Nosferatu (2024).

Review #2327: Nosferatu.

Cast: 

Bill Skarsgård (Count Orlok / Nosferatu), Nicholas Hoult (Thomas Hutter), Lily-Rose Depp (Ellen Hutter), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Friedrich Harding), Emma Corrin (Anna Harding), Willem Dafoe (Prof. Albin Eberhart Von Franz), Ralph Ineson (Dr. Wilhelm Sievers), and Simon McBurney (Herr Knock) Directed by Robert Eggers (#780 - The Witch, #1833 - The Northman)

Review: 

"A lot of people talk about my films as stylized. But aside from the fairy tale composition, it’s not intended to be stylized. I over-rehearse with the intention of it being in the actors’ muscle memory, so that it doesn’t feel like hitting a mark. If you’re doing expressionist cinema, you are aware of the artifice so much, because it’s stylizing the world in a way that is completely unrealistic. Here, obviously — you know, I’m sick of talking about my research, too, but obviously the verisimilitude of the material world is very important to me."

In 1922, a movie from a cheap studio came out with unusual circumstances. Prana Film was behind one and only one film: this one, which had been founded by Enrico Dieckmann and Albin Grau, with the latter being an occultist artist (supposedly, he was inspired to do the film based on an experience in World War I, where he met a Serbian farmer that apparently had a father rise from the grave to feed on blood); Grau designed the sets and costumes, complete with making up a letter with "Enochian" symbols that shows up in the film. The duo brought Henrik Galeen in to write a screenplay that would be inspired by the 1897 novel Dracula (as written by Bram Stoker) and F.W. Murnau as a director. Of course, Florence Balcombe, the widow of Stoker, did not like hearing that someone made a movie freely adapted from Dracula and issued a lawsuit, with the result being the negative and all prints of the film ordered to be destroyed (incidentally: years after the lawsuit, she did grant the rights of the book to a guy who made it into a play for the theater which, well, she didn't get the entitlements for it). But the movie, unlike Balcombe, would endure in the public sphere. Over a half-century later, Werner Herzog was eager to make his own "homage" of Nosferatu and waited until the copyright for Dracula to enter the public domain to make what became Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979). which had the names of the book characters incorporated for a curious outcome of artful terror (it set itself in 1850, whereas both the 1922 and 2024 film are set in 1838). As a youth, Eggers found an image of its star in Max Schreck that had him obsessed enough to later direct a stage version of Nosferatu. Eggers had first been tapped to direct a Nosferatu remake since the first announcement being in 2015. Each version has their own distinct edge in terms of the climax (the 1922 movie details a "pure-hearted woman" offering blood of her own will, the 1979 movie features an awakened sick man, and, well, "the purity of dawn" is something you have to see here).

I'm not quite sure where I would rank it among movies involving vampires, but it probably will rest pretty high, managing to outrank directors who tried to make their own Dracula movies such as Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), for example. But with this "folk vampire" story, one will have plenty to highlight in a movie that focuses on a psychic and erotic connection with a creature of pure evil that emanates haunting atmosphere most films would dream to have. It is the perils of being blinded by perceived enlightened times at the cost of folk tales. With a film like this, we get to participate in the ritual of folk terror that clearly had plenty of investment from Eggers in history and curiosity (for one, Eggers had already read Montague Summers in terms of his work on vampires but obviously one would wonder about the imitation of Vlad the Impaler and the works of Jean-Martin Charcot in terms of hysteria). In short, Eggers has crafted his own legend of unsettling nature that earns every moment it crafts in terror with craftsmanship made from love that is deliberate in its pacing (132 minutes) for all of the senses possible. Interestingly, Skarsgard had read for the role later played by Hoult (of course, I can't imagine what the film would've ended up with Harry Styles or Anya Taylor-Joy as leads). Skarsgard (as aided by opera singer Ásgerður Júníusdóttir in lowering his vocal range) is exquisite in his unsettling nature as a rotting Transylvanian nobleman corpse. He ends up wrapped in darkness and makeup that makes him pretty distinct in an obsession and rotting core that one can certainly see as both repulsive and seductive. Wrapped in agency as a victim of choices (most significantly the ones to start and close the movie) is a wonderful Rose-Depp that seems to understand the darkness that lies beneath the surface of the time one is wrapped up into with a grace that works well in selling this gothic tragedy. Hoult is the most normal of the folks in the main group, which namely means a man having his 19th century preconceptions shattered (consider that in this version, he is even warned to not go to the Carpathian Mountains by his wife), which he handles with worthy timing. Rounding out the cast is a mix of strange seasoned dignity, whether that involves the conventional in Ineson, the shaken Taylor-Johnson (who gets to have a disturbing last highlight), or, well, the occult magic of Dafoe, who plays the role with gusto in terms of shattering belief that dominates the screen in a way that is distinct from the usual "vampire hunter" role because of how committed he is mystical devotion. Of course, Corrin and McBurney also do well in the cast (the latter proves quite suitable in raving madness). Above all, this is a tremendously gorgeous movie to view in Gothic despair (as captured by Jarin Blaschke), one in which there are plenty of moments to simply gaze in curiosity, whether that involves a nighttime ritual (consider what they do there when compared to how things go in the last scene involving vampire confrontation) or the leadup to meeting Orlok on his realm. As a whole, it is a charmer of the grotesque that builds its dread for righteous furor for a damn good time that likely will improve with further viewings. It is a tossup to figure out what lurks best in the totally-not Dracula adaptations, but you will not go wrong here.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Review #2251: Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Cast: 

Michael Keaton (Betelgeuse), Winona Ryder (Lydia Deetz), Catherine O'Hara (Delia Deetz), Jenna Ortega (Astrid Deetz), Justin Theroux (Rory), Monica Bellucci (Delores LaVerge), Willem Dafoe (Wolf Jackson), Arthur Conti (Jeremy Frazier), Burn Gorman (Father Damien), Amy Nuttall (Jane Butterfield Jr.), Santiago Cabrera (Richard), Danny DeVito (Janitor), and Nick Kellington (Bob) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman [1989], #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes [2001], #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, #1295 - Sleepy Hollow, #1615 - Edward Scissorhands, #2160 - Mars Attacks!)

Review: 

"It was only until fairly recently, with all this talk, that I just put all the noise away and I just go, 'Okay, I love the Lydia character.' That was the character that I connected with, like, as a teenager. So I go, 'What happened to this person 35 years later? What weird thing?' You go from cool teenager to some fucked-up adult. What relationships do you have? Do you have kids? What's your relationship with that? It's not something I could have done back then; it's only something you could do once you experience those things yourself. So for me, this became a very personal movie, like a kind of weird family movie about a weird family."

You know, I actually had to go back and look up the most recent Tim Burton film I expressed interest in seeing right then and there. I actually forgot it has been five years since his last feature film, in which I'm sure went completely well in non-soulless remaking in Dumbo [2019] (in fairness, younger me was okay with Alice in Wonderland [2010]). I didn't really think about the chance of Beetlejuice having a sequel, even though I remember having a neat time with it in the couple times I remember seeing it, one originally devised by Michael McDowell and Larry Wilson with helpful re-writing from Warren Skaaren that had plenty of amusement within the bureaucracy of the dead and a free-spirited (read: pervert) bio-exorcist. In some ways, it really is a manic syrupy tribute to the B-movies that Burton grew up with, made in an era where one could just do stop motion and blue screen effects to go with slapstick in a neat 92-minute package. The idea of a sequel has been kicked around long enough that one concept was to have the title character go to Hawaii, but it only gained actual steam in the last couple of years (so just a bit after someone adapted the film into a musical). The screenplay this time around was done by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (best known for developing Smallville and incidentally, Wednesday) while the story was done by Gough, Millar, and Seth Grahame-Smith (probably best known as the writer of the mashup Pride and Prejudice and Zombies). 

Sure, the sequel isn't quite at the same level of "good" than the original, but it is evident that Burton and company at least had a good time making it. I didn't really pick it because "hey, sequel to something I liked", I picked it more because I figured it would be the type of film to experience with a crowd at least once (as opposed to the usual "who cares" or half-empty amusement, because even mothers deserve a visit to the theater for the first time since *Cats*). It complements the original while fulfilling two obvious things: thank goodness this was not a lazy "continuation TV series" (or god forbid, a streaming original) and thank goodness it was a film that wasn't merely a lazy vessel for passing the torch. One moves on from the stylings of Harry Belafonte to stuff such as "Tragedy" and "MacArthur Park" without a bump in the road that will surely mean a Beetlejuice double-header in the coming years would be a delightful idea for the spooky season (104 minutes is resourceful enough when you consider the earlier film was also under two hours). Of course, it helps that Keaton, Ryder and O'Hara are committed to not mailing in their returns to go with a few neat moments from the fresh faces to go alongside a few interesting moments involving effects (read: a movie that generally doesn't look like it got shot on one stage), which is probably most amusing in its handling of killing off a character (ironic that a film about a perverted title character featured an actor later found to be a pervert) or in not over-riding the "Beetlejuice baby" into the ground. Keaton might be in his seventies, but he obviously hasn't lost his enjoyment in terms of mischief that he handles in such carefully crafted time on screen (Keaton didn't want to have that much screentime in the film, which actually reflects the original, when you think about it). One can savor those moments of mischief without thinking back to the original and thinking things have gone soft (sure, he might not turn into a snake, but one late bit is pretty hell-raising). Of course, the dynamic of Ortega and Ryder is playing on a few familiar beats (we have graduated from "strange and unusual" to estrange daughter of "strange and unusual"), but Ortega is snappy and charming enough to go with the material for us to follow along with. Theroux is amusingly wormy to stick out, while Bellucci is basically relying on screen presence and little to really do for a movie that isn't exactly keen on having a "big bad" but instead just relies of, shall we say, casual macabre vibes (this is a movie where someone gets their limbs back while playing an oldie tape). Dafoe playing a stock cop type somehow seems on point for worthwhile commitment. In general, the movie inspired a few neat chuckles in its eventual road to getting a climax that borrows a bit from before while feeling the need to try and do something a bit wilder than already mentioned, which is, well, fine. I was conflicted about rating the film for a few days because sometimes it really does take a while to wonder just how "good" something is. The original was pretty neat, and the sequel is fine, but I'm not sure if giving it the whole "good" rating makes sense when there is a totally serviceable option in calling it "fine" (this is when I debate if putting a ".5" rating would be ideal in the future). It is a solid film in the aspects of slipping it on one night and just admiring that a well-made sequel to a film from decades ago will come and go in spooking the gut without churning one's soul, if you know what I mean.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Streets of Fire.

Review #2218: Streets of Fire.

Cast: 

Michael Paré (Tom Cody), Diane Lane (Ellen Aim), Rick Moranis (Billy Fish), Amy Madigan (McCoy), Willem Dafoe (Raven Shaddock), Deborah Van Valkenburgh (Reva Cody), Richard Lawson (Ed Price), Rick Rossovich (Officer Cooley), Bill Paxton (Clyde), Lee Ving (Greer), and Stoney Jackson (Bird) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs, #1091 - Last Man Standing, #1139 - Supernova, #1625 - The Long Riders, #1728 - Another 48 Hrs, #2217 - The Warriors)

Review: 

Paramount Pictures really liked 48 Hrs (1982), as directed by Walter Hill. He had co-written it with Larry Gross as a production that had Lawrence Gordon as one of the key producers. So, two years later, here they all are for a film again. And so, Hill wanted to make a film that he thought would be a perfect one for his teenage self that would have things he still loved even now: "custom cars, kissing in the rain, neon, trains in the night, high-speed pursuit, rumbles, rock stars, motorcycles, jokes in tough situations, leather jackets and questions of honor". Of course, in the words of Gross, Hill wanted to do a movie that basically was his "own comic book movie", which might sound a tiny bit like the inspirations for The Warriors. Casting hiccups (i.e. wanting Tom Cruise but getting beaten to the punch) and a sudden inspiration during writing...led Gross and Hill to take the success of Flashdance (1983) as a way to make the film as basically a musical, since, well, if one "stylized movie" can get going, why not this? Did I forget that one other inspiration for the type of reality depicted for the film was John Hughes? Yes, Hill not only wanted to make a movie that was something that could be great for his teenage self as a high school flick, a comic book-type film and also a musical. The film, meant to be the first of a planned trilogy (all with Pare tapped to star, naturally)...did not work out well, filing to make back its $14.5 million budget. Gross has gone on record stating that the film did have influence when it came to ones that were (in his words) "completely saturated in...iconography", such as RoboCop and Se7en, with his theory being that those films did stylization with a balance of gore that hooked the audience in ways that were not done with Streets of Fire. In 2008, Paré and Van Valkenburgh participated in Road to Hell (as directed by Albert Pyun), a sort-of follow-up.

I wish I could love it. I really do. The film is wonderfully shot by cinematographer Andy Laszlo when it comes to that weird world of another time and place that makes for a fruitfully interesting vibe and such for 93 minutes. To me, it just comes off as a more average rendition of The Warriors (1979), complete with an even less interesting idea behind its main duo because dear god, it focuses on the wrong two! I swear, one has more fun with the cheesy retort between Pare and Madigan than the attempts of trying to make me care about him and Lane (oh look, an ex-boyfriend encountering his ex-girlfriend in a rescue operation, makes one want to slip on Casablanca). Hell, according to Madigan, when she read for the film (for the part played by Van Valkenburgh), she apparently found the nomad soldier-for-hire the more interesting one. With the charm of someone seemingly ripped out of a Howard Hawks film, she steals the show away from Pare, who plays it all too cool that really only works if one is Clint Eastwood. Lane (present in a handful of films such as Coppola's two 1983 films in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish) may have a suitable presence when it comes to singing, but I think I actually found her more interested in chemistry with her lead...in A Little Romance, five years earlier. One just has to view the film around them as if it was one of those cheesy teen films where the action matters more than if the sucker gets the girl. Of course, Dafoe wearing a leather...apron (?) is far more belonging to the vibe of goofball adventure, complete with a casually weird vibe that would make a fascinating comparison with The Loveless. There is something oddly amusing about Moranis not getting to do schtick with this role, which is staid but kinda funny. It is a lean movie of pretty simple Western values that has an axe-fight in the middle of a crowd before closing its mish-mash of vibes and a song naturally named "Tonight Is What It Means To Be Young". As a whole, it is a film that looks nice and has a few moments of good-natured fun within its fable elements of rock and roll to clash with mediocre leads and stuff that only scratches the surface of being more than just "okay" entertainment. It might be among Hill's ambitious ideas for filmmaking, which therefore makes it more than just calling it one of his average productions of his heyday. 

Overall, I give it 7 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.

American Psycho.

Review #1984: American Psycho.

Cast: 

Christian Bale (Patrick Bateman), Justin Theroux (Timothy Bryce), Josh Lucas (Craig McDermott), Bill Sage (David Van Patten), Chloë Sevigny (Jean), Reese Witherspoon (Evelyn Williams), Samantha Mathis (Courtney Rawlinson), Matt Ross (Luis Carruthers), Jared Leto (Paul Allen), Willem Dafoe (Donald Kimball), Cara Seymour (Christie), and Guinevere Turner (Elizabeth) Directed by Mary Harron.

Review: 

"What occurred to me is that just enough time had passed to make a period film about the ’80s, and say things about the ’80s, and bring out the satire. And that was interesting to me."

As a director, Mary Harron has aimed to make above all else movies with meaningful things to say beyond just the label of feminism. Born in Bracebridge, Ontario in Canada to an actor/comedian in Don Harron, although the divorce and re-marriage in her family led to her living between Toronto and Los Angeles and later England. Her parents liked to take her to films they wanted to see that were generally art films (i.e. not exactly suitable for children), with her early large influences being Alfred Hitchcock. Later studies at places such as the National Film Theatre and she studied English at St. Anne's College, Oxford University before moving to the States in New York to become a journalist. She wrote and created a magazine for what became the punk scene in the city before later becoming a drama critic in later years. In the 1990s, her interest in the life of Valerie Solanas spurred her into wanting to do a documentary (since she was working as a producer on a program dedicated to American pop culture at the time). In turn, this idea was suggested to become a film, which resulted in the 1996 film I Shot Andy Warhol. In total, Harron has directed seven films in over two decades, with the most recent being Dalíland (2022). The movie is based on the 1991 novel of the same name by Bret Easton Ellis. The original book generated controversy because of its portrayal of violence toward women (as a whole the book is far more visceral in its descriptions by its unreliable narrator in Patrick Bateman of murder along with emotional psychotic breakdowns). Ellis has described the main character of Bateman as being "crazy the same way I was", although he has only admitted this in recent years (he initially stated during the release of the novel that his father was the inspiration while also later calling the book "a criticism of male values that were around me", one that he found easy to observe as a gay man). Ellis had called the book "unfilmable", but Edward R. Pressman bought the rights to film the book in 1992 and persisted for eight years. Numerous names were considered to direct such as Stuart Gordon and David Cronenberg (with Ellis even writing a draft), but Harron accepted an offer to do the film in 1996 under the condition that she could write her own draft. She brought Guinevere Turner on to help write the script while also trying to find the right Bateman (for her part, Turner found the book horrifying alongside really funny while also believing the right spin could make for a "really subversive, feminist movie"). By 1998, Harron thought she found her ideal actor with Christian Bale (at the time mostly known for Empire of the Sun (1987), when he was 13), because she felt he was the only who understood the role as being (in their words) "an alien who landed in the unabashedly capitalist New York of the '80s" when he found the script quite amusing. However, Lions Gate Films tried for a time to recruit Leonardo DiCaprio to star in the film (which Harron vehemently disagreed with), complete with Oliver Stone taking over as director. Thankfully, disagreements between the two led to the return of Harron and Bale, albeit with a small budget of roughly $7 million.

The movie was indeed a modest success at the time of its release in 2000, albeit with a polarized response by some due to the level of violence. Actually, looking back, it is almost as amusing to consider the perception of the film back then as it is to actually look at the film now and share a laugh as the effective satire it ultimately is. It is the work of somebody who may or may not be guilty of murder slipping by in a world focused entirely on lifestyle above all that examines misogyny and masculinity with an awareness and timing that is brilliant to sift through for 100 minutes. Undeniably, the movie is all on Bale and his performance. His method of performance involves plenty of rhythm to go with clarity and control that brings out plenty in isolation and alienation beyond the winning smile shown in a man that in his words is "simply not there". He has the outward charm of someone like Tom Cruise (intentionally done) that is both unsettling and captivating, one who seems to sell every scene he is in (present in all but one) as one of numerous people that we see within the mask they seem to wear (why else does the axe sequence seem to linger on half of his face covered in blood) It is evident that his method preparation paid off for an effective performance that is the perfect act of a warped man in a warped time that shows the vanity of man through people who are never seen working in any scene. The others can only help but drift in the ideal manner when wrapped in the gloss of the 1980s, such as the restaurant trio of Theroux, Lucas, and Sage, or with Witherspoon and her confidence that goes like oil on water when paired against Bale. Sevigny is probably the most sane person in the general web of things, at least because she is in it slightly more than Dafoe and his blend of investigative query/baiting. There are a handful of interesting moments to note (at least ones that have not become Internet memes), ones that show Bale gliding through his environment in the most entertaining of alienated ways, such as him casually admitting his crimes in conversation or him doing a strut right before the axe death with "Hip to be Square" playing.

Ellis described the book as one that he didn't think needed to be turned into a film, since he felt that the ambiguity of the novel would be turned into something "infinitely less interesting" with a medium of film that seemingly demands answers (incidentally, the book later inspired a 2013 musical). The novel leaves it to one's interpretation about what was real and not real, while Turner and Harron's script was intended to show a real effort to have things be real for the main character but at some point "sort of perceiving things differently, but they're really happening." The ending is deliberately meant to confound one over just what really happened (personally, I assume a chunk really happened because watching a movie about murders being shown only to be told they aren't real is dumb as hell). Ellis has been quoted numerous times as to finding the film either as "fine" without being entirely necessary or as one that is "in some ways a complicated movie for me. But overall I like it." As a whole, American Psycho is a worthwhile use of your time for those who are interested in seeing a film that belongs to more than one genre and thus is not instantly easy to peg in one assumption. It is a lean and mean satire with elements of horror that will sift in your head and not escape any time soon after it is finished, which makes for a pretty good time. It is the kind of really good film that may even grow on you further, which probably says a good deal about how far the film's stature has grown in two decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Beau Travail.

The Northman.

Review #1833: The Northman.

Cast: 

Alexander Skarsgård (Amleth), Nicole Kidman (Queen Gudrún), Claes Bang (Fjölnir the Brotherless), Anya Taylor-Joy (Olga of the Birch Forest), Ethan Hawke (King Aurvandill War-Raven), Willem Dafoe (Heimir the Fool), Elliott Rose (Gunnar), Gustav Lindh (Thorir the Proud), Eldar Skar (Finnr the Nose-Stub), Phill Martin (Hallgrimr Half Troll), Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson (He-Witch), Björk (the Seeress), and Olwen Fouéré (Ashildur Hofgythja) Directed by Robert Eggers (#780 - The Witch)

Review: 

If I told you that this was a Viking rendition of Hamlet, would you be as interested to hear about the movie as opposed to just stating the cast and director? Well, one does prefer a bit of a history lesson, I suppose. Amleth is a legend in medieval Scandinavian lore, as told by Saxo Grammaticus, a Danish historian who wrote about him in the 13th century based on the oral traditions of long ago, which explains why the film is set in the year of 914 (by coincidence, "Hamlet" happens to be an anagram of "Amleth"). As such, this is a loose adaptation of the legend, one that was written by Eggers and Sjon, an Icelandic poet, novelist and lyricist. This isn't exactly an adaptation of Hamlet as it is more a parallel of it, but since one has likely seen many interpretations of revenge and madness, this isn't exactly a surprise: it involves a family mixed in blood and fate. Undeniably, it helps to have a little familiarity with Eggers as a director before one goes off seeing a film like this, since it helps to see the progression of a director who seems interested in exploring lost imaginations through all the research and rigid shooting methods that were apparent in his prior films with The Witch (2015) and The Lighthouse (2019); it is the traditions of the past that he wants to see through that mean most. Skarsgard and co-producer Lars Knudsen had wanted to do a Viking project for some time, but it was only in 2019 that Eggers was tapped to direct the film, and there were historical consultants utilized for the film that would do a mix of historical accuracy and educated guesswork; for example, initiation rituals are not exactly specified beyond a few descriptions of sprinkled blood of dead animals (now, catching a thrown spear to throw it right back, that came from an Icelandic saga). At any rate, it is the biggest budgeted film done by Eggers (at around $70-90 million), owing to attempts to try and balance the demands of the studio for accessibility over deliberate pacing/artsy - 137 minutes is the run-time for the film.

It does start a bit sluggish, but once one is hooked into its blunted edge of darkness, you are in. It never tries to be anything other than what it wants to be in a saga that has plenty of blood to go along with an unyielding sense of revenge. Well, that, and the honor of being able to die by the blade. It draws on mythology and archeology to make a formidable freak-out film that doesn't settle for just mundane magic.  Eggers has cultivated a brutal yet beautiful vision of history while making a film that would make Conan the Barbarian (1982) blush. Any debate over whether style or substance wins the day seems unnecessary when it comes the real question about just how far a vision can go in not wanting to compromise for the sake of it. For me, I was totally fine with the movie as a whole, because I admired what I was seeing in its blood-soaked sorcery without needing to squirm at attempts to divert itself away. This also includes the climax, which manages to maintain its destiny of vengeance with durability. This is a movie that starts with folks taking substances while acting as wolves and ends with a fight on a volcano...in the nude. It may be weird, but I admire its sensibility and its gradual pacing, and it is the cast that helps to elevate the material just as far as it wants to go. Skarsgård makes an ideal lead in terms of a man going berserk with trance-like fury that exists along the other people for one purpose: primal ones. Kidman takes some time to get properly involved in the action, but when she does get there, she sinks her teeth right in when it comes to committed steely nature, particularly when Kidman and Skarsgård encounter each other alone. Taylor-Joy seeps into the mystical side for a few useful moments (generally spent with Skarsgård), earthy and familiar without mundane. Given that one could almost flip the perspective around for a different film (a man threatens to take one's whole family away because of something they did years ago...think about it), it is interesting to see just how Bang would end up, because he makes a soothing adversarial presence, one that doesn't have to chew scenery to make the inevitable conclusion with the lead any more interesting than it needs to be (heck, they don't even say words in that moment). Hawke and Dafoe aren't in the film for too long, but they are each useful for what needs to happen with the youthful title character (as played by Oscar Novak), made clear by their one big scene together: a ritual together, complete with folks acting like dogs...and hallucinogens, which certainly raises the hair on the skin. Just saying what happens in a movie like this isn't quite enough, one really should just see for themselves what happens in a movie that presents vengeance and traditions of the Viking age in all of its clear glory without pretense or false note. I think it hits most of its marks for what it aims for, and fans of Eggers will certainly enjoy what they see here, and I think others will generally find their patience rewarded.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Loveless.

Review #1820: The Loveless.

Cast: 

Willem Dafoe (Vance), Marin Kanter (Telena), Robert Gordon (Davis), J. Don Ferguson (Tarver), Tina L'Hotsky (Sportster Debbie), Lawrence Matarese, and Danny Rosen (Ricky). Written and Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker and #1548 - The Hurt Locker) and Monty Montgomery.

Review: 

"I guess if I had to single out a theme for what I've been up to, I'd say it's some sort of journey to explore film's potential to be kinetic. This probably started unconsciously, but it's there in one way or another in all my movies. I'm always trying to squeeze the most energy out of the frame."

Yes, this is a directing duo each making their first ever film, but we both know that Kathryn Bigelow is the drawing presence when it comes to examining a director in the first stages of a dutiful career, particularly with the way that her career has moved in the past four decades. Before she became a filmmaker, the California native studied painting at the San Francisco Art Institute and film scholarship/criticism at Columbia University, and it was in the latter place that she met Monty Montgomery (incidentally, he would later co-produce Wild at Heart, which featured Dafoe). Bigelow's first film was a short called The Set-Up, which dealt with two men beating each other up while two professors deconstruct it. Through resources of the Museum of Modern Art's Film Study Center and a small town in Georgia, the movie was shot in 25 days. The original titles for the film were "U.S. 17" before "Breakdown" (as shown on the festival circuit in 1981), and then the final title (upon its premiere in New York in 1984). Probably the easiest comparison one could make is The Wild One (1953), since that film also features a small town that encounters a motorcycle gang with a charismatic lead, although you might see traces of an imitation of an American International Pictures film (like The Wild Angels). As such, the movie has arthouse sensibilities with touches that make it set around the late 1950s/1960. 

Well, there is a distinct outlier in the cast: This was the first starring role for Dafoe (a founder of the experimental theater group in The Wooster Group and someone briefly seen in Heaven's Gate the previous year). Gordon is actually more known for his neo-rockabilly singing, and he is responsible for the music in the film. Ferguson was a thirty-year actor with a handful of character roles while also being a NCAA Basketball Tournament referee for a number of years. This was the first of four Kanter roles, and L'Hotsky was a Downtown New York personality. It might not be a surprise that this film was not a particular success among the independent circuit (to the point where one can see three different release years for this film depending on the premiere from 1981 to 1984). It certainly won't be the ideal feature for everyone, because it is more of an art feature with brooding and quiet glances than anything, where action is only what you can speculate to be action, complete with select voiceovers for a film that has some presentation of "who are the real outlaws" or something. In short: the movie proves just fine, if only because its curiosity factor manages to override the decaying sense of patience one could have if they don't find the retro feel to their liking (besides, the attempt at retro hasn't exactly gone away, but Bigelow has clearly found her distinct edges in action). Dafoe is undoubtedly the highlight, if only because one can see the potential there with such a brooding actor that is distinct from the very second you see him in the opening, having a volatile presence that seeps into scenes in all the right senses that makes the movie better than it should be. Of course, the others aren't too far behind. Kanter has a vulnerable presence that invites curiosity within minimal choice words, one that lingers with Dafoe for the moments on screen together with apt patience. Gordon and the other members of the biker group aren't exactly packed with many words, but they fit the casual nature required from this pastiche requirement. Ferguson does just fine with slimy qualities that stoke a necessary chill that seems unstrapped by time. It can be a breezy or slow 85-minute stroll when it comes to this film, but I found it inviting enough in the small lunges one sees from a biker movie that has the promise of improvement for its director (not Montgomery, who shifted to producing). As such, it might not be the easiest recommendation, but if one wants to see an early showcase for both Bigelow and Dafoe with a quiet brooding experience of being on the road, you probably won't go wrong there.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years (1988).

Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Review #1781: Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Cast: 

Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Zendaya (MJ), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Jacob Batalon (Ned Leeds), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Jamie Foxx (Max Dillon / Electro), Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn / Green Goblin), Alfred Molina (Dr. Otto Octavius / Doc Ock), Benedict Wong (Wong), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Rhys Ifans (Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard), and Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman) Directed by Jon Watts (#966 - Spider-Man: Homecoming and #1243 - Spider-Man: Far From Home)

Review: 

If you think about it, the best thing the Spider-Man series should do is take a few years off. Don't get me wrong, this movie is just fine and all that jazz. But as we approach the end of 2021, consider the fact that there have now been nine of these films in nearly twenty years, a rate basically like the James Bond series. At least one can say there is apparent difference between the respective series of films done by either Sam Raimi, Marc Webb, and Jon Watts. Of course, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) has stood tall in its own right when it came to a unique style of animation while featuring several versions of the hero in numerous dimensions (i.e. a multiverse). So, of course it figures that the third film of the third series of (live action) Spider-Man films decides to feature each of the previous heroes and villains of the previous films. If one didn't think they were cribbing from Spider-Verse, you might joke that they really cribbed from the multi-Doctor specials of Doctor Who, complete with a lack of surprise of really seeing these faces. The film was written by the same two behind the last film: Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers (they had also co-wrote the Homecoming film).

Not to be mean, but Spider-Verse did it better. True, the approach of this film is different (because that had the challenge of showing a new hero), but there is a familiar link within trying to stuff as much as possible in 148 minutes (the longest of the film series) that results in a decent if not noticeably uneven movie. It is just a bit better than Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019), but it is absolutely clear that the best Spider-Man film is a horse race between Spider-Man 2 (2004) and the aforementioned Spider-Verse film. But I will applaud the film for at least taking the time to approach the nature of consequences and choices when it comes to Spider-Man, if only because I did tire of the idea of folks just happening to know just who was behind the mask (if you remember, the last film ended with everyone suddenly knowing the name in a frame-job), almost as much as having the hero switching their masks on-and-off. In other words, sometimes you need to see your heroes get taken down a peg. Honestly, the idea of responsibility versus fate when it comes to handling circumstances is probably the more interesting idea presented by the film, since the villainous group is the one shown before the other main component. Granted, I don't really think I had to hear the "with great power comes responsibility" line again, but at least there is some sort of meaningful drama presented in making a real choice and sticking to it. Of course, the thing that comes with doing a film with numerous characters is all the references that come with it. Simply put, sometimes the film really takes it a bit much with "fan-service". It isn't exactly ego-stroking, but sometimes the best thing to do with a film that idles between action and conversation is to just let things breathe. This is especially apparent in the opening, which might be more interesting to set the tone if it wasn't for the incessant conversation that comes and goes before it finally ceases. The action scenes are decent, even if one wonders if the circumstances involving filming (filming in 2021 versus 2019, if you get my drift) means that certain dialogue scenes are a bit muddled. I appreciate Holland for what he has done for the role of Spider-Man, in that he seems to have really settled into this role now, charming in his disposition that keeps things in check. If the discussion at just who is the best Spider-Man comes up, one can at least make a fair argument for him among the others. Zendaya does just as well in the composure expected from maintaining her key angle in the plot that matches well with Holland for curious moments. Batalon does well with a few chuckles, but it is Cumberbatch who is the interesting last piece among the main cast, gliding through with reasoned timing that matches starkly with Holland (in a sense dabbling as a mentor but really more of a foil, what with the whole "turn things back" thing). Tomei does well with the warm ease presented for the role that doesn't get shuttled too far into the background (Favreau less so, but at least it is nice to see him). It is nice to see Simmons get to chew on the familiar words of a role now played five times, even if the obvious thing parodied is more an eyeroll than anything ("TheDailyBugle.net", gee I wonder). 

One gets to see a handful of villains - five, in fact. Oh sure, the highlight is Dafoe. He is the key in making the film work as well as it can when he is there because he is the prime sinister contrast needed among everything present that has not lost a step despite all the previous appearances (one prior film with two subsequent cameos). Molina (CG and all) is a careful second, while Foxx makes a capable mark. I can only imagine the joke I had about seeing Electro if I saw The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) beforehand, if only of the stark differences that a few years makes (yellow instead of blue). At least the Lizard looks better now, probably because he isn't really shown in full light, while the Sandman looks just fine, even though he probably doesn't have as much to really do (same with the reptilian, but that wasn't a surprise). Eventually, it becomes time to see Garfield and Maguire return as well. This works about as well as you would expect, in that they haven't lost the spark that made each interpretation interesting to view on screen (of course, one doesn't dwell much on the time between the respective last appearance, nor exactly what's up with their respective story, I suppose), having good patience and charm that we all have seen before and such. The three "Spider-Men" make for a good team with fitting chemistry by the time it comes to the climax, and it keeps the film from potentially de-railing under all of its weight (narrative or figuratively). By the time the film makes its final decision, I am at the very least satisfied with where the series may choose to go for its next film, even I would argue that a couple of years off wouldn't kill them (oh, but Sony sure loves the idea of their own Spider-Man film universe, and I immediately try to stop rolling my eyes). It maneuvers the line of responsibility and what it means to be a hero within a tightly packaged film that hits most of the marks required from its expectations that make a good time. Granted, it isn't the best film I've seen all year, but at least it proved its mettle in entertainment to make it all worth it. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, I did not actually intend for three Spider-Man films to be the closing trio of 2021, and yet here we are with another year over. Since this show started on December 20, 2010, only in three occasions (2010, 2015, 2017) has not had a review on New Years' Eve. It is nice to follow in the tradition of covering a current-year film like I did with Tenet (2020) last year, so it was good to get this out in time. That makes for 163 reviews in 2021 and the end of Season 11. It might not have been as busy as the previous year, but this was still the fifth busiest year in Movie Night's history (with only Season 2, 3, 4, and X being bigger). Have a Happy New Year in 2022 and I will see you there with what I hope is a good group of selections.

Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Review #1553: Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Cast: 
George Clooney (Mr. Fox), Meryl Streep (Felicity Fox), Jason Schwartzman (Ash Fox), Bill Murray (Clive Badger), Willem Dafoe (Rat), Michael Gambon (Franklin Bean), Owen Wilson (Coach Skip), Wallace Wolodarsky (Kylie), Eric Anderson (Kristofferson Silverfox), Jarvis Cocker (Petey), Wes Anderson (Stan Weasel), Robin Hurlstone (Walter Boggis), and Hugo Guinness (Nathan Bunce) Directed by Wes Anderson.

Review: 
"I like to do things that are a little surrealistic but with characters who are real. So that, even if things are a little unusual, the emotions will come through anyway.”

The auteur filmmaker is one that knows and controls his style to create a distinct film of his own merit. Wes Anderson certainly has proven himself worthy of the label alongside a variety of others with his level of filmmaking. The native Texan made films from a young age - making his first films with a Super-8 camera. He liked films such as Star Wars and directors like Alfred Hitchcock, even working as a projectionist when studying philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1992, he directed a short film with friend Owen Wilson called Bottle Rocket (which he wrote with Wilson that was inspired by films like Mean Streets). A submission to the Sundance Film Festival (which James L. Brooks, upon viewing it was "dazzled" by) resulted in an opportunity to direct a feature film based on the short (with time spent re-working the script and filming) - released in 1996, it received notice but was not an audience hit. His next film in Rushmore (1998) proved more successful; after these two films, he already had one significant fan in Martin Scorsese (who called both films "very funny, but also very moving"). His subsequent films have received a good deal of notice that have made for nine released features in nearly 25 films of filmmaking. Anderson is noted for his distinct style of films, which he described as "very personal movies in a way", built with quirks in his characters and with the choices of music and look of each film, while also featuring a variety of recurring actors (such as Schwartzman, Murray, Dafoe, Wolodarsky, and Wilson). For this film (which he co-wrote with Noah Baumbach along with serving as co-producer), it would be done in stop-motion animation with figurines that were made out of fur (with tailored clothing of fabric that he designed himself).

Sometimes a film can be just a bit more than just a fine adaptation of another work. This was based off the 1970 children's novel of the same name by Roald Dahl (who many will recognize as writer of works such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, and The BFG, each of which I read as a child) - it was apparently the first book Anderson remembers owning. The film is mostly faithful to the novel, aside from having a focus on the relation of Mr. Fox to his family (which cut the four children to one) that expands upon the narrative (in other words, more than just a fox stealing chickens from a bunch of weirdos), in addition to a tweaking of the ending and a few added scenes. Sure, one could have the voices done in the booth, or they could have them done at a farmhouse as is the case here with such a marvelous film like this proves to be. It never wavers from delivering an interesting story with plenty of whimsy and skill with performances to go along with entertaining voices and design that make a wonderful classic worth 88 minutes. It all falls first to Clooney, who does quite well in brimming confidence that weaves interest and curiosity that generate subtle amusement fitting for that particular timing and character. Streep goes along with reserved grace that makes a well-tuned chemistry with Clooney in their scenes shared together. Schwartzman does well in generating interesting angst and smart remarks for when it is necessary that drives the film in those careful moments handled with his counterpart in E. Anderson (illustrator and author, who had made cameo appearances in his brother's films). Murray makes a few funny moments count without needing to hear too much of him badger on, while Dafoe equally makes his dandy moments count well in amusement. The film hits its stride early and never lets go in examining the nature of longing, alienation, and ultimately togetherness within a worthwhile adventure. I am dazzled by the animation of the film, as it looks quite intricate and rightly executed in creating a world of dazzling charm and palate (with a distinct lack of blues or greens) that never looks excessively gaudy or too much for enjoyment. I like the entertainment it brought to a charming work that honors the original book with its own flourish of humor and narrative for a resplendent achievement for animation alongside its era and director.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Inside Man.

Review #1543: Inside Man.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Detective Keith Frazier), Clive Owen (Dalton Russell), Jodie Foster (Madeleine White), Christopher Plummer (Arthur Case), Willem Dafoe (Captain John Darius), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Detective Bill Mitchell), Carlos Andrés Gómez (Steve), Kim Director (Stevie), James Ransone (Steve-O), Bernie Rachelle (Chaim), Peter Gerety (Captain Coughlin), Victor Colicchio (Sergeant Collins), and Cassandra Freeman (Sylvia) Directed by Spike Lee (#1255 - Do the Right Thing)

Review: 
"I hope they're doing it because they love it, not because they want to be rich or famous. Not that those things can't happen, but the main reason, the focus is, "This is what I want to do for the rest of my life and I love it." Not to say that you don't want to make money, but the passion should be driven by your love for that particular thing that you're doing. "

It took long enough to get to just one Spike Lee film, so it obviously was going to be a short time before finding another one to cover as a meaningful look upon a director as interesting and progressive as he has proved throughout over 20 films directed in nearly four decades of work. Born in Atlanta, but raised in Brooklyn, Lee attended Morehouse College and New York University Tisch School of the Arts, studying mass communication and film, and he made his first short film with Last Hustle in Brooklyn (1979, inspired by the blackouts in New York City alongside block-parties involving disco that made him want to be a filmmaker) and his first student film in Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbership: We Cut Heads (released in 1983 as his thesis film that won a Student Academy Award). She's Gotta Have It (1986) and Do the Right Thing (1989) would each serve as defining points for Lee (the former as an independent success and the latter as likely one of the best films of the 1980s) in his movement to features that he has also served as writer or producer for a majority for as well doing his own documentaries (with his first being 4 Little Girls (1997) about the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing) all through his own film company in 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks.

The genesis for the film came from a first-time screenwriter in Russell Gerwitz (who studied computer science and law but worked in the retail clothing business) who was inspired by his vacations around Europe to do a film script (with five years of writing and help from Daniel M. Rosenberg), and it eventually found itself with Imagine Entertainment, with Lee being tapped to direct because of desire from Imagine to work with him (along with Ron Howard deciding to direct Cinderella Man instead). Sure, one could believe this as a potential great thriller. It obviously is very sure of itself in its tricks of the camera and plot that builds for that inevitable last turn for its climax and so on and so forth. In terms of its inspirations and attempts at a twist however, it probably ranks just as decent as The Usual Suspects (1995) in actually pulling things together to make it actually work beyond a cat-and-mouse game with misplaced mousetraps present (while also being inspired by Dog Day Afternoon (1975), which goes okay). The performances generally outweigh the way the script wants to weave its tricks and thrills, which means that it is a fine movie, but it certainly could have been a more interesting one. Washington (in his fourth collaboration with Lee) is fairly up to the task of handling his end of the proceedings with reasoned consistency as the anchor that holds everything together in tension and charm one expects from him. Owen does alright, having to balance a role with a good deal of time spent in a mask that nonetheless makes for a conniving counterpart with the goal of merely committing the perfect robbery, handling that with at least enough to make me believe most of that idea. Foster is fine in a vague kind of role that keeps her in relaxed authority fixing things behind the scenes in sequences shared either with Washington or Plummer, who slides by as a creature of privilege. Dafoe and Ejiofor do alright with their moments with Washington in the usual moments required from being on the beat with tension, even if it seems like one wants to see more of them, really. One thing that is generally different is the inclusion of post-break-in testimonials from hostages as interviewed by the police that are inserted from time to time (with their own type of lighting) in the film, which either helps the film in establishing little cues to follow or seems a bit distracting that depends on the viewer and their perception of what needs to be there in 129 minutes. Of course there's also those little moments beside a heist that are alright, such as a scene involving a kid and violent games (think of the children and how violent games affect them, oh the shock), which just inspires a "sure, uh huh" response after making sure it wasn't supposed to be amusing, alongside other things. For me, the whole film verges on how much composure and stakes actually hold up in the long run. For me, it holds itself a little too much in achieving its promises with execution to what I need to care about: I wish I really cared about this heist more than just the usual curiosity, because it tries hard to really move beyond straight thriller stuff but ultimately is just kept in standard gear but with a respectable director behind it instead. If you like what you see in its performances and see past its smokescreen to what really matters, you might find something really worthwhile for a watch, which is all that really matters.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

To Live and Die in L.A.

Review #1477:  To Live and Die in L.A.

Cast:
William Petersen (Richard Chance), Willem Dafoe (Eric "Rick" Masters), John Pankow (John Vukovich), Debra Feuer (Bianca Torres), John Turturro (Carl Cody), Darlanne Fluegel (Ruth Lanier), Dean Stockwell (Bob Grimes), Steve James (Jeff Rice), Robert Downey Sr. (Thomas Bateman), Michael Greene (Jimmy Hart), and Jack Hoar (Jack) Directed by William Friedkin (#037 - The Exorcist and #1438 - The French Connection)

Review: 
"The greatest thing that ever happened to me in terms of my acting was the audition for To Live and Die in L.A. After I read, William Friedkin put down the script and said, "You got the part". I really thought it was a joke. I went back to my hotel room and took a bath and they called and wanted to make a deal. I still didn't believe it."

"Weirdness is not my game. I'm just a square boy from Wisconsin."

My, my, my, what a cast. It may not have had the most prominent cast upon first release 35 years ago, but time has been more friendly to this film more than most when it comes to its staying power that is drawn from its primary cast. It wasn't his most profitable film of the decade for him (that was the controversial Cruising in 1980), but it definitely has found a place for itself as a fine piece in Friedkin's body of work. It was the first breakthrough in film in terms of starring roles for both Petersen and Pankow (since Friedkin wanted unknowns and was making a cheap film), who each had been known primarily on the stage and would both find key roles on television in subsequent years. Dafoe was a founding member of the Wooster Group, an experimental theater company in New York formed in 1980 (after five years of evolving from The Performance Group) before he jumped into film in the 1980s with films such as The Loveless (1982), Streets of Fire (1984), and Roadhouse 66 (1985), and this proved a breakthrough for the actor.

It was adapted from the novel of the same name that had been written by Gerald Petievich, an agent in the U.S. Secret Service (the organization was originally created to deal with counterfeit currency), with a mix of Friedkin and Petievich scenes being woven in (the former added scenes such as the car chase and the opening scene while the latter wrote parts of dialogue) - regardless of who may have done more or less, both were credited with the screenplay (supposedly this led to a lawsuit from Michael Mann for seeming similar to Miami Vice). Tough, wiry, and not afraid to show itself with professionalism, this proves to be a worthwhile and efficient experience as a triumph for its main cast alongside Friedkin as an film laced with energy and thrills within a 116-minute run-time that captures a captivating atmosphere of tension and capability with a Wang Chung soundtrack to draw things together. It isn't surprising to see how clear it all looks when it comes to conviction, since they actually hired a real counterfeiter on set alongside real authorities in Petievich and an LA cop in Jack Hoar (who each make small appearances in the film). Petersen and Pankow make for an interesting pair together, always on the edge with the pursuit but also with each other as well, with the former being fascinating in his hot dog brashness and the latter being a fair audience surrogate. Dafoe proves a gripping adversary, calm but entertaining in brazen nature without needing to be so prominent to make it count. Others follow along in capability to fit its neo-noir edges, such as an elusive Feuer or a curious Turturro and a stealthily slimy Stockwell. The car chase scene is pretty well-handled, staging its trek through live traffic with fine finesse from a director who already had one great chase in him to begin with. I enjoy the film's resilient nature to making a procedural with a pursuit worth viewing with plenty of murky characters twisting in the wind on both sides of the law that has a resounding and daring climax. There is quite enough hustle and bustle in a rough but sharp procedural with a good cast and Friedkin at the helm to make a solid movie worth viewing at least once as a film on the edge.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Aquaman.

Review #1175: Aquaman.

Cast: 
Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Amber Heard (Mera), Willem Dafoe (Nuidis Vulko), Patrick Wilson (King Orm), Dolph Lundgren (King Nereus), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (David Kane / Black Manta), Nicole Kidman (Atlanna), Temuera Morrison (Tom Curry), Ludi Lin (Captain Murk), Michael Beach (Jesse Kane), and Randall Park (Dr. Stephen Shin) Directed by James Wan.

Review: 
I will admit that I did have mild expectations for Aquaman, much in the same way that I try to hold for most superhero films, where I hope for some fine entertainment along with at least some sort of storytelling or substance. It isn't an exceptional film by any means, but it does have plenty of entertainment value and a fair bit of charm to make a solid feature with enough spirit of adventure to prevail. It fits squarely in the middle with other superhero films in recent years, being just as fine as other features such as Black Panther (2018) for example but also being particularly better made than other films adapted from DC Comics such as Justice League (2017). Honestly, the best way to make a superhero film is to just have fun with the material while not making a mockery out of what makes a hero what they are, while having interesting secondary characters to go with it. In that regard, Momoa is up to the task handily enough, giving plenty of dignity and charm while handling himself just fine for the action sequences. Heard does fine with her role, although the chemistry between her and Momoa isn't too noteworthy. The others in the cast stand to do their parts just fine, although having two villains in Wilson and Abdul-Mateen II seems a bit much. Lundgren seems to be having fun with his kingly role at least. The dialogue certainly doesn't help too much with giving these characters too much life, having more splashes of delivering exposition; in that case it is no wonder the film runs at 143 minutes, which can feel a bit long at times, although at least the action scenes do help to cover some of the slack. The film also has time for humor amidst the spectacle - where else can one see an octopus do a drum solo? Undeniably, the film hinges quite a bit on the execution of its effects, since a majority of the movie takes place underwater. For the most part, it looks fairly convincing, and I can only imagine the effort it took to make the actors seem like they were in water. The action works well, not being too jerky or blurry for the eyes. The climax is fine and dandy. The film has a bunch of people pulling the strings behind its execution in writing, with David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall being behind the screenplay while Geoff Johns, Wan, and Will Beall are credited with doing the story for the film. On the whole, this proved to be a good fashioned crowd-pleaser kind of movie, doing what it aspires to do without too many bumps. The film works more often than not in trying to give its main hero a place for the big screen through good fun and a decently patched story that allows the possibility for more with this character that can only go up from here.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

eXistenZ.

Review #1127: eXistenZ.

Cast: 
Jennifer Jason Leigh (Allegra Geller), Jude Law (Ted Pikul), Ian Holm (Kiri Vinokur), Don McKellar (Yevgeny Nourish), Callum Keith Rennie (Hugo Carlaw), Sarah Polley (Merle), Christopher Eccleston (the Seminar Leader), Willem Dafoe (Gas), Robert A. Silverman (D'Arcy Nader), Oscar Hsu (Chinese Waiter), and Kris Lemche (Noel Dichter) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future)

Review: 
Believe it or not, this review has been delayed quite significantly by roughly a week. It was supposed to be completed before the review of Legacy of Blood. However, I found that it was easier to come up with thoughts for the plethora of reviews that have come out in the past week. I hope that this review is satisfactory to the standards that I try to have for this show. 

What does it mean to live in reality? Particularly in our day and age, where virtual reality seems more than just a pipe dream? For something like this, a science fiction body horror film, eXistenZ likes to throw questions and gooey things at its audience, and it is the ways that it plays games with its viewer that help in seeing if the film actually succeeds in telling its intriguing ideas. It's a mind-game of a movie, filled with gooey imagery and a fairly game cast willing to showcase this weird world and its situations, and it isn't hard to see why this could be considered a cult classic. For me, it borders on the line of average, but there are aspects of the film that are fairly interesting, along with parts that aren't as bright. Undeniably, the best one to shine in this film is Leigh. She has a certain energy to her that has its shares of cynicism and intrigue (such as when talking about the plot) that makes her a person worth following, which makes sense even now with how people treat creators of things that certainly spring creativity of any kind - whether in technology or some other field.

The same can't be said as much for Law. Perhaps it is the nature of the character that makes him a dry one to follow (being a PR guy) that makes him not as interesting to go along with, although Law can prove decent at times at reacting to the weirdness that this film can verge itself into. Holm and McKeller prove okay, providing the kind of support you'd expect in a situation presented like this (if that makes sense, anyway). Dafoe proves a fine highlight for the time he is on screen, being the most interesting person playing off Leigh and Law for most of the film. This is a movie where people put squid-looking things in their lower back. In an age where people like wear big headsets to experience "VR", who can judge? People certainly love the creations that invite creativity and imagination, whether it blurs the line between fantasy and reality or not, much like how a filmmaker creates the world that encompasses a movie. The film moves at a casual pace in its 97 minute run-time, having a look and feel that plays against expectation that feels welcome in a sense. Where one might expect darkness and jargon, one finds a different sort, a weird energy of events and things that has a fine cinematography from Peter Suschitzky (who had done work on films such as The Empire Strikes Back and other previous Cronenberg films such since Dead Ringers in 1988) to go with it. The ending likes to twist itself with a sort of relish for trickery and mystery, and while I'm not the biggest fan of it, I will say it ends the film without turning it into a joke.

The best way to describe the film is to imagine a philosophy lecture with a professor that happens to have goo in its presentation. For a general crowd, it could prove frustrating, particularly if one doesn't have much patience for something that is suited for examination and discussion a bit more different than a usual talk about a general movie. It certainly isn't something like Tron or The Matrix, that's for sure. But if one takes the film and looks under the surface, I think they will find something that is worth the game it wants to play with the mind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Platoon.

Review #1090: Platoon.

Cast: 
Charlie Sheen (Chris), Tom Berenger (Sgt. Barnes), Keith David (King), Willem Dafoe (Sgt. Elias), Forest Whitaker (Big Harold), Francesco Quinn (Rhah), Kevin Dillon (Bunny), John C. McGinley (Sgt. O'Neill), Mark Moses (Lt. Wolfe), Corey Glover (Francis), Johnny Depp (Lerner), and Chris Pedersen (Crawford) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street)

Review: 
Platoon is a movie that is clear in what it wants to portray and show without feeling inauthentic in its depiction of battle, showing war as only a veteran like Stone would do. After serving a tour of duty in Vietnam in 1967-68, he had written a screenplay that had elements based on his experiences in the war (which he referred to as Break). Although the screenplay ended up not being produced, it served the basis for what became this film. Prior to directing this movie, he had served as screenwriter for films such as Midnight Express (1978) and Conan the Barbarian (1982), winning an Oscar for the former work while also directing films such as Salvador (1986). In any case, this movie was made in the Philippines on a budget of $6.5 million, with the main crew going through a two week basic training under Dale Dye, who served as military adviser for the production. It is evident from the first twenty minutes that this type of dedication helped in making for an authentic experience, with the actors showing signs of burn out and weariness that aligns perfectly with Stone's intent.

Even when Platoon has narration parts with Sheen, there isn't a time when the movie seems like it is using cliche parts just to make an everyday war movie, having a tone and pace that feels consistent in its two hour length. This is a harrowing film to watch, and it is the performances from its main cast that elevates the material, particularly from Berenger and Dafoe. Berenger shows a raw intensity to his portrayal that has a ruthlessness is relentlessly compelling, right down to the major face scar. Dafoe does a fine job with lending this character some compassion and straight edged nature that makes him easy to follow through with in his time on screen. Nearly lost in the shuffle is Sheen, who delivers a decent performance that serves as our face to watch act in an environment as frenzied as this without becoming just a face in the crowd. The other actors do fine jobs in the time they are on screen, such as David and his level-headed nature, Whitaker and his big-hearted but fitting essence, or McGinley and his weariness. The cinematography by Robert Richardson is also a fine standout, looking right for the film with its depiction of battle without being needlessly bright or dark. The film has a share of music it uses for good effect, such as Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit", but also most notably Samuel Barber's "Adagio for Strings", which is used to great effect anytime it is heard on screen, such as during the iconic death sequence with the raised hands, which one can even see on DVD covers for the movie. There is a certain kind of nightmare quality to it that this film evokes that makes it captivating to watch in seeing the depiction of war through the prism of what Stone showcases that seems to burn into one's memory every minute it is on screen. The movie was winner of four Academy Awards, winning for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Film Editing and Best Sound, and it isn't hard to see why that is the case, as this is a fine piece of work that has an honest hard edge to what it depicts without any shred of cliche nature.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.