The Campaign.

Review #2021: The Campaign.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Representative Cam Brady), Zach Galifianakis (Marty Huggins), Jason Sudeikis (Mitch Wilson), Dylan McDermott (Tim Wattley), Katherine LaNasa (Rose Brady), Sarah Baker (Mitzi Huggins), John Lithgow (Glenn Motch), Dan Aykroyd (Wade Motch), and Brian Cox (Raymond Huggins) Directed by Jay Roach (#133 - Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, #134 - Austin Powers in Goldmember, #490 - Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery)

Review: 

I had considered watching the film a couple of years ago, because the 2010s certainly were a time for some odd-duck political movies and now the movie is over a decade old and maybe merited curiosity for what reputation one might see from a film that was moderately successful upon release. It was the eighth feature film directed by Jay Roach, who first started out working in production for music videos after film school at USC. His first film was Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1999), the first of a string of comedy films that were pretty successful. Of course, he did do a few drama films in between the comedies, most notably with two HBO productions with Recount (2008) and Game Change (2012), which detailed a key moment in the 2000 and 2008 U.S. presidential election, respectively. The screenplay was done by Chris Henchy and Shawn Harwell, who also did the story with Adam McKay (like Henchy and Ferrell, McKay was a founder of the comedy website Funny or Die). I suppose it is a sign of the times if a comedy film like this ends up being made for $95 million.

I wish I liked the movie better. I don't even think it reflects the time we live in when it comes to a supposed increase in the insanity of the political circus, because the movie is not nearly clever enough to justify only being 85 minutes. If you want to be a neat and tidy satire, one should probably save it for television rather than make a film that is mild in crude effectiveness. I don't want this to sound like a wish for better presences at the lead, because Ferrell and Galifianakis do generally make for amusing moments, but could you just imagine a more serious actor trying to play things off such as their opponent having a beard just like a terrorist group? (Incidentally, John Goodman makes a cameo appearance late in the film, and it only made me sad). It probably doesn't help that the film's cameo appearances of contemporary public figures (which also happened with films such as The Candidate (1972)) only helps to remind me to avoid the brain rot of cable TV without really laughing. At least one can credit the fact that the two leads are meant to play folks trying to win in such pathetic ways that can only mean one can laugh at them without too much trouble, although Ferrell probably proves better. Both are basically playing a "bit", but one isn't seemingly playing it with a higher pitch and "quirky" habits, so there is that. Ferrell just ends up doing better in pathetic ridiculousness, a perfect career politician stooge. Coincidentally, Galifianakis had an uncle who was a U.S. Representative in North Carolina. He is fine in the film, getting some of the schtick down in terms of demonstrating how it feels when one is thrust into a world of mudslingers. The best presence in the movie besides the main two is somehow McDermott, who makes for an amusing heavy that looms around the foreground more often than Aykroyd and Lithgow, who play their roles with shockingly little hammy qualities that I kind of thought would come from playing the not-Koch brothers. The rest of the cast are okay in the background of political lunacy, whether that involves LaNasa and Baker being adequate reactionary presences to the on-screen duel of idiots or a worthy straight man to the withering sense of dignity in Sudeikis. The film wants to have little moments of crudeness (such as say, mouthy voicemails or slo-mo punching of babies and dogs) but not go too far with hammy-ness, and that mostly means the movie ebbs and flows through average middle ground, right down to its ending that is okay. It probably would work fine as an educational tool when trying to understand just how far one can go if they ride a message of "America, Jesus, freedom" with a little bit of showmanship (and perhaps a certain type of funder). At the end of the day, it is mildly amusing, one that for better or worse could inspire one to look further into how much one can mine in the realm of satire or with politics, if one cares for that sort of thing. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Lego Batman Movie.

Review #1864: The Lego Batman Movie.

Cast: 

Will Arnett (Batman / Bruce Wayne), Michael Cera (Robin / Dick Grayson), Rosario Dawson (Batgirl / Barbara Gordon), Ralph Fiennes (Alfred Pennyworth), Zach Galifianakis (Joker), Jenny Slate (Harley Quinn), Jason Mantzoukas (Scarecrow), Conan O'Brien (The Riddler), Doug Benson (Bane), Billy Dee Williams (Two-Face), Zoë Kravitz (Catwoman), Kate Micucci (Clayface), Riki Lindhome (Poison Ivy), Eddie Izzard (Voldemort), Seth Green (King Kong), Jemaine Clement (Sauron), Ellie Kemper (Phyllis), Channing Tatum (Superman), Hector Elizondo (Jim Gordon), and Mariah Carey (Mayor McCaskill) Directed by Chris McKay.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember the Lego movies, if only because of how bright and colorful they were. This was the second Lego-themed movie released by Warner Bros through their animation department, with the first being The Lego Movie (2014). That movie featured Will Arnett in a supporting role as a Lego version of Batman. A sequel was evidently planned for this movie, but the acquisition of the film rights by Universal Pictures in 2020 scuttled those plans. Admittedly, the Arnett Batman was meant to be as amusing as possible with a gravelly voice and macho characterization, so a movie wasn't particularly out of the element, self-promotion for Lego or not. This was the feature debut of Chris McKay, who had had studied at Southern Illinois University and Columbia College Chicago for film. He worked a number of years for video and equipment rental companies before starting his own venture into making videos and small movies; he also worked on television programs such as Robot Chicken in animation and direction. McKay served as animation supervisor on the aforementioned 2014 Lego movie, and he also served as a co-editor. The movie was written by Seth Grahame-Smith, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Jared Stern, and John Whittington.

Honestly, I kind of just forgot to consider the movie when it came out five years ago, a casualty of just being the odd man out when it comes to spending time and money at a movie theater. I'm not sure I missed too much when it comes to looking upon the saturation of Batman movies in the last ten, twenty, thirty, forty years (or so). It may be the lightest toned of the movies since the 1960s Batman, all things considered (complete with a handful of references, such as having the "POW!" graphic show up near the end). It's a Batman movie that you can show the kids with no doubts (at least ones who get antsy about PG-13 ratings), which means you have a 104-minute movie with a few silly jokes that plays its family angle (or more specifically, family message) to moderate effect. Arnett plays the gravelly loner to basically what you would expect in heightened ego-pull that inevitably gets to learn a lesson and yadda yadda he has the timing required to carry it through. He won't exactly be included in the discussion for the ideal Batman (no animated version gets their due, no matter how much I can argue for Kevin Conroy), but he sticks out in showing the ideal version of what a Batman can be: confident and vulnerable. Cera proves quite eager to serve as partner to Arnett in a few chuckles that would probably make Burt Ward smile, which actually works in the favor of the movie when it comes to the lack of Robins in film to begin with. Dawson does fine here, a calm presence among the oddballs that does what is needed without delay, which can apply to Fiennes and his precise pinpoints of a role played again and again (one that is hard to mess up anyway). Galifianakis makes a quality foe in the vein of campy folks from long ago, hamming it up in ways expected when chewing scenery and counteracting Arnett in an attempt at hero-villain chemistry that lends some deranged charm (maybe not quite Cesar Romero charm but close enough). The other villains aren't exactly given more than a line or two but seeing the handful of references to the colorful assortment of villains through the Batman years is worth a chuckle or a view (along with non-Batman properties, which is kinda funny to see in Lego spoof). It's a Batman movie that happens to feature Legos, as long as one doesn't see the seams of a joke wearing thin (i.e. making too many of those jokes or movies) or sticking in bland mud, you have a good case to entertain your audience, and I think the movie works well in that regard. With a not-too cloying message about togetherness that makes a bright and cheery success, The Lego Batman Movie does pretty well for itself as a real one-of-a-kind look into Batman that does exactly what it aspires to do.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Birdman.

Review #1570: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).

Cast:

Michael Keaton (Riggan Thomson), Zach Galifianakis (Jake), Edward Norton (Mike Shiner), Andrea Riseborough (Laura Alburn), Amy Ryan (Sylvia), Emma Stone (Sam Thomson), Naomi Watts (Lesley Truman), Lindsay Duncan (Tabitha Dickinson), Merritt Wever (Annie), Jeremy Shamos (Ralph), and Benjamin Kanes (Young Riggan / Birdman) Directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu.

Review:

"I have always said that innocence is much more powerful than experience. And, in some cases, people who suddenly fall into circumstances can unexpectedly bring some virtue to them—that’s kind of the case with this character."

"It’s rare that you get to be part of some amazing experiment like this. The movie gets dark and gets weird, and it gets funny. So you’re constantly on this surfboard, kind of feeling it out. I like that. I just like seeing if I can do it.”

Filmmakers have had a variety of experiences that shape who they are that can go beyond just being shaped by cinema. For one, they can be shaped by their life experiences, as is the case for Alejandro G. Iñárritu. Born in Mexico City as the youngest of seven siblings, he was shaped by his travels made on cargo boats as a teenager (having struggled with studies in high school), which took abroad across America and Europe. He returned back to his country to study communications at Universidad Iberoamericana. He got himself into working for radio at WFM as a rock music radio host, which led to making promos and eventually transitioning into work with his own production company in Z Films, which dealt with shorts and advertisements. Iñárritu made his feature debut with Amores perros (2000), which served as the first film of a trilogy involving death and multiple storylines that would have writing from him and Guillermo Arriaga. This was his fifth feature film. It started as making a comedy in a single shot in a theatre (that developed over the span of a couple of years), done not only because of a desire to do a comedy over another drama but also because of his belief in that one lives their life with no editing, where one could be taken in by "an inescapable reality" just like the protagonist (there had been quite a few movies that were meant to play out in real time, most notably with Rope in 1948). Iñárritu, in addition to direction also co-produced the film and co-wrote it with Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr, and Armando Bó, who wrote the film for a period of nearly two years while working together through Skype and e-mails. Each of them, along with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, would win Academy Awards for their work with this film, which seems aptly appropriate.

What, a gimmick utilized to tell an interesting story that garnered attention in 2014? Anything is possible when you start with a man levitating while in his underwear. Ultimately, the enjoyment of the film relies on how much one absorbs themselves into a film that might resemble in some ways Don Quixote in its disparity between expectation and reality when it comes to who we think we are as a person, particularly in ego. When it comes to acting, that is never more true, since they are having to be someone different from themselves in a desire to be approved and so on and so forth with insecurities to list. One will either be swept away by how entertaining it proves in its execution to go alongside its elements of black comedy and drama or they will find a curiously strange experiment that lives and dies on its level of satire and fateful ending. For me, I found it to be an intriguing two hour experience, one that is a clear achievement for Iñárritu and Lubezki that moves with seamless ambition and wry enjoyment that benefits from a worthwhile cast to serve as a worthwhile film to encapsulate capable filmmaking for the 2010s. Keaton, picked by Iñárritu after he had finished the script for his ability to bring "meta-dialogue between the film and the reality", is exquisite. He manages to do so well in capturing a man wrapped in crisis over what it means to live a life wrapped in either past glories or current pursuits to find meaning within ignorance - in other words, it is one of Keaton's best performances, crafted well in anxiety that grabs one early and never loses footing in competence because we never think it is just self-aggrandizing. The rest of the group do quite well in going along with the show in terms of well-placed charm or timing, as is the case with Galifianakis or Norton, who both are quite funny in what the film requires in either wry sensitivity or self-important confidence, respectively. Riseborough and Ryan also prove useful in lending layers to outside the theater, while Stone serves as a useful bridge between a testy act with Keaton alongside her own testy grasp of her struggles. Watts and Duncan round out the cast handily for a film that builds itself up on sharp little moments between each other without being fitted into any tight cliché square or all-the-way wrapped up narratives. On the whole, I found it to be an enjoyable and curious film, balancing its act of magic realism with efficiency that tells a worthwhile feature of ego and virtue with maturity that will lend itself well to more than one viewing (particularly with its ending) to appreciate the detail that goes into a worthwhile feature of excellence and curiosity.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Missing Link.

Review #1209: Missing Link.

Cast:
Zach Galifianakis (Mr. Link/Susan), Hugh Jackman (Sir Lionel Frost), Zoe Saldaña (Adelina Fortnight), Stephen Fry (Lord Piggot-Dunceby), Timothy Olyphant (Willard Stenk), Emma Thompson (The Yeti Elder), Amrita Acharia (Ama Lahuma), Matt Lucas (Mr. Collick), David Walliams (Lemuel Lint), and Ching Valdez-Aran (Gamu) Directed by Chris Butler (#240 - ParaNorman)

Review: 
This is certainly a first in movie theater experiences: one without a single other audience member present besides me. As much as audiences can be weird at times, it sure is a shame to not have anybody else watching something that actually was pretty good, even if it was a 2 o'clock showing.

Admittedly, watching a stop-motion film made from Laika doesn't have too many objections from me, particularly since they have managed to craft a solid winner each time I viewed them, whether it was their first venture with Coraline (2009) or their last one with Kubo and the Two Strings (2016). They manage to make interesting movies with plenty of visual flair that works well for the eyes without reaching to bombard them too much. With this film, their attempt at adventure (done by writer/director Butler) works itself out just fine, having tinges of humor and heart and a fairly solid cast to go along with some well-done visuals. It isn't the strongest feature that Laika has made, but it fits just fine with their other works in providing some entertainment, regardless of age. Not many films can be a buddy flick with a creature like Bigfoot, that is for sure. Galifianakis is charming, making this gentle yet unwavering creature come alive with energy, helping to make for a few laughs sprinkled throughout, such as when he decides to come up with his name or such. Jackman pulls his part well enough, self-assured in a pursuit for a creature but also well enough to play a pursuit for more without too much trouble. Saldana is fine as the last part of the main trio. Fry and Olyphant make for decent adversaries, each having their own set of brashness that rolls just fine. The story holds okay for its 94 minute run-time, feeling a bit closed-in with its adventure trappings (such as when it actually reaches the Himalayas), but there isn't a sense of boredom even if it sometimes feel a bit familiar with some of its characterizations, with its beginning and climax feeling a bit more better in pace than its middle. It has a few nice designs to the places it wants to get to (such as sequences in the Himalayas or involving a fight on a ship), even if some of its landings probably don't land as hard as they could have. It at least has a decent message regarding friendship and belonging that will serve its audience well without seeming completely out of the blue or overly sentimental. It is a film that probably needs more in terms of its pursuit for its characters, but it at least serves itself well with style and some charm to make up a fair winner.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Puss in Boots.

Review #213: Puss in Boots.

Cast
Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Zach Galifianakis (Humpty Alexander Dumpty), Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris (Jack and Jill), Constance Marie (Imelda), Guillermo del Toro (Comandante, Moustache Man), and Mike Mitchell (Andy "Jack" Beanstalk) Directed by Chris Miller (#163 - Shrek the Third)

Review
This film is a spin-off of the Shrek franchise, and it works well enough to not have to depend on it for guidance. The acting is good, with Banderas stealing the show. The film has some good action and while not being entirely different from other animated films, it has enough charm in visuals and gold old action with some fun to win out in the end. It's good stuff for cat lovers as well (I couldn't resist saying that).

To the 97 people who have read this review: How did this review attract you, and how has this managed to be the highest rated one ever?

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.