure, maybe we aren't all looking upon the world with VR headsets, but our fascination with technology is a strange one when you consider where "parasocial" has evolved to in the last couple of years with how now we can see any type of "living" to stream on a phone you can hold in your hand. People probably are isolated now more than ever, particularly in what we "see" and "feel", and there is something amusing in parts for what the film shows in how people use and don't use SQUID, specifically with the lead two characters. Fiennes (cast in the wake of being nominated for an Academy Award for Schindler's List instead of Andy Garcia) makes for a fascinating conman, one who is particularly vulnerable and fascinating because of how he eventually lands up in the quest to do the hardest thing one might think of: learning to let the past go and actually move forward. There's more to life than being a two-bit pathetic person, and he makes it a curious one to actually emphasize with. Of course, it is Bassett who provides the key moral center of the film, one who is just as handy in asserting herself (such as with a fist) as she is someone clearly desiring to see someone actually make a leap forward with her (as one does with arguably the biggest hero of the film). Sizemore and Lewis might seem outmatched within the confines of basically being in a noir (right down to the latter singing like a femme fatale might do), but I liked both of them in what they provide in their odd duck qualities that think people can be used up just like a beverage to eventually see go by the wayside. The 145-minute runtime leads to plenty of buildup for what type of world would have such a device go around even if someone might use it on a person dying of sexual assault, for example (also disturbing is a scene showing someone going brain dead from amplified signals). Sure, it might hit a ray of hope for its climax that may only work best as if one was watching a fable close itself down, but there is something to be had about a movie that seems to want to remind us to actually get real beyond being looped in playback. As a whole, Strange Days is a curious film in its desire to show the weird world of voyeurism within the confines of a dystopian future that may very well seem a bit familiar to those viewing the world with their eyes and ears nowadays. It deserved better than where it landed in 1995 and should be looked at by all the curious ones out there for its dazzling execution.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

See you in 2026.

*In comparison, in its first full week (it was limited on the first week) of release, the movie was beaten out by newcomers such as Jade and the Scarlet Letter to go along with the popular movie of the week again with Seven. And yeah, Get Shorty was the week after that.

Caught Stealing.

Review #2418: Caught Stealing.

Cast: 

Austin Butler (Henry "Hank" Thompson), Regina King (Det. Elise Roman), Zoë Kravitz (Yvonne), Matt Smith (Russ), Liev Schreiber (Lipa Drucker), Vincent D'Onofrio (Shmully Drucker), Benito A Martínez Ocasio (Colorado), Griffin Dunne (Paul), Carol Kane (Bubbe), Yuri Kolokolnikov (Aleksei), and Nikita Kukushkin (Pavel) Directed by Darren Aronofsky (#1112 - Pi, #1580 - mother!)

Review: 

Sure, this is the new film from director Darren Aronofsky, but I'll be honest, the reason I picked the movie is that it seemed like the kind of movie that would slip through the cracks if I didn't act quickly. Honestly, I think I saw exactly one trailer for the movie, but I'm sure this was going to be something fitting of the guy who did Pi (1998) rather than say, the guy who did mother! (2017). So, what is the movie? Well, it is based on the 2004 novel of the same name (the first of three books involving the character, as followed by Six Bad Things and A Dangerous Man) by Charlie Huston, who wrote the screenplay for this film, which is the ninth feature film by Aronofsky. You might think is a caper with a few bits of humor. Well...it is technically a funny movie, but you sure will get some whiplash by the stuff that happens with this movie (as set in 1998, specifically late September in New York) which features a handful of characters that get killed for 107 minutes (horror movies wish they had that kind of body count). Omen or not, I saw the movie on a Thursday night to about three other people (my kind of audience, at least when it comes to ill-timed laughs). 

I did enjoy the movie, albeit one that sure takes its time to really get going in a tightly wound thriller about one man who is having an increasingly bad week, as one does when engulfed in trying to think quick for a myriad of tough decisions beyond "oh, I have a cat to take care of". But really, it is a funny movie even with such squeamish moments, mostly because I did get a kick out of the ways one is wriggled in and out of chaos: some may call it whiplash, but I lied, it really is just mayhem and I think some people prefer to shudder at it rather than admit that there was some sort of perverse enjoyment to be had (sure, there is some violence that might be too much, but, well, too bad). It does help to have a pretty neat lead behind it all with Butler, who maneuvers vulnerability (past and current) and a general sense of charm that we get behind pretty quickly in the expanding-and-shrinking scenario that comes with people and surprises at every corner. He has a certain natural attitude that just clicks to what we are seeing without seeming like just being an impersonation of say, Steve McQueen. His demons are ones that we understand when it goes from a path of realization in, well, not turning away from their problems. The cast around him is fairly quirky in their machinations of mayhem (with a cat involved, naturally), whether that involves the coarse King or the delightful rat in the coming-and-going Smith or the late favorite in friendly neighborhood killer pair in Schreiber and D'Onofrio. There are plenty of little sequences to highlight within the ever-growing pulse of terror of someone who isn't exactly gripped in calm/normal reality to begin with, and I think the ending is a pretty apt one in laying out that being on the beach may not be all it looks to be in "peace". It basically is a movie close to the sights and sounds you might have found in old fashioned chase movies, one that might be better with multiple rewatches down the road, suffice to say. I just wish I liked it more, mostly because there is a fewling this could have gone even murkier, but I guess people would have gotten up in arms more (to say nothing of its one big shock). As a whole, if you want a slap-bang film that is reasonably engaged with its late 1990s setting, you might find something worth getting into here. It has enough of a rumble in its execution to make it probably worth a watch, squeamish or not.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night is taking a few days off, just for the record.

Foolishly, I forgot to detail my shortlist of stuff I forgot to review for August, so here it was: Frankenstein vs. Baragon, Gamera vs. Gyaos, 1941, Don Q, Son of Zorro / Mask of Zorro / Zorro, The Gay Blade, But I'm a Cheerleader, City Heat, The Black Swan.

Rings.

Review #1919: Rings.

Cast: 

Matilda Lutz (Julia), Alex Roe (Holt Anthony), Johnny Galecki (Gabriel Brown), Vincent D'Onofrio (Galen Burke), Aimee Teegarden (Skye Johnston), Bonnie Morgan (Samara Morgan), Chuck David Willis (Blue), Patrick R. Walker (Jamal), and Zach Roerig (Carter) Directed by F. Javier Gutiérrez.

Review: 

You know what would have been a better idea than making a re-hash from before? Doing nothing at all. Ring (1998) is generally considered the best of the Ring movies, and it was the first film adaptation of those Koji Suzuki novels that had inspired everything in the first place. But The Ring (2002) was a decent American adaptation, one that played the mystery angle with a bit less subtlety but just as useful execution. The Ring Two (2005) stunk when it came to trying to expand on the narrative of its threat of "Samara". Granted, it is hard to make a sequel of a film that doesn't fall into the trap of explaining too much, but it just didn't justify itself in where it wanted to go without becoming silly. Honestly, the better premise for a sequel came with the 2005 short film Rings, which involved teenagers circulating the VHS tape from before as a subculture within Oregon that pass the tape along when they get too afraid at what they see before the one-week deadline, complete with videoing their reactions. Twelve years later, here we are with a film called...Rings. The 2005 film told you who was the mother of the main threat, now you get to find out the father and the manner of conception. Well, and the tape has a new twist to it, because even I would be surprised if they re-used the exact tape from 15 years ago without any sort of change. The screenplay by written by David Loucka, Jacob Estes, Akiva Goldsman while the story was done by David Loucka and Jacob Estes, which evidently took a few elements from Suzuki's 1995 novel Spiral (that book had its own Japanese film adaptation, which coincidentally was a movie with terrible critical reception). The movie was directed by F. Javier Guttierez, who had exactly one feature credit in Before the Fall (2008).

Congratulations, you made a boring teenager movie. There is just nothing here to really grab on when it comes to any sort of new scares, unless you count everyone but D'Onofrio being bland as horror. Remember that short film? There is a resemblance to that in this film, since both films involve a group of kids deciding to get their kicks in checking out the VHS tape (at least there is file copying) before they find a mark to pass it on. Of course, the opening scene is something a bit different: someone trying to avoid the curse by riding on an airplane. Let's just say you would be better off being frozen instead. I do think there is something about the weirdness of people willing to take an experiment involving the soul and other gobbledygook (college, remember). The problem is that the film veers back into the Morgan plot in making a more "intricate" story...oh hell, it doesn't end mattering when you think about it. Does it really matter to know that a priest held someone captive and had a child with them only to, you know...? Besides, the twist ending that comes in the final minutes may have been a better idea to do an actual feature rather than as sequel bait (which apparently was spoiled in marketing, begging the question how one can market so badly). But nope, you get the mildest of mild people trying to make things interesting for the most uninspired efforts. Lutz and Roe just can't make this work out together, seemingly bewildered at being in a teen movie that can't distract itself with gore or any kind of meaningful characteristics that happen even in hack films (you know, ones that are overly self-aware...); in short, when they make dumb decisions, I don't even feel like caring about it. Galecki is barely worth mentioning in the movie, as out of all the people I would assume could play the role, he would probably rank in the bottom tier. Simply put, he brings nothing to the role beyond what a community theater actor might bring to a role that is barely written to begin with, and you don't even get to see him very much once the movie ditches its first narrative trick. If it wasn't for the fact that D'Onofrio is already in the movie, you would've ditched Galecki to the side of the road, because D'Onofrio at least makes the effort for deranged dignity, one that grabs your attention like any seasoned pro would do without hamming things up. The idea of terror veering its way onto new technology (i.e. not just a friggin' VHS tape) does sound like part of an interesting idea for a film, but it doesn't come together for something to justify its 102-minute runtime. Instead, it goes with bland cheap tricks and writing that doesn't know what it wants to be that results in a forgettable effort. You would be better off spending an hour looking at a film shelf rather than this movie.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: One more movie for Halloween: The Week After 4.0 to close the circle. 3 from Hell.

Sinister.

Review #1905: Sinister.

Cast: 

Ethan Hawke (Ellison Oswalt), Juliet Rylance (Tracy Oswalt), Fred Thompson (Sheriff), James Ransone (Deputy), Michael Hall D'Addario (Trevor Oswalt), Clare Foley (Ashley Oswalt), Nick King (Bughuul / Mr. Boogie), and Vincent D'Onofrio (Professor Jonas) Directed by Scott Derrickson (#874 - Doctor Strange and #1865 - The Black Phone)

Review: 

The best part of a horror movie is when one finds inspiration in a prior horror film experience and homes in their own interesting idea. When C. Robert Cargill saw the 2002 feature The Ring, he had a nightmare after viewing the film, one that had Super 8 films and a projector in his attic. The scenario snowballed from there when spending time with Scott Derrickson in writing the script, where Cargill devised his idea of what a Bogeyman would look like that would stand apart from the usual entity, which had a look inspired by a picture Derrickson found on Flickr when looking at "horror" images (making a deal with said photographer, naturally). I'm sure you recognize the scenes with a Super 8 are in fact shot from a Super 8 camera. This was the fourth feature film from Derrickson, previously responsible for Hellraiser: Inferno (2000), The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005), and The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008). Made on a budget of roughly $3 million that was made from a variety of production companies that included Blumhouse Productions, the film was a considerable success at the time, and a sequel was made in 2015 that had Derrickson and Cargill return to write it along with one returning cast member.

It is the pursuit for recognition that pushes the whole film. Sure, the entity looks both unfamiliar and alluring to us in appearance, but the goals of the being and the lead character we are watching are not too particularly different, and that probably is spookier than anything else. Granted, the thing likes to do elaborate sequences of terror like one might expect from a horror film, but that doesn't mean that the film lacks energy when it comes to making a good slow burn movie. Ten years have only made it seem all the more interesting in what endured best in seeing the clash of old and new technology within a movie that doesn't aim for a blood affair but instead a calm terror (you might ask how Google doesn't play a part here, but where's the fun in that?) It is a familiar movie, one that plays on the cliches of the past without trying to play it for laughs. It is one with a general patience in 109 minutes that uses its imagery well for those who pay attention and dig where it wants to dig in unraveling terror when it comes to old legends and not learning when to leave well enough alone. It isn't hard to see while the filmmakers felt Hawke would be an ideal presence to work magic with a character that would have been pure heel with a less talented actor. It is his film to shine in terms of craven charm that sells every moment of ambition or growing suspicion without a false note present. We know what kind of hostility will come from a spooky dark house and secrets from all sides, but it still works well with someone we can lovingly chuckle with in terms of how self-centered a pursuit can be with Hawke there to guide it as a haunted fool that we like, as opposed to someone we shake our heads at. Rylance and the others playing the on-screen family are about what you would expect in light charm, while Thompson chews in scolding grit for two scenes of neat timing. Ransone makes a bit of plucky charm on the sidelines while D'Onofrio makes his exposition-heavy side role worth viewing for a couple of minutes. I find that it is a pretty good horror movie, one that achieves the basic goal of making its premise work more than just on paper through the use of a decent cast headlined by one really good actor to go with some stellar Super 8 photography that makes this a movie warped in past and present for the right reasons. I especially like the climax, one that doesn't roll on a red herring or any kind of last-minute tricks to try and yield the inevitable, which means one gets a movie about a creature that feeds on attention - human or beast, and the movie knows what to say about the plight of each in where recognition can get you. Some will find it pretty scary and other may find it familiar, but they certainly will have an interesting time regardless because of how Derrickson and company came together to make a horror movie worth one's attention without having to strain credibility to get to that point.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Cell.

Review #1715: The Cell.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lopez (Dr. Catherine Deane), Vincent D'Onofrio (Carl Rudolph Stargher), Vince Vaughn (Special Agent Peter Novak), Jake Weber (Special Agent Gordon Ramsey), Dylan Baker (Henry West), Marianne Jean-Baptiste (Dr. Miriam Kent), Tara Subkoff (Julia Hickson), Catherine Sutherland (Anne Marie Vicksey), Colton James (Edward Baines), Musetta Vander (Ella Baines), Patrick Bauchau (Lucien Baines), James Gammon (Teddy Lee), Jake Thomas (Young Carl Rudolph Stargher), and Dean Norris (Cole) Directed by Tarsem Singh.

Review: 

"The thing about this film is it’s an opera, and there is no such thing as a subtle opera.”

Sure, there are no easy solutions to making a 21st century movie that exceeds the clichés expected from horror or science fiction. At least one knows that there won't be a hampering when it comes to trying to include certain kinds of imagery or attempts at imagination when it comes to trying to show the mind of a killer. Of course, one has to borrow from the traditions of the past by casting singers-turned-actors and trying to crib from better movies while trying to ride hard on imagery and a few decent side performances, complete with costume design from the person who brought you Bram Stoker's Dracula (complete with that same red suit from eight years prior, which looks just as silly as it did back then). Now, that isn't too fair to a director in their debut feature (released 21 years ago). Tarsem Singh actually started as a music video director, doing so for a handful of bands and commercial brands before he got his chance to direct; in two decades, he has directed four further films, although this is obviously the one that stands out for most folks, one where he reportedly aimed for a film like "opera" rather than just a movie about a serial killer. This was the first feature script of Mark Protosevich, who utilized his fascination with serial killers to go with an interest into seeing into one's dreams (while noting stuff like Dreamscape (1984) in that familiarity discussion); while he noted that it could have had more classic suspense, he still appreciated the final result as one that provokes a strong response of both praise and disdain.

Does one desire style over substance? Well, you will get plenty of that here, since one is basically watching a brazen take of The Silence of the Lambs (1991) but with less subtlety (a guy who likes to torture the victim while with a dog that partakes in perverted things? Gee, I wonder...) and horror that is basically a step behind stuff like Seven (1995). Honestly, if you take out most of the attempts at style, this might have been a step away from being something to really make fun of. One probably wonders where the horror and sci-fi merge, well, someone just happens to learn about some new cool secret technology involving virtual reality. Given that a child psychologist can use the technology and fail in the art of navigating a lost child beyond the (music video) dreamscape, one wonders just how they are going to do with a serial killer. Actually, I don't have to guess, because she can't even do it on her own, which is where one needs more of Vaughn (because I guess anyone can just put on the suit and have the cloth put over the head or whatever). The strange thing is that the imagery doesn't really seem to sway me one way or the other when it comes to the side of praise or disdain, since it tries to go hand in hand with generating sympathy for the person having their mind probed...but as the saying goes, all one is doing is putting lipstick on a pig. The makeup looks nice, but watching one long music video with the bare minimum of story only works if I really care about what is going on here, and I've seen movies like that (Tommy (1975)), and they had more tricks up their sleeve.  Simply put, Lopez is not the one to hold a movie like this, one that desires a more interesting presence (again, not to bring up Lambs again, but a Jodie Foster equivalent wouldn't be a bad start) that can goes beyond seeming quizzically confused, complete with elaborate costuming. The dynamic between her and the kid version of the killer is flimsy and ultimately lacking in moral weight, mostly because she mishandles her part of the climax to where one might as well watch dinner theater instead. Incidentally, D'Onofrio is quite interesting here. Really the killer always seems to be more interesting than the hunter in these films, and he seems to draw out the most curious moments that work for the film, one with an aura of creeping presence without seeming like a cliche. Vaughn probably touches upon the usual expectations of the type of role seen in these films, but I respect his commitment to taking a serious role. He certainly seems more right at home with an off kilter agent than Lopez does, that is for sure, mostly because he actually treats the scifi stuff with the reserved charm that comes from not caring about exposition/music video imagery (the rest are fairly disposable, and wasting Gammon for just two scenes has to be a crime). For a movie that fiddles around near two hours with an eye for imagery, I found it very middling in terms of actual interest generated when it came to staying power in what it showed (i.e. one is thinking of better movies when watching a mediocre one). One might as well shove jagged keys in the face with how off kilter everything is, since the narrative doesnt hold too much water beyond a few contrivances that go down the river when it comes to the climax that has a share of predictability (gee, will the victim in a box of water really drown?) even with the whole sequence of Lopez bringing the killer into her world. If I dont really buy into what the movie is selling me, than the imagery isnt going to sway me all that much. As a whole, it has a look that surely will please those in the mood for what it has to show, but the rest of its foundation is a shaky, unwieldy, and overall disappointing mess that could have certainly been worse. Sometimes you can get by with effects and a few (but not all) good support from the cast, but this is not one of those times. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Break-Up.

Review #789: The Break-Up.

Cast
Vince Vaughn (Gary Grobowski), Jennifer Aniston (Brooke Meyers), Joey Lauren Adams (Addie Jones), Cole Hauser (Lupus Grobowski), Jon Favreau (Johnny Ostrofski), Jason Bateman (Mark Riggleman), Judy Davis (Marilyn Dean), Justin Long (Christopher Hirons), John Michael Higgins (Richard Meyers), and Vincent D'Onofrio (Dennis Grobowski) Directed by Peyton Reed (#728 - Ant-Man)

Review
A movie I had to watch for a Speech class? That's one good opening sign. To be clear, I had to do an assignment that dealt with stuff that happened in the movie that relates (for the most part) to what we are currently learning, such as the escalation (and de-escalation) stages of a relationship, and to the movie's credit it does at least fits the bill for an assignment and is reasonably something that could used a tool for at least some sort of learning.

It's a shame the movie isn't enjoyable as well. Yes, the movie does have a break-up, in fact it happens quite early on in the movie, a little over 20 minutes into it. Which means the rest of the time is dedicated to their attempts at trying to make the other move out of the condo they live in. This is such a miserable movie to watch mainly because not only do you know they won't get back together, you really just want the movie to end. The movie might've been better (if not at least slightly more tolerable) if it had waited longer for the two to break-up. All we really see of them before the breakup is them meeting at Wrigley Field (in probably one of the more weirder meet-cutes in recent record) and...a bunch of photos of them together over the opening credits, before the set up to their breakup. The vagueness of their happy relationship means that we never really get to care about the fact they break up. Seeing them bicker (And trying to get back at each other) is more tedious than mean-spirited, and while Vaughn and Aniston are at least passable leads, they can't save a movie that makes them feel so under developed, with only the latter seeming remotely close to being likable, and the latter barely edging towards likability near the end. The supporting cast isn't much better, barely ranging an emotional response from me that wasn't just a dejected sigh, save for D'Onofrio, who manages to be one of the only really interesting (if not weird) characters in an otherwise boring flick. Ulimately, everything seems so forced, and consequently I couldn't find myself to care about anything that goes on during the movie. The ending in which the two meet up a few months (or whenever) later and exchange pleasantries and regrets (compounded with a smile) just feels forced and (mercifully) is the final scene in an otherwise dreary movie that is neither memorable nor interesting. It is sometimes funny, but not enough to carry a movie.

But hey, at least it isn't Four Christmases.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Men In Black.

Review #211: Men in Black.

Cast
Will Smith (James Edwards/Agent J), Tommy Lee Jones (Agent K/Kevin Brown), Vincent D'Onofrio (Edgar the Bug), Linda Fiorentino (Dr. Laurel Weaver/Agent L), Rip Torn (Zed), and Tony Shalhoub (Jack Jeebs) Directed by Barry Sonnenfeld (#005 - Get Shorty, #077 - The Addams Family, and #078 - Addams Family Values)

Review
Greetings fellow viewer who decided to click the link from the reference in my review of Kingsman: The Secret Service. Back in the old days of Movie Night, reviews were not as developed as you might see in 2017 - in any case, Men in Black is a nifty comedy that works due to Smith and Jones being particularly great together on-screen while having a good sense of humor to it that certainly invited two more installments - with varying quality. Enjoy this review from 2012:

Before I begin, I will mention that this is based off the comic of the same name by Lowell Cunningham (I swear that having a review of another comic book movie is purely coincidental in every way. Maybe) This film was released a year after Smith's success in Independence Day (#193), and he works well here once again. Smith and Jones make a good pair, and the supporting cast and characters are good as well. The effects and makeup are good, it keeps you interested all the way. This film would inspire two sequels, one of which is coming next.

Reference of how many films I've done that were based on comic book films: 15.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Full Metal Jacket.

Review #044: Full Metal Jacket.

Cast
Matthew Modine (Private/Sergeant James T. "Joker" Davis), Vincent D'Onofrio (Private Leonard "Gomer Pyle" Lawrence), R. Lee Ermey (Gunnery Sergeant Hartman), Arliss Howard (Private/Sergeant Robert "Cowboy" Evans), Adam Baldwin (Sergeant "Animal Mother"), Dorian Harewood (Corporal "Eightball"), Kevyn Major Howard (Private First Class "Rafterman"), Ed O'Ross (Lieutenant Walter J. "Touchdown" Schinoski), and John Terry (Lieutenant Lockhart) Directed by Stanley Kubrick.

Review
This film is one of many by Stanley Kubrick, the director who made influential films in his lifetime. This is one of them. The film takes place in a military base, as we are introduced to Hartman delivering a big shout to the new recruits, which also includes Leonard. Ermey delivers a great performance, playing a role that he actually was in real life. He fits perfectly, and it shows. D'Onofrio's talents are shown as he plays the broken down Leonard. He's insanely awesome in this role. But is the film perfect? No. I think the film suffers from just losing momentum after the middle of the movie, where it had a pretty good sequence with D'Onofrio and Ermey, and it turns into a war film that doesn't grab much of your attention. But I feel the film is still a classic made by the (sadly) former director.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.