Invention for Destruction.

Review #1952: Invention for Destruction.

Cast: 

Lubor Tokoš (Simon Hart), Arnošt Navrátil (Professor Roch), Miloslav Holub (Count Artigas), František Šlégr (Captain Spade), Václav Kyzlink (Engineer Serke), Jana Zatloukalová (Jana), and Otto Šimánek (Man in Train) Directed by Karel Zeman.

Review: 

"I came to the conclusion that my Verne film must come not only from the spirit of the literary work, but also from the characteristic style of the original illustrations and must maintain at least the impression of engravings" - Karel Zeman

Admittedly, having a nickname of being the "Czech [Georges] Méliès" is a good selling point to talk about a director for the first time. Karel Zeman was born in Austria-Hungary (present-day Czech Republic) in 1910. He loved puppets from a young age, but his parents wanted him to study business rather than continue with puppet theatre. He ended up studying advertising design in France, and his visits to the cinema grew his interest in animated movies. He eventually went into work in advertising. He got offered a job at a film studio due to director Elmar Klos liking what he saw when being asked to report about a window-dressing competition that Zeman won. Zeman was hired to work at Bata Film Studios (in a suburb of Zlin in what is now the Czech Republic) within the animation department. He began his directing career with shorts in 1945, with a couple of shorts involving a satirical puppet made of wood called Mr. Prokouk being quite successful. His first film as a feature director was The Treasure of Bird Island [Poklad ptačího ostrova] (1953), which was adapted from a Persian fairy tale that was comprised in various forms of animation that aspired to look like the illustrative style of miniatures. Journey to the Beginning of Time [Cesta do pravěku] (1955) was his next feature and his first with actors that were used in tandem with special effects (such as stop-motion), which received a good deal of attention. Over the next fifteen years, Zeman would direct five further films that mixed effects with actors that saw him take inspiration from paintings, illustrations, engravings, drawings, and the works of Jules Verne (four of the six films, including this one, were based on his books). In total, Zeman directed ten feature films until his death in 1989. In 2012, a museum dedicated to his work in the Muzeum Karla Zemana opened in Prague.

Invention for Destruction [Vynález zkázy] was loosely based on the 1896 novel Facing the Flag by Jules Verne; writers for the film script were Zeman, František Hrubín, Jiří Brdečka, and Milan Vacha. Warner Brothers released an English-language dub in 1961 that re-titled it to "The Fabulous World of Jules Verne" (complete with anglicized names for the actors and a new introduction) This was his third feature film and his biggest breakthrough as a director, one that became wildly successful in its native country of Czechoslovakia (it wasn't a box office success with the English dub, but it had plenty of admirers) while inspiring plenty of versions for other countries to view. An admirer of Verne, Zeman set out to make a film that would resemble the line engravings in Verne's Victorian works (as originally illustrated by Édouard Riou, Léon Benett, and others). Zeman and company did their effects in numerous ways, such as hard runner paint rollers, matte paintings, lined filters, and matted-in sky backgrounds. This results in a diverting effect that practically jumps at you with its illustrative quality without turning out too gaudy. Given that there are still films in the last couple of years that have tried to replicate the look of certain illustrative works such as fairy tales and comic books such as Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018), Invention for Destruction is a worthy curiosity to view in the sense of sight. There are numerous references to various Verne works since it isn't a straight adaptation, which results in scenes spent in the sea or with aircraft. As such, the movie is quite a dazzler in terms of its imagination, which is the star of the show more than anything. That isn't to say the perspective of the actors (led mostly by Tokos) is sidelined, it just means that one finds it to be an absorbing experience of entertainment in adventure more so than drama. Its climax is a particular gem in thrills, one that excites the viewer regardless of how easy the outcome might seem from viewers of the curious explorer. A director who strived to stimulate imagination and please the hearts of children, Karel Zeman would prove influential to future directors such as Jan Švankmajer, Terry Gilliam, and Wes Anderson, and it is obvious to see why. Invention for Destruction is a worthy delight for all audiences in its 83-minute runtime. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Bugsy Malone.

Review #1951: Bugsy Malone.

Cast: 

Scott Baio (Bugsy Malone), Florrie Dugger (Blousey Brown), Jodie Foster (Tallulah), John Cassisi (Fat Sam Staccetto), Martin Lev (Dandy Dan), Paul Murphy (Leroy Smith), Sheridan Earl Russell (Knuckles), Albin 'Humpty' Jenkins (Fizzy), Paul Chirelstein (Smolsky), Andrew Paul (O'Dreary), Jeffrey Stevens (Louis), Donald Waugh (Snake Eyes), Peter Holder (Ritzy), Michael Kirkby (Angelo), and Dexter Fletcher (Baby Face) Directed by Alan Parker.

Review: 

"It was a lunatic idea that one would only attempt at the beginning of a career, infused as it is with such ingenuousness, yet also with almost manic, devotion. Looking back after all this time, it’s easy to see that we must have been crazy even to have attempted it, but curiously, back in 1975, it never occurred to us for a moment that such an absurd creative notion would not work. As for the impossibly difficult logistics of actually filming it, that too eluded us."

Alan Parker was born in Islington, London, England with no aspirations to become a director. His first profession was in advertising, which he entered in 1962 when he was not even twenty years old. By 1968, he had gone from copywriting to directing TV advertisements. One of his numerous employers was Collett Dickenson Pearce, where he met David Puttnam and Alan Marshall, who each proved key in helping to produce this film years later. In fact, it was Puttnam that encouraged him to write what became his first screenplay in Melody (1971). He did a widely appreciated play on television with The Evacuees in 1975. Over time, he had written a handful of scripts, but most were rejected because they were deemed "too parochial" or "too English". Undaunted by this, he thus decided to write a script that seemed "American", despite having little knowledge of the country besides a few trips there to shoot commercials...but he did know American movies. The script that became this film was one inspired by the stories he told to his children to keep them occupied on journeys spent in the car, which involved gangsters and showgirls in New York. It was his eldest son who insisted that the characters were children. Parker did a tour of classrooms all throughout the States to go along with trips around American Air Force bases. Kids were cast from all around to the point where nearly 10,000 kids were seen in a cast that ultimately ended up being around 200 (with respective paperwork needing to be done for licenses, medical approvals, and you get the idea). Most of the filming was done at Pinewood Studios. So, we have a gangster film that is told with children that involves kids being splurged with cream (through the power of illusion, the guns shown shooting doughnut cream is actually done by editing shots of the gun shooting ping-pong balls to go with someone off-camera throwing cream at the actors). Parker described the film thirty years later as one where he has "ambivalent feelings of pride and embarrassment", one that seems quite different from the later films that Parker directed, although the mixed success of the film with audiences (a hit in the United Kingdom and less so in America) probably did not help. At any rate, he wrote a version of the film for use with amateur productions (which he took well), and a handful of stage productions have occurred since Parker's writing of the music book for a West End production in 1983. Over time he felt that as the years went by, the film still looked modern to him without looking dated and therefore was one he was proud of. Over the next three decades, Parker directed fourteen films, which included Midnight Express (1978), Mississippi Burning (1988), and Evita (1996); Parker retired in 2003 and died in 2020 at the age of 76.

It is indeed an odd film, but it is one that achieves the ideal any director would strive for: spontaneity. This is a film where Parker got exactly who he wanted for a palatable modern feel to a 1920s sound with Paul Williams as music composer, which means one hears kid actors having adults dub their voice for the songs in this gangster musical. It is that lives and dies on the effect generated by seeing a familiar story turned into amusement by seeing it with energy and all-around style that means one isn't going to be reminded of a glossier version of The Terror of Tiny Town (1938) or The Little Rascals. It isn't a movie that rides a joke down to the ground and stays there, instead being a film that earnestly has fun with committing to being a celebration of the gangster and musical genre that is pleasant. It is a movie that ends with a quality pie fight, how can one go wrong? Baio wanted to be on television when he was a kid, which resulted in a few commercials, but by the time he was approached to read the script for this film, he threw the script down and left - this show of spirit evidently won him the part, which was his first film role. He clearly is having a good time here with a role that encourages a bit of screwball zip without turning into sappy parody. Dugger was cast originally in a small role, but when the original actress cast for the female lead opposite Baio developed a growth spurt, Dugger became the lead in what became her only feature role (instead opting for a job in the military as a medical administrator and later ophthalmology). She proves fine for a role of mostly cliches, where chemistry isn't really important when the stakes are mostly kid hijinks. Cassisi was cast as a result of Parker's tour of classrooms all throughout the States (specifically a Brooklyn Catholic school) - when Parker asked a classroom who was the most badly behaved kid in the class, they all responded with Cassisi, and he is pretty amusing in a role that is basically the ham, which is generally amusing when paired against the other "kid boss" in Lev. Jodie Foster was Jodie Foster, a name already familiar with show business by the time she was 15. She has a good knowing sense of what to do in a supporting role that has good timing in terms of humor that obviously was destined for bigger things. The rest of the cast is fairly decent, giving credence to the plot not being lazy farce by giving their best to the odd material. The songs work to the level of the film in charm and timing without coming off as gooey or off-putting. As a whole, it may be an odd one to start a film career with, but Parker and company made a solid winner with this film in terms of bizarre charm that will likely be just right for the whole family.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up, a film from the Czechs.

Gheisar.

Review #1950: Gheisar.

Cast: 

Behrouz Vossoughi (Gheisar), Pouri Banai (Azam), Naser Malek Motiei (Farman), Jamshid Mashayekhi (Gheysar's uncle), Mir Mohammad Tajaddod (Azam's brother), Bahman Mofid (Mayek), Iran Daftari (Gheysar's mother), Jalal Pishvaian (Mansour Ab-mangol), and Gholam-Reza Sarkoob (Rahim Ab-mangol) Written and Directed by Massoud Kimiai.

Review:

“The truth is that no conscious, pre-planned movement would ever work in cinema — some spontaneity is always needed. But it is true that I couldn’t see myself as a part of the Iranian cinema of that period. Things were ready for me.”

It is interesting to note how many countries have had their own "New Wave". It probably helps to cover as many films as one could hope to do for films all around the world. So here we are. Two early films to set the stage of the wave were The House is Black (1962) - a documentary about a leper colony with poetry, and Brick and Mirror (1964) - considered the first masterpiece of the modern era for Iranian cinema. However, it is 1969 with films such as Dariush Mehrjui's The Cow and this one that are considered the first films of the new wave. The New Wave counteracted the popularity of the "Filmfarsi" (also referred to as Persian Film), which were cheaply-made Iranian films with little dimension in their archtype.There have been argument over the amount of phases taken in the new wave, which has to take account for the Iranian Revolution in 1979 (incidentally, it was a fire at a cinema the previous year that saw hundreds die by arson that served as a trigger for the revolution). As such, we start with Masoud Kimiai, born in Tehran. He started work in film as an assistant director in the mid 1960s before his first film with Come Stranger (1968). Kimiai has made features in Iran for over five decades. Sadegh Khalkhali, an infamous "hanging judge", once stated after the Revolution that if all cinemas were closed, then the film should not be shown. Thankfully, if one looks for it in the right spot, you can see the film on the Internet.

When converted from Persian to English, the title translates to Caeser. However, there are three titles the film is generally known by: Qaiser, Qeysar, and Gheisar. At its heart, it is a movie about taking rebellion into one's own hands. It serves as a vengeance movie that looks into both the past and the present that seems like poetry - or whatever you want to call a film that isn't just an excuse to see revenge by knife. The key deaths happen in various locations, such as a public bath, a slaughterhouse, and a railway, and the revenge that occurs happens at a high price to the circle around the pursuer of revenge. Is the revenge a matter of family honor or for pride? The fact that the film moves at a carefree pace (100 minutes) to allow for one to discuss it makes it a quality feature worth looking into further. Morality and tradition are the main points to focus on with this film, right from the opening that shows illustrations of legends from long ago (tattooed on one's body). Vossoughi became a notable name within cinema for this film, which makes sense given how effective he is in within a brooding anti-hero role that strikes at the heart of conformity and, well, violence. He conveys the terrible dilemma that eats at one's soul (action over non-action) with convincing pathos that makes us consider just how much of his road of despair is one that we should follow along willingly. Given that Pishvaian and the other adversaries to this path of family revenge aren't exactly as prominently featured as he is, consider it a fruitful lesson to think about. Mashayekhi provides withered tragedy as the standing force of tradition that can only help but watch tragedy unfold around him. As a whole, it is paced quite well within the bounds of trying to present a new vision of Iranian perspective involving society and tradition, and the legacy of the film is one of solemn conviction that endures strongly after five decades.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

In the history of Movie Night, there have been exactly two reviews of movies made by countries of the Middle East: Dünyayı Kurtaran Adam (Turkey) and Cairo Station (Egypt). It was definitely time to cover a film from Iran, which means that the three most populated countries of the Middle East have at least one spotlighted film, and Persian finally joins the ranks of languages heard on Movie Night. I will say that any review of a film from, say, Israel, would only occur if I found a film from the State of Palestine, because, well, it seems like the most fitting rule. We shall see what could be next from the Middle East. At any rate, our next film is Bugsy Malone.

Hell or High Water.

Review #1949: Hell or High Water.

Cast: 

Jeff Bridges (Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton), Chris Pine (Toby Howard), Ben Foster (Tanner Howard), Gil Birmingham (Texas Ranger Alberto Parker), Marin Ireland (Debbie Howard), Katy Mixon (Jenny Ann), Dale Dickey (Elsie), Kevin Rankin (Billy Rayburn), Melanie Papalia (Hooker), Amber Midthunder (Vernon Teller), Taylor Sheridan (Cowboy), and Margaret Bowman (T-Bone Waitress) Directed by David Mackenzie.

Review: 

"I find myself relating to stories that feel like they’re about characters who are struggling to deal with themselves in some way or another, more than I am about necessarily the worlds. In order for a story to kind of hit me, it’s much more about the people than it is of necessarily about the world."

Unsurprisingly, this is a film where more than one voice is crucial to how it came to pass as a memorable film of its time. David Mackenzie became a filmmaker after his study at Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design in his native Scotland. He made a couple of short films while being inspired by Danish cinema, specifically the Dogme 95 movement (another time). He made his debut in features with The Last Great Wilderness (2002). His films were either dramas or comedies, which ranged from work such as the erotic drama Young Adam (2003) or the prison feature Starred Up (2013). Hell or High Water is his ninth feature film and second American film. The movie was written by Taylor Sheridan, an actor-turned-writer. Under the working title of "Comancheria", it was his second film script, but it was his first sold. However, it was his first script in Sicario that ended up being made first, which was done in 2015 to general success. These films, alongside his later feature Wind River (2017), which he wrote and directed, is part of what he called a trilogy of "the modern-day American frontier." He has stated that the key influences in his writing were the Coen brothers along with Cormac McCarthy and Larry McMurtry. When Mackenzie was sent the spec script as a spec project, he fell for it right away, admiring the "freewheeling vibe to it that I love in 70s movies"; of course, one would not be surprised to notice touches of the outlaw stories from the 1930s present here.

There is something quite interesting about the desolate eloquence that Mackenzie and Sheridan try to accomplish with such an easygoing crime thriller. It rides most of its strength on interesting characters and actors to inhibit these folks that seem as worthwhile to view that rolls its beat in mannerisms similar to No Country for Old Men (2007), although each film have their own approaches to the chase. Arguably, it outclasses that movie when it comes to overall execution from start to finish to earn its final resting spot that finds a worthy resolution to hang its hat on. It isn't a perfect movie, but it surely makes a captivating case for a suitable neo-Western in the eyes of those familiar with the frontier it reaches in its haunting elegy that has wide landscapes of West Texas and the folks that accompany it. The main drawing point is the dual storylines involves Pine with Foster to go alongside Bridges and Birmingham; no matter how one treats films by how much they need a clear-cut "hero" or "villain", it should work out pretty well regardless of one's patience for material such as this. Pine and Foster share a great rapport with each other as on-screen siblings that never seems inauthentic, with each actor managing to share the stage in terms of highlights. Pine is far more than the perception of low-key that one might think early on from him, mostly because he proves the most endearing figure in the long run. Foster and his volatile charisma prove just as watchable in terms of showing the other side of trying to commit what you might call the "perfect crime": the challenge of not becoming fully absorbed by the thrill of it all. Within the other side of the chase is Bridges, wracked in melancholy and withering strength that makes for quite a pairing with Birmingham, one that sees them insult each other in ways familiar with bonds formed through work (which results in a bit of humor before a sobering climax). There are numerous sequences one can highlight in the film as being effective beyond the heist, such as the opening robbery sequences, which each involve quiet settings being disrupted by sudden action. Or one could highlight a sequence in the diner that sees a makeshift robbery and a small scene of warmth between Pine and Mixon. Of course, the porch sequence in the end of the film is a good one in simmering tension and fateful finishing that works exactly to what Sheridan intended when it comes to endurance, as reflected by the grisly handling of the climax. It is ultimately a movie about how much a bond between people can take them depending on the circumstances, whether that means the bond between a parent to do better for their children, a sibling doing something out of affection for their sibling or more. 

The 102-minute runtime is handled effectively in the elements that matter within its genres of crime drama and neo-Western, utilizing familiar beats within each genre involving characters that seem quite real and useful to the landscape of story and setting. In the end, it is a heist movie, but it is a heist movie with the story of the ones doing it and (eventually) why being at the forefront, which works splendidly. It is a crackerjack type of thriller - the outcome never seems to be drawn out to the point of absurdity nor is it too reliant on complexity to make the proceedings irrelevant. In short, it is a mature kind of thriller, one with grizzled characters that matter to us with enough action and general charm to make it a surefire classic.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to New Directors Month: Volume II. January 2022 will attempt to cover ground not covered in January 2022, which spotlighted thirteen directors not covered by Movie Night before, which has featured over 1,000 directors as we enter Season XIII - that January started with Erich von Stroheim and closed with Alejandro Jodorowsky. The next film up will certainly cover new ground...in world cinema.

Babylon.

Review #1948: Babylon.

Cast: 

Brad Pitt (Jack Conrad), Margot Robbie (Nellie LaRoy), Diego Calva (Manny Torres), Jean Smart (Elinor St. John), Jovan Adepo (Sidney Palmer), Li Jun Li (Lady Fay Zhu), P. J. Byrne (Max), Lukas Haas (George Munn), Olivia Hamilton (Ruth Adler), Max Minghella (Irving Thalberg), Rory Scovel (The Count), Katherine Waterston (Estelle Conrad), Tobey Maguire (James McKay), Flea (Bob Levine), Jeff Garlin (Don Wallach), Eric Roberts (Robert Roy), Ethan Suplee (Wilson), Samara Weaving (Constance Moore), Olivia Wilde (Ina Conrad), Spike Jonze (Otto), and Telvin Griffin (Reggie) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man and #1577 - La La Land)

Review: 

I am sure you remember this film, one released at the last month of the year that is already considered a massive flop with audiences as a "polarizing" movie. There have been quite a few films that are basically "moviemaking love letters", such as Singin' in the Rain, The Player, Boogie Nights, The Artist, or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Perhaps there is inspiration taken from Kenneth Anger's infamous 1959 book Hollywood Babylon, a book about alleged scandals of Hollywood stars from the silent era that is full of flat-out fallacies, myths, and exaggerations (most notably claiming that Clara Bow once had a night of relations with the entire USC football team). So yes, there are mostly fictional characters present in the film (that take inspiration from real-life folks such as Clara Bow) with a few real names such as William Randolph Hearst or James Wong Howe. One thing I can respect is the fact that Chazelle and company had the balls to actually release the film in theaters. Yes, it seems a bit silly for any studio to need $250 million to apparently break even with a film about a tale of over-ambition and excess in the early Hollywood era, but it is always worth it to see films like this in a theater, packed or not. Decadence and depravity never looked so good in a theater, and I was happy to see this tale of ridiculousness, albeit in an empty theater that meant I could loudly watch the movie on my own terms.

Obviously, any scholars of the silent era can attest to the accuracy of a film depicting a certain time and age. But since we are watching a film that is trying to have its cake and eating it too, how much does it matter? Is it really important that the rage of the time might have been more about morphine rather than cocaine? (Wallace Reid died from trying to kick the habit of it, incidentally). To me, the movie may be presented as a "comedy-drama", but to me it really serves as a twisted "Hollywood Horror" story. I don't think I have ever seen a film that has such a love and hatred of everything it wants to be about, one that practically is screaming for its own head to be cut off so they can eat themselves whole. What other movie shows has a litany of images such as elephant defecating on people, urination on people, projectile vomiting, and the uncomfortable truth that, well, anyone is disposable in the moviemaking world. It is as self-indulgent as you would expect for a film that is 189 minutes long that is clearly not for everyone. I respect Chazelle for daring to make movies that try to be distinct from each other, whether that involves overrated LA love-letters such as La La Land or calm biopics such as First Man. It is the craft of obsession that matters most for Chazelle - now, whether that means Babylon is anything more than a glorified campground for debauchery is another matter. I enjoyed the movie, but it is understandable that someone else won't be as big on it as a gonzo weirdo film to experience in all of its senses that it draws out for three hours. Watching a movie that takes inspiration from the stories of people such as John Gilbert, Clara Bow, and Dorothy Arzner isn't a terrible thing to waste. 

Robbie has manic energy and physical bravado that swallows the film whole in dazzling charm that is meant to emulate "it girls" such as Clara Bow (it is Bow who once stated that she just had to think about "home" when it came to crying on cue). Of course, her self-destruction isn't quite like Bow, but Robbie makes the role her own in ferocious edge that makes it an absorbing performance beyond just being a brash fighter from the ground up, which makes the resulting tragedy all the more interesting. The same goes for Pitt in all of his bravado and melancholy, representing the falling star with tremendous confidence in where he believes the role must go to make it that more poetic in how it ends up. These two may be weird and wild in their gusto, but they are still people that you can still find worth your attention. Calva is fine to act around them, with a semi-effective story of soul-stirring passion that isn't too far removed from the action or the bigger names that come and go. Smart provides worthy support in acid-tongued charm that would make Hedda Hopper blush. Adepo and Jun Li are neat in their own ways when it comes to filling an ensemble of a certain time and place with roles that aren't merely there for the sake of being there, whether that involves a cabaret act or a particularly somber scene of a man being convinced to darken his skin for the sake of "film". The best all-around sequence is one involving the depiction of a filming day that sees a variety of amusing mishaps on the way to movie magic. Of course, the sequence involving Robbie and company trying to get one successful take on a sound set is exquisite in all of the painful ways that make it both tragic and amusing. Pitt and his inevitable fall from the stars is a close second, but that scene with Smart involving how one could be immortal in a sense by what they did on celluloid is right on the spot.

Personally, the supporting cast members are far more interesting to see. Calva, Smart, Adepo, Jun Li, yeah sure. Forget Garlin and all of those other names, this is a movie where you can see actors like Eric Roberts and Ethan Suplee have little scenes to make their mark (the former drunkenly stumbles onto a snake fight and the latter spits a bunch, but still). Hell, Tobey Maguire and his makeup that reminds one of a ghoul going around trying to show a producer a subterranean gathering space for debauched party of the underground is splendid to view in a perverse sense. You haven't lived in the world of weird film-land until you see what the hell one does for "fun" with a pale druggie that could top a man eating a rat. The bottom line that comes from the film is that a movie takes plenty of hard-nosed circumstance and crap to work its way into something for the rest of the world to see, and that it sure was a party for those who got to be a part of it. Any good movie worth their salt will have splendid cinematography, which is the case here by Linus Sandgren, as this really is a movie that pops in all the right ways, while Justin Hurwitz provides worthwhile music. The only thing that may rankle anyone daring enough to see the film all the way through in the row of debauchery is the ending, since it is a film that wants to have the whole cake of running through the gamut in a montage of films that dawned after the silent era came and went (such as Singin' in the Rain or 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example). It just seems quite unnecessary to have the montage for what really could've just ended a bit shorter when it comes to the image of a man looking back at a long-gone era interpreted by the status quo of Hollywood and weeping. I guess it depends on how one feels about a movie all about the debauchery of people in Hollywood going from weird and wild in the 1920s to, well, sound and less wild in the sound era...ending with a "gee, look at what film became!". Maybe that shameless rug pull is supposed to be the point. So, is the film and the response it received from audience some sort of representation of the movie-making landscape in 2022 when it comes to the divide between streaming and theater-aimed features or between the divide of "blockbusters" versus "movies for adults"? Having seen the film for myself, I can only state this: who gives a shit? Either you will like this movie for its sheer audacity or not care for it, it does not get any simpler than that. I personally think it is a secret film in human horror that screams at the viewer as much as it screams at itself. I doubt I will return to seeing this film in the near future, but screw it, the film is pretty weird, pretty loud, and all around...pretty bold to do what it does in wild child style. The fate of the film and its plot may be inevitable, but that is where the fun is.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Another year, another time. This closes out Movie Night's twelfth year of operation (hence the end of using a particular twelve-sided shape in every title card, hint hint), which has seen a review ten times on New Years' Eve, and this is the third straight Eve to close out with a movie from the year that was. 2022 ended with 1,781 total reviews, which means I did 167 reviews for Season 12. This is the fifth busiest year in Movie Night history, but the best is yet to come. Review #2000 looms, but the big thing is the advent of theme months to start the first quarter of the year to spotlight plenty of new and familiar faces in cinema. With that in mind, Have a Happy New Year in 2023.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.

Review #1947: Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.

Cast: 

Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Harvey Guillén (Perrito), Florence Pugh (Goldilocks), Olivia Colman (Mama Bear), Ray Winstone (Papa Bear), Samson Kayo (Baby Bear), John Mulaney ("Big" Jack Horner), Wagner Moura (Wolf / Death), Da'Vine Joy Randolph (Mama Luna), Anthony Mendez (Doctor), and Kevin McCann (the Talking Cricket) Directed by Joel Crawford and Januel Mercado.

Review: 

You may or may not remember that Puss in Boots (2011) was eleven years ago. That was the culmination of years of development because of how much interest there was by DreamWorks Animation to do a feature film based on the character inspired by the fairy tale character of the same name (the origin of the fairy tale character is rooted in Italy, but the film character is depicted as having Spanish origin - incidentally, Banderas is the voice for the Spanish and Italian dubs of the character). Puss first was introduced in Shrek 2 (2004). The influences for the character are pretty evident, ranging from Errol Flynn to Zorro to bits taken straight from the voice actor in Banderas. Appreciation for the character were enough to scuttle the original idea to make a direct-to-video movie and instead make a theatrical effort instead, one that continued the trend of amusing takes on fairy tale characters (such as Jack and Jill, for example). It was a pretty good movie, but I think you can forgive me for having a bit of a hazy memory and doubt that this would be anything too special. The success of the film led to plans for a second film pretty quickly, but development took a considerable amount of time (such as restructuring of the script by 2015); an entire animated television series ran from 2015 to 2018 in that eleven-year gap between films, just to make the point clear. It was production designer Nate Wragg that pushed the idea for the animation to resemble a fairy tale illustration. So yes, 3D animation combines with painterly textures that might make one think of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018). The screenplay was done by Paul Fisher and Tommy Swerdlow, while Swerdlow co-wrote the story with Tom Wheeler (the screenwriter / story co-writer on the previous film). This is the third feature film for Joel Crawford, who debuted as a director with The Croods: A New Age (2020) after working with DreamWorks Animation in the story artist department since 2006 on numerous films, while this is the first feature effort for Januel Mercado (he serves as "co-director", which in my mind deserves recognition).

It dawned on me pretty early on that I have only seen three DreamWorks Animation films in a theater when they were new: Madagascar (2005), Shrek the Third (2007), and Shrek Forever After (2010). The funny thing is that this movie actually became better than any of those films by about the halfway point. It aims for something not seen much in the prior film or the Shrek films in the eye for a darker tone that isn't leaden with edgy humor but instead a celebration of adventure. How many animated films even think about the subject of one's mortality? It manages to improve on the original by cultivating an adventure and dynamic between its main group that doesn't hinge on being just like the first feature, which basically means aiming itself as a take on the Spaghetti Western. The opening sequence alone is worth watching for the dazzlement it inspires in re-introducing the character in all of his "rockstar glory" (if you will) before launching its key setup: facing Death. The fact that one gets to see just how one can lose eight lives in the blink of an eye is pitch-black amusing. It is interesting to see how Banderas has kept this role fresh and interesting beyond just playing a silly cat that happens to look a bit like Zorro. The mischievous charm present in his last four vocal performances as the character is still here, which is now tinged with fear that he handles with compelling edge required to make the stakes all the more important. We like the actor and character already, so it isn't too much of a leap here, but Banderas isn't merely on autopilot in terms of just playing schtick. Hayek is just as charming in allure (the only returning actor besides Banderas), still showing worthy chemistry with Banderas. In a way, it makes sense that Guillen is part of this key trio, since the last film did have a trio with Banderas and Hayek, albeit in a different manner when it came to a quest. Guillen is the comic relief that in a sense is also the spirit of the whole film: carefree and wandering on its own path, and I think that results in a pretty decent performance, one with decent chuckles that don't derail the proceedings (well, maybe the bit about trying to do cute eyes, but other than that...). Moura makes for a compelling figure to loom over the proceedings, since, well, he is playing Death (literally). Granted, it isn't as prolific in time on screen as Mulaney, but Moura still makes for a solid foil with the proper delivery one would hope to see. As for Mulaney, he makes a chuckler as the other key adversary looming over the proceedings that reminds me of another Western pastiche: Harvey Korman from Blazing Saddles. This is basically a compliment in terms of timing worth every moment seen on screen. The quartet of reimagined storybook characters in Pugh-Colman-Winstone-Kayo is a nice one in terms of silly wannabee heavies, ones with desires and quirks that are actually compelling and make for an interesting dynamic.

Whether there is another adventure involving this character or not (green-skinned ogre or not...), I would say that it proved to be a useful use of my time when it comes to seeing animation done right. It has an inevitable moral about the nature of figuring out what one really wants, but it handles that with general patience and weaving that doesn't make for any easy outs. The movie feels like a breeze at 102 minutes, managing to show plenty of interesting visuals (such as the climax in a star) that make for a generally involving time. When it comes to making arguments about animated movies not merely just for children, this is a pretty good indicator of an animated film that can work for anyone. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Stuart Little.

Review #1946: Stuart Little.

Cast: 

Michael J. Fox (Stuart Little), Geena Davis (Mrs. Eleanor Little), Hugh Laurie (Mr. Frederick Little), Jonathan Lipnicki (George Little), Nathan Lane (Snowbell), Chazz Palminteri (Smokey), Steve Zahn (Monty), Jim Doughan (Lucky / Officer Allen), David Alan Grier (Red), Bruno Kirby (Mr. Stout), Jennifer Tilly (Mrs. Stout), Stan Freberg (Race Announcer), Jeffrey Jones (Uncle Crenshaw), Connie Ray (Aunt Tina), Allyce Beasley (Aunt Beatrice), Brian Doyle-Murray (Cousin Edgar), Estelle Getty (Grandma Estelle), Harold Gould (Grandpa Spencer), Patrick Thomas O'Brien (Uncle Stretch), Julia Sweeney (Mrs. Keeper), Dabney Coleman (Dr. Beechwood), Miles Marsico (Anton), and Jon Polito (Officer Sherman) Directed by Rob Minkoff (#073 - The Lion King, #746 - The Haunted Mansion, #1125 - Mr. Peabody & Sherman)

Review: 

Sure, movies for children are a dime a dozen, but life is (probably) not too short to enjoy light fare every now and then. It also probably helps if you have familiar names as director or as the stars. This was the first solo directorial effort by Rob Minkoff, who had co-directed The Lion King (1994) with Roger Allers, which had culminated a decade of work at Walt Disney Productions (having studied at the California Institute of Arts that resulted in an internship). The film is based on the 1945 children's novel of the same name by E. B. White, who is also known for his subsequent 1952 novel Charlotte's Web, which has had numerous film adaptations. The screenplay was written by M. Night Shyamalan and Greg Brooker (the latter wrote this and did re-writes for She's All That while honing a script for what became The Sixth Sense - all three films were released in 1999). White had been inspired by a dream he had while riding in a railway sleeping car about a tiny boy who acted like a rat. The advent of digital effects with Sony Pictures Imageworks, along with visual effects by various people alongside supervision by John Dysktra, made the possibility of the film possible that wouldn't been the case before 1999.

It is a movie about earnest people adopting a mouse that talks, you know. The level of enjoyment you get from the film may very well depend on how seriously you take the film, honestly. It seems about as whimsical as one might expect from a children's film adaptation without becoming an explosion of weirdo cuteness. This happens mostly because it tries to play a bit of adventure with a pint-sized lead that gets to deal with the danger of being left without a family along with the danger of cats thinking about lunch. Fox had plenty of voice experience with films such as the Homeward Bound features (1993, 1996), so it isn't too surprising to see him here as the lead voice, which he handles with warm charisma. Sure, the role might be packed with schmaltz, but Fox handles it amiably to where we appreciate seeing him carrying things around. Laurie and Davis make for earnest parental figures that don't oversell the level of enthusiasm needed to make this seem warm enough to take seriously on an "okay, sure" level (i.e., being parents to a child and a mouse adoptee at least seems fine). Lipnicki is at least what you would expect from a kid actor (so yes, the kid from Jerry Maguire is fine). There is absolutely nothing surprising in seeing Lane here, which inspires a few chuckles as the foil to Fox that is followed by attempts at kid-friendly heavies played by folks like Palminteri, which is neat. There is a wide variety of name actors that pop in from Dabney Coleman to Jon Polito that come and go just as quickly with one-bit lines that work fine for folks already comfortable with what they are watching. You get to see a boat race along with what passes for a "car chase" to go with a story path that you would probably foresee coming midway through. It's a family movie that doesn't dawdle too much or go overboard in bits with animals. The film inspired a sequel three years later, which retained Minkoff and a handful of actors from the first film. As a whole, it is a cheery little movie that has enough decent notes that it hits within semi-adventure and a few chuckles that does exactly what you would expect without strain or irritation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Double Life of Veronique.

Review #1945: The Double Life of Veronique.

Cast: 

Irène Jacob (Weronika / Véronique), Halina Gryglaszewska (The Aunt), Kalina Jędrusik (The Gaudy Woman), Aleksander Bardini (The Orchestra Conductor), Władysław Kowalski (Weronika's father), Guillaume De Tonquédec (Serge), Jerzy Gudejko (Antek), Philippe Volter (Alexandre Fabbri), Sandrine Dumas (Catherine), Janusz Sterninski (The Lawyer), Louis Ducreux (The Professor), and Claude Duneton (Véronique's father) Directed by Krzysztof Kieślowski (#601 - Three Colours: Blue, #602 - Three Colours: White, #603 - Three Colours: Red)

Review: 

"I have one good characteristic. I am a pessimist. I always imagine the worst. To me the future is a black hole."

Admittedly, no world cinema discussion can omit Krzysztof Kieślowski, although I certainly did not intend for the Three Colours trilogy to be the only films of his that I saw for eight years. They were three of four films he made that were not directly made in his native Poland, where he made a variety of features, documentaries, TV films, and shorts from 1966 until 1994, with varying levels of reach in his homeland due to the Communist regime that encompassed most of his life. He once made a series of ten films for television called Dekalog that were inspired by the Ten Commandments, and two of those entries inspired film extensions (all of these films were directed and released in 1988). The Double Life of Veronique was his first co-production, as it was a French-Polish-Norway production. As it had been since No End (1985), Kieślowski wrote the film with Krzysztof Piesiewicz, a lawyer who had defended political cases in Poland (specifically opponents of the Communist regime). Kieślowski brought in Sławomir Idziak (a regular on countless films of his) to do the cinematography, which results in a film that looks quite unworldly at times within its use of color and filters.

There is something quite incandescent about a film like this, a 98-minute feature that is bolstered by a tremendous acting performance that anyone would kill to have the chance for. The daughter of a physicist and psychologist, Jacob had her breakout role in this feature after years of stage work and a handful of feature appearances. She described her appearances in a Kieślowski feature (she lated starred in Red) as one where the camera was like a microscope, albeit without much time to talk about a character role (rather wanting her to follow her instincts). She proves quite magnificent here, providing emotional turmoil within two distinct spirits seen here (please note that the opening involving the Polish Weronika is actually voiced by Anna Gornostaj). Her observation about where her path has taken herself becomes our observation and our feeling. Volter is the puppeteer of fate and romance for what proves to be a charming match for Jacob in the anxious game of pursuit in life. It has often been called a film involving identity, love, and human intuition. Apparently, Kieślowski once noted that he was approached by a French girl about how much she was moved by the film, which made him realize it was worth all of the sacrifice so that one "should realize that she has a soul." This certainly will fit well within the curious people familiar with metaphysics when it comes to studying the fundamental natures of reality, whether that involves wondering what is out there...and what that "there" is like. Of course, folks less familiar in the realm of philosophy will at least see the intrinsic qualities that Kieślowski conveys in a movie dedicated as one of feeling rather than deep plotting. At least, that's how it seems to fit within the basic statements about what the film is: ever feel like there is someone that resembles you in spirit? Hell, there have been various stories about doppelgangers before and after this film, but there is something quite poetic about where the film wanders within its intertwined path of choice and sense. Kieślowski is essentially the master of his puppets, as reflected by a line in the film involving a puppeteer. Is it not fate to have an actor play a puppeteer (author too, but still) only to have the puppeteering scenes played by a different person? (Bruce Schwartz). Does one feel like they are in control of their life, or is there some sort of spirit that has the wheel? And how would one feel if they found out the truth about that? The movie is not one to lend answers to any sort of questions you may find from a film of feeling because it is a film built on existing to let you explore it yourself. Is one a man or is one merely a puppet to serve as some sort of cog in the game of infinite choices? The only answer may very well be found among the strings of choices and time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

One Hundred and One Dalmatians.

Review #1944: One Hundred and One Dalmatians.

Cast: 

Rod Taylor (Pongo), Lisa Daniels and Cate Bauer (Perdita), Betty Lou Gerson (Cruella de Vil / Miss Birdwell), Ben Wright (Roger Radcliffe), Lisa Davis (Anita Radcliffe), Frederick Worlock (Horace Baddun / Inspector Graves), J. Pat O'Malley (Jasper Baddun / Colonel), Martha Wentworth (Nanny / Queenie / Lucy the White Goose), Thurl Ravenscroft (Captain), David Frankham (Sergeant Tibbs), Mimi Gibson (Lucky), Barbara Beaird (Rolly), Mickey Maga (Patch), Sandra Abbott (Penny), Tudor Owen (Old Towser), George Pelling (Danny), and Junius Matthews (Scottie) Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman (#250 - The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, #598 - The Rescuers, #660 - Sleeping Beauty), Clyde Geronimi (#178 - Peter Pan, #373 - Cinderella, #511 - The Three Caballeros, #660, and #683 - Alice in Wonderland) and Hamilton Luske (#178, #373, #683)

Review: 

By the 1950s, Walt Disney and his film studio would enter a time of transition. The animation studio had done six package films from 1942 to 1949 before returning with Cinderella (1950). That same year, Disney would get behind their first live-action effort with Treasure Island, having experimented with a mix of live-action and animation with previous features such as Song of the South (1946). Disney had further ideas beyond films, such as the theme park built in Anaheim, California, a park that bears his name opened to the public in 1955. Sleeping Beauty (1959) was the first animated film in Super Technirama 70 widescreen. The high costs of the film did not help make it a success on release, and Disney had thoughts about closing down the animation department due to costs (the aforementioned Beauty film was made for $6 million, while the resulting Dalmatian film was made for $3.6 million). The movie is an adaptation of The Hundred and One Dalmatians, a 1956 children's novel by Dodie Smith. Disney had bought the rights to doing a film on the novel in 1957 (Smith, a Dalmatian owner, had apparently wrote the book with a secret hope that Disney would make a film of it, as noted in correspondences to Disney). Bill Peet was tasked to write the story for the film. Peet had been involved in the story department for several Disney films since Pinocchio (1940), having started his work at the Disney studio as an "in-betweener" in making up frames of drawings on animated shorts. He was also involved in the character development stage for what became Cruella de Vil along with developing all of the storyboards for the film (when generally an animated film had numerous storyboard artists) while directing the recording of the voices. There was one method to cut costs. This was the first film to be made entirely with a copying technology utilized by the Xerox Corporation. So yes, one took a Xerox camera to get drawings by animators directly to animation cels without needing to do the inking process (no drawings needed to be painted over); the Xerox process had been done in a few small scenes prior to this film. Ken Anderson, a fellow loyal employee of Disney for decades, was art director and production designer on this film. This was the 17th animated film by Disney and the first of three released in the 1960s, aided by the success seen by this film with audiences. A live-action remake was done in 1996, which in turn inspired a sequel four years later and a live-action "prequel" in 2021.

Honestly, the reason I hadn't covered many Disney films over the past few years is because I wanted to make it seem quite special to do one from the studio, which has released 61 animated feature films since 1937. One Hundred and One Dalmatians isn't the best film released by the Disney studio of its era, but it clearly is a charmer. It certainly has conventional techniques in its storytelling that make its 79 minute runtime an interesting presence in the Disney lexicon. Disney did not care much for the look of the film in art because he thought it lost the "fantasy" element, since the line drawings were now being printed on a separate animation cel right before it was laid over the background. But it makes sense for what needs to happen here, with smooth movement that is generally warm and inviting in a story about kidnapping pets to turn into coats. The voice talent is mostly for the animals than the humans, probably because the casting wanted deep voices for the former to begin with. Taylor had one notable film credit with The Time Machine (1960), although he had prior extensive experience in radio work in his native Australia. He makes a solid presence as the leader of the dog bunch that makes for a few chuckles. Daniels and Bauer split the voice role because Daniels had left production months into voicing - honestly, I couldn't quite tell the difference, but each do fine in grace to match with Taylor. Wright and Davis make decent human focuses to go with the proceedings, but obviously Gerson is the general highlight, utilizing a choice of voice that was meant to be a "phony theatrical voice, someone who's set sail from New York but hasn't quite reached England"- this works well in over-the-top villainy that is distinct and worth remembering, while Worlock and O'Malley make neat comic relief. The other voices are used for moments from time to time involving general animal amusement, such as communicating great distances with barks or cows giving milk to hungry dogs. This was the last directorial effort for Luske, a Disney mainstay for two decades who had one more highlight with his work on Mary Poppins (1964), which saw him direct the animated sequence that saw him awarded an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects; Luske died at the age of 64 in 1968. This was also the final directorial effort by Geronimi, who had left Disney for UPA and television in 1959. Reitherman, who directed his first film with Sleeping Beauty (1959), would direct a handful of Disney features for the next 15 years. As a whole, it is a nice and light feature, packed with fair adventure and charm that one would hope from a film like this, one that shows landscapes with vast curiosity just as much as it shows neat adventure with dogs in contemporary times. It's a cute little good movie, and that makes it something special even after six decades.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, folks. With this 163rd review, I have matched 2021 in the amount of films spotlighted on Movie Night. For the sixth time in the history of Movie Night (12/20/2010-present, 4,387 days if you want to be precise), there was over 150 reviews in one year, and this doesn't even include the Redux Reviews, for which there were sixteen of them. The next couple of months will be interesting ones, seeing the second rendition of New Directors Month in January along with the third editions of Black History Month (February) and Women's History Month (March). Oh, and a certain milestone is coming. We'll see a few more reviews over the final week of 2022; there has been a certain pattern with these reviews to cover a few names neglected over the past few years, so we shall see what is next...

The Rock.

Review #1943: The Rock.

Cast: 

Sean Connery (SAS Captain John Patrick Mason), Nicolas Cage (FBI Special Agent Dr. Stanley Goodspeed), Ed Harris (Brigadier General Francis X. "Frank" Hummel), John Spencer (FBI Director Jim Womack), David Morse (Major Tom Baxter), William Forsythe (FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Ernest Paxton), Michael Biehn (Commander Charles Anderson), Vanessa Marcil (Carla Pestalozzi), John C. McGinley (Captain Hendrix), Gregory Sporleder (Captain Frye), Tony Todd (Captain Darrow), Bokeem Woodbine (Gunnery Sergeant Crisp), Jim Maniaci (Private Scarpetti), and Greg Collins (Private Gamble) Directed by Michael Bay (#057 - Transformers, #058 - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and #129 - The Island)

Review: 

“They make up words like Bayos and Bayhem and all this crap.” 

It was never intentional to miss out on watching films directed by Michael Bay for so long, which reached a decade this year. I suppose it is hard to find time for every director, polarizing or not. The Rock was his second feature film as a director, which like Bad Boys (1995) was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson (in their final production together) who had noticed his success in directing music videos. Bruckheimer would serve as a producer on Bay's first five films (Simpson died five months before the release of The Rock). The original script had been done by David Weisberg and Douglas Cook. Mark Rosner contributed work to the screenplay, but there were various writers who did work on the script that did not receive credit, such as Jonathan Hensleigh (who Bay felt deserved credit), Aaron Sorkin, and Quentin Tarantino; the result is a script that had little humorous moments, with Cage ad-libbing a good chunk of his dialogue. Admittedly, the premise might seem cobbled from other action films: it is a siege film, one set on Alcatraz Island where the choice is either a payout (for families of forgotten veterans) or gas-loaded rocket destruction. Of course, things aren't quite what they seem in a film that pairs a chemist, a talented escape artist, and a SEAL team together, and that is part of the fun.

The key to the film working as it does beyond the usual action expenditures is the engaging ensemble cast. Oh yes, Connery and Cage are enjoyable together, but the whole film has pretty good character presences within its three sides: the beleaguered pairing of our heroes, the indignation shown by Forsythe and Spencer at the whole proceeding, and the wavering villainy that goes from Harris to Todd. In other words: the people prove enjoyable to watch on screen just as much as the action sequences, which means that the stakes mean just as much as they would in a generic movie. Its funny that this was the first big action film for Cage, fresh off an Academy Award performance in Leaving Las Vegas (1995) alongside a wide variety of films that had included Moonstruck (1987) and... well, stuff like Fire Birds (1990). But The Rock was the first of a variety of mainstream entertainment (or whatever you might call it), and it is pretty clear to see his appeal. Here, he plays the angle of comic relief alongside action hero to worthy compromise, showing plenty of timing within his facial expressions and mannerisms that makes for an engaging presence, particularly when matched against Connery, the king of relaxed charm even in his late sixties. The amusing little theory that has been passed around over the years is that Connery is really playing an older James Bond, and while I can't really endorse it, it probably does work within explaining how Connery proves so effective in his measured charisma that comes through all of the action beats. Connery and Cage have a nice, weird chemistry together that serves as the ideal match of established names that doesn't see either overshadow the other. Harris is the ideal adversary in that he isn't merely there to shout banal dialogue, and the film actually spends a bit of time giving him depth beyond the usual siege film: a man fed up with higher-ups failing the paragon of virtue he has tried to live up to (so in a way, Harris and his performance might remind one of the Rambo films). He is a natural leader that makes the ideal villain: one with a point that they firmly believe in. Sporleder and Todd make worthy adversaries when it comes to representing both heavies and the ideals of what it takes to be a sellout. Spencer and Forsythe each make capable foils to our leads in indignation, whether that involves one being held on a rooftop or the latter trying to tolerate the whole proceedings as the semi-tough guy, who like any good tough guy generates a smile. There are a number of folks that are meant to fall by the wayside such as Biehn or Morse, which they handle like character pros. It is an over-the-top film, but it is a roaringly fun film that justifies its 136-minute run-time. His filmmaking style may be called "Bayhem", but it only serves as a useful compliment when one sees his craftsmanship (and theories about the government) on display. It balances its two halves neatly: you get a car chase in one half and careful pacing of action with the latter half. Bay lives for what James Cameron calls "the big train set", which basically means one huge production with all the trappings of non-compromise. So yes, thinking of Bay and Cameron as similar filmmakers may sound weird, but give it a bit of thought sometime. As a whole, The Rock is an enjoyable film, serving as the most respected film of Michael Bay because of the display of craftsmanship that is put firmly on display with no sense of compromise or false note within its engaging ensemble cast. It pulls most of the strings correctly in ways that any director would be proud of.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Avatar: The Way of Water.

Review #1942: Avatar: The Way of Water.

Cast: 

Sam Worthington (Jake Sully), Zoe Saldana (Neytiri), Sigourney Weaver (Kiri / Dr. Grace Augustine), Stephen Lang (Colonel Miles Quaritch), Kate Winslet (Ronal), Cliff Curtis (Tonowari), Joel David Moore (Norm), CCH Pounder (Mo'at), Edie Falco (General Ardmore), Brendan Cowell (Scoresby), Jemaine Clement (Dr. Garvin), Jamie Flatters (Neteyam), Britain Dalton (Lo'ak), Trinity Jo-Li Bliss (Tuk), Jack Champion (Spider), Bailey Bass (Tsireya), Filip Geljo (Aonung), Duane Evans Jr. (Rotxo), and Giovanni Ribisi (Selfridge) Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar, #574 - Aliens, #606 - True Lies, #1515 - Titanic)

Review: 

 "It will be a natural extension of all the themes, and the characters, and the spiritual undercurrents. Basically, if you loved the first movie, you're gonna love these movies, and if you hated it, you're probably gonna hate these. If you loved it at the time, and you said later you hated it, you're probably gonna love these."

Honestly, I hadn't thought of Avatar (2009) too much since I saw it the one time in 2013. Aside for the countless jokes about it being a blue version of Dances with Wolves or being like Ferngully: The Last Rainforest, I didn't really anticipate a sequel coming out that would elevate what I felt was pretty average fare. It can be granted that it was a movie that succeeded on the goals of presenting an old-fashioned jungle adventure with some sort of environmental conscience that basically took inspiration from countless adventure and science fiction books that made a basic setup in order to show some really pretty special effects (if you saw it in 3D, well, that probably went double). Cameron initially stated that the success of Avatar would guarantee two sequels. In 2016 (two years after Cameron had stated there would be sequels released in 2014 and 2015), Cameron stated that there would be four sequels, all shot simultaneously (with this film being done for a budget over $350 million), for which the sequels would have sperate stories that "have an overall arc inclusive of the first film." Here is a fun writing listing: the story was done by Cameron, Rick Jaffa, and Amanda Silver, while the screenplay was done by Cameron, Jaffa, Silver, and Josh Friedman and Shane Salerno. Nine of the original cast members from the first film return for this film, which had started shooting in 2017. Trying to do performance capture underwater ended up taking over a year to do because a whole process had to be invented for it (keep in mind, actors had to undergo training to be able to breathe longer than what you might expect, and a record for longest breath held during filming of an underwater scene was set...at seven minutes).

I will give this much credit: the best way to see the film is the way all films should be seen...in a theater. Granted, as much as I don't particularly care for 3D, it was a pretty interesting experience to immerse oneself. So yes, if you want a film that has turned Avatar into a generational family saga that happens to dabble with themes of environmentalism and colonization with a runtime of 192 minutes, here you are. Would you be surprised to know that the movie is a great visual experience but only just an average epic besides that element? It manages to be both diverting and amusing in all of the weird ways that I had anticipated, one that plays off many interesting viewing moments to go along with dialogue that is either family cliche or flat-out odd cliche (hearing "cuz", for example). Yes, a movie made in 2022 looks pretty, big shock. It is pretty good, although I would hope for more when it comes to the next film. It lingers on said imagery at times, whether that involves certain moments of higher frame rate or images from the sea or...you get the idea. 192 minutes means one viewing will either prove fair for the theater experience or daunting. Eh, it was fine. Oh, right, there is acting in the film. Worthington technically does fine in the morph to "family man", albeit with voiceover lines that basically states the obvious. Saldana is the other side of the family coin of, well, doing things. Technically this is a case of the story moving over to the offspring, but I surely remember her having more to do in the first film. Lang is the highlight for me, one who is abrasive as ever but still engaging enough to see where one could at least see how people would rally behind him. Besides, him playing the exposition of just how he returns is at least interesting when coming from him (and yay, he gets to come back for more, so I can only hope he gets to do more cartoonish things - maybe he'll shoot a space whale and make it dignified). Winslet and Curtis make fairly decent new people to do the schtick of "welcome to the sea, fellow blue-ish people". I admire Weaver taking a role where she has to play a blue teenager - granted it is a decent performance, but hey, I guess it needed to be Weaver when acting with actual teens playing blue teenagers. Of course, Champion is meant to stick out like a sore thumb as the wild child among blue people, but yea, he did start to get on my nerves after time.

By the first hour, the film has established the change from pursuit of "unobtanium" to basically trying to make a new Earth for the humans while the on-screen "Na'vi Family Robinson" makes their trip to the sea (look, I know they are called "Na'vi", but forgive me if I end up saying blue people). At least you get to see the return of Lang as the villain, if only because nobody wants to see a whole trip to the deep blue sea without some sort of weirdo new blue villain. The middle hour is pretty eventful: you get to see Avatar's version of whales with the "tulkun", the spiritual blood brothers that was reminding me to wonder just how familiar it might be to something like Free Willy (1993). So yes, space whales. Take a guess what happens with the space whales when there is one outcast among them. At any rate, don't forget about the weird conflicts between the reef people (i.e. green people) and the blue folks. I'll be honest, I did find it amusingly tiresome to remember that there are three siblings to this Na'vi family alongside two adoptees. When it finally labors itself past the 120-minute mark, now you get to see a battle to save the space whales from having their stuff sucked out for anti-aging serum (yes) and being drawn out by the villain. At least the crab-mecha thing (the time for getting proper names for things is long past) is fun, because god knows the action in the last act is probably the most interesting the film gets beyond showing images in the water. At any rate, by the time you finish this mix of school movies, animal flicks, and possibly The Poseidon Adventure, you probably will be interested in just what the hell James Cameron wants to do in this "family saga", where it will continue to push the elements of where special effects can go to go alongside wondering just how self-serious this story will go. I dug the movie, but any good movie has clear elements that could have gone down with the ship with lesser hands, and this is most evident here. This was a movie about family being everything along with the message that the environment (specifically water) will kick your ass if you try to mess with it...I think. Will there be material present in the further sequels that make this even more of a true epic, or will it be something that you could lightly make fun of it (probably while doing certain substances beforehand) while looking at the pretty images? Time will tell for the third film, set for release in the late 2020s...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Redux Review #001: Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Cast:
Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Terminator), Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), Edward Furlong (John Connor), Robert Patrick (T-1000), Earl Boen (Dr. Silberman), Joe Morton (Miles Dyson), S. Epatha Merkerson (Tarissa Dyson), Castulo Guerra (Enrique Salceda), Danny Cooksey (Tim), Jenette Goldstein (Janelle Voight), and Xander Berkeley (Todd Voight) Produced and Directed by James Cameron.

Review: 

A long time ago, I got the idea to review movies and write about them. I was fourteen and a pretty average viewer of action movies. The reviews weren't particularly good, but they generally still reflect my opinions on movies even after twelve years. In fact, I had originally planned to go back to the beginning and re-review this film way back in 2017. December 20, 2010 actually had eleven published reviews when I originally did them on a website called Star Pirates, which went like this: Terminator 2: Judgement Day, RoboCop, Rocky, RoboCop 2, Get Shorty, RoboCop 3, Looney Tunes: Back in Action, X-Men, Star Trek (2009), X2, and Fantastic Four. Four of those eleven actually have Redux Reviews already published, but I figured the best way to commemorate the 12-year anniversary of Movie Night is to make a loop from one James Cameron film to another. Enjoy.

From December 20, 2010:

Well, this film is a nice piece of work at 2 and a half hours long, and the Science Fiction is really put in first, along with the drama. The cast does an excellent job, especially Schwarzenegger and Patrick. This film has good use of CGI and great scenes that make you laugh and cry, as it qualifies for one of the best sci-fi films of all time. This film is probably the best sequel of any film as it does a great job.

"Even if we win the fight for our existence against the rise of machines, how do we define ourselves? Now it’s a real thing and a real concern and a real philosophical, existential question for the human race." - James Cameron

The Terminator (1984) is one of the best science fiction action films of its time. You already know that. Sure, Hemdale and Orion Pictures probably screwed up in promoting the film beyond what it clearly was: a classic in various genres. Of course, James Cameron became a prime name in directing because of the film, which he came up with the initial idea that eventually became fleshed out into what you saw. However, he did not actually feel that a sequel was particularly warranted - he went on to do films such as Aliens (1986) and The Abyss (1989), while the main star of the Terminator film in Arnold Schwarzenegger was always interested in making a sequel while continuing to become a film star on films such as Total Recall (1990). That film was funded by Carolco Pictures, and Schwarzenegger got the owners of the studio to try and negotiate with Hemsdale to buy the rights (they had half of the rights, while Gale Anne Hurd had the other half, since Cameron sold it to her for $1 as part of the deal for Hurd to advocate for Cameron). In 1990, Cameron agreed to join in, complete with asking William Wisher to help write the screenplay with him, for which they tasked to write it in six to seven weeks (because the release date was already set - July 1991). In the long run, it was one of the most expensive films of its time, made for roughly $94 million to $102 million. Interestingly, the idea of a liquid metal Terminator had actually been considered for the first film, as the original film had planned to have two Terminators sent by Skynet. Of course, trying to do a clay-animation Terminator in 1984 did not strike Cameron as effectively possible. It should be mentioned that this idea of two Terminators would find one key change: it wouldn't be a fight between two Terminators that happened to look just like Schwarzenegger (because Wisher thought it sounded like a boring idea). The idea of a Terminator that could take any shape it wants and strike from nowhere was originally intended in the first film, as you already might know. The fact that computer generated imagery (CGI) had managed to come along enough to actually be part of a film for longer than a few seconds surely helped this scenario (as evidenced by Cameron's previous effort in The Abyss). As such, the effects were done in various segments: Industrial Light and Magic (with Dennis Muren as supervisor) for the CGI effects, Stan Winston Studio for prosthetics and animatronics, Fantasy II Film Effects for miniatures and optical effects, and 4-Ward Productions and Pacific Data Images and Video Image for additional elements (such as a nuclear explosion effect). Muren has been quoted as saying that getting a convincing shot of a walking character that looks like it was made of chrome that had weight to it took months. Keep in mind, Cameron had to make sure the live-action shots matched with the effects that were being done by ILM, which meant plenty of takes needed to get the actors to hit their mark, and the final shots involving molten steel came down to the wire in getting them to render properly to reach the intended release date. In the end, the movie was a massive hit, receiving accolades for several members of its crew (such as Winston and Muren winning an Academy Award alongside Gene Warren Jr and Robert Skotak to go with wins for the makeup, sound and sound effects editing crew).

Sure, it is a sci-fi action film just like its predecessor from seven years ago, but it is a successor that hits every mark that you would expect from a film of its kind, sequel or not. It isn't executed in the style of a slasher film as before, instead reaching for new heights of thrills in action and drama that shows both a profound sense of entertainment along with profound sense of humanity. Cameron has called the relationship between the characters of John Connor and the T-800 as the heart of the film, equating it to the Wizard of Oz with the Tin Man getting a heart. If the first film was considered to be bleak within its depiction of a cyborg that would stop at nothing to strike at one of the future keys of humanity, there is a strike of hope within this film, where the progressive humanity shown by the T-800 alongside the resurgence of humanity with Sarah Connor is what drives everything together. Cameron has called it as the "world's most violent anti-war movie", and he does have a pretty good point there, if only because he has made a diverting movie that shows just how far one could possibly go with the basic urge of violence without becoming a movie simply for the thrill hounds (not that there's anything wrong with that, unless you are a pedantic critic – hell, did they not see how violent the first film was?). 

Hamilton clearly was ready for the assignment of playing a character now ravaged by post traumatic stress, which means a role that requires great timing in aggressive behavior and wavering humanity. Her paranoia is our paranoia, and it makes for a lean and effective evolution from her vulnerability all those years ago. Schwarzenegger says quite a few more sentences as before, but it is the progressive humanity seen through his scenes with Furlong that make the movie work as well it does when it isn't just about the action, and he shows his habit for making the audience smile in his expressions without needing to strain credibility. Furlong had never acted in a film before this film. He is the surly key in finalizing this offbeat, fractured family that we see for the film. It is natural honesty that never seems to grate on one's nerves in false notes. His scenes with Schwarzenegger when it comes to bonding with each other, whether that involves promising not to kill (instead going around throwing folks or kneecapping them) or trying to teach him to smile or their last scene together in the mill, which is definitely the most striking. Did you know that Cameron had Billy Idol in mind for the villain role? Well, his "look and presence" made him a brief favorite, but a motorcycle accident ended up opening the door for a mostly unknown actor. Interestingly enough, the one chosen to do the film after successful auditions was Robert Patrick, who had acted in a couple of Roger Corman movies (and even did his own stunts). He basically honed his performance in the film on what he did in the audition from what the casting directors were telling him, which basically was "You’re sense-aware. You’re tracking.” In fact, it was his idea to have the character run around with his fingers outstretched, which goes well with his physicality that reminds one of a snake, one who slithers through the film with worthy distinction. You would think the fact that Schwarzenegger is present during the film would make it distracting for Patrick to be a worthy title threat for the sequel, but he manages to hold his own, and this is in a movie where a good chunk of screen time has him away from the action, but he always makes his impression count. Morton is the one key supporting presence needed, playing an accidental Dr. Frankenstein with shock that makes a useful impression to sell the tragic part of this modern sort of fable when it comes to seeing where one's curiosity with machines can lead, regardless of the intent.

Brad Fiedel returns to do the musical score, which is quite fantastic in its usage of several sounds (organic and acoustic) that he had done through recently available technology, whether that means real air moving in a room in order to generate a sound. Any appreciator of the synth sound of the original will be satisfied with how Fiedel has managed to elevate his sound here. It is a great looking movie, one that is expertly edited (by three people) along with being expertly handled in its effects that have managed to still look quite effective in the art of being cutting-edge without seeming in-organic. It set the stage for future visual blockbusters such as Jurassic Park, that is a testament to the staying power of this film, There are two alternate versions of the film. The original version of the movie runs at 137 minutes long. The "Special Edition" is fifteen minutes longer and includes several scenes not used in the original cut, such as a sequence with Kyle Reese (Cameron prefers the theatrical releases while calling the extended versions just opportunities to see depth restored that couldn't be done with the current runtime). There also exists an "Extended Cut" that includes a scene of the T-1000 inspecting a room along with an alternate ending where an elderly Sarah Connor is watching her grown-up son, now a United States Senator. I ended up watching the Special Edition, primarily because of my memory being with that particular Reese scene (since who doesn’t love to see a little more Michael Biehn), but I imagine that the original cut will be just fine regardless of that fact. There are plenty of scenes one could highlight, but it always ends up being the fact that the movie has multiple potential climaxes (building explosion, the nitrogen chase, and the steel mill), which it handles with precision to where nothing seems dragged beyond comprehension. 

As a whole, Terminator 2: Judgement Day is a prime example of how to hone one’s craft in elevated storytelling, weaving a sci-fi action parable of humanity with expert filmmaking that has endured as a key moment for both effects work and for its time after over three decades since its release. The debate over which Terminator film ends up with the same result: you can't go wrong with either classic to pick.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.