Fear and Desire.

Review #2051: Fear and Desire.

Cast: 

Frank Silvera (Sgt. Mac), Kenneth Harp (Lt. Corby / The General), Paul Mazursky (Pvt. Sidney), Steve Coit (Pvt. Fletcher / The Captain), with Virginia Leith (The Girl), and David Allen (Narrator) Produced and Directed by Stanley Kubrick (#044 - Full Metal Jacket, #065 - The Shining, #093 - 2001: A Space Odyssey, #1046 - Barry Lyndon, #1301 - Dr. Strangelove, and #1440 - A Clockwork Orange)

Review: 

"I don't know a goddamn thing about movies, but I know I can make a better film than that." [c. 1950s]

Stanley Kubrick directed his first feature film with Fear and Desire at the age of 24 and later called it "a bumbling amateur film exercise". I would say that is possibly all you need to see the film for itself, if only because the ridiculous acts of Kubrick in trying to bury the film (which included calling the film awful when it was going to be commercially screened for the first time in decades in 1994) has made it something to look about when talking about Kubrick before he was known as Kubrick. Of course, he made rookie mistakes as any filmmaker could do, but most probably don't try to use crop sprayers to create fog only to nearly choke people when insecticide was found to be still inside. It also helps that the film is in the public domain and is also his shortest film at 61 minutes. It was originally shown at the Venice Film Festival in 1952 as "Shape of Fear" only to see distribution by Joseph Burstyn in 1953 (months before his death at the age of 53) under the title it is now known as. Kubrick had been born in New York City and was raised in the Bronx, where his interest in film and photography became apparent from an early age. After spending time as a photographer for Look magazine Kubrick became a director with three documentaries in Day of the Fight (1951), Flying Padre (1951), and The Seafarers (1953). The results of showing his films around got Kubrick some finances to try and make a feature film, with his uncle Martin Perveler contributing his key part. Howard Sackler, a friend of Kubrick and a future playwright (most notably The Great White Hope), wrote the screenplay. The film was shot over the course of a couple of weeks with a crew totaling just over a dozen people in the San Gabriel Mountains of California. Kubrick also shot and edited the film himself with the intent to make it a silent film, but this would change (which resulted in him making a deal with Richard De Rochemont in funding). The film did not receive great audience returns, but there were a few decent reviews Two years after the release of the film, Kubrick would direct his second film with Killer's Kiss, a crime film noir which he wrote with Sackler.

There is something to be said about a film like this that achieves a curiosity in such pictorial oddness. It is a strange film, one that is distinct in of itself from the future twelve films to come from such an interesting presence. What is there to say about a group of men and the conscious acts they make that compare with what is said on screen? Plenty, if the movie has anything to say for an argument. Sure, there is a plot about an assassination of an officer in this unnamed war that they are dealing with, but the real attraction is looking at these people up close in their attempt to not go up the river mentally and in a figurative sense. Any film that begins with narration that has lines such as "These soldiers that you see keep our language and our time but have no other country but the mind" can only inspire one to treat the film as a sort of odd fever dream. It is the kind of film that lives and dies on just how much of it you buy into, if only because it isn't the sort of with any great performances or definitive answers on the basis of fear. With that in mind for such a mechanical curiosity, I think it works out just fine. Danger, risk, desperation, being built for war or not, it all is a blur that is handled with weird touch from actors such as Mazursky, who has his most noted moment when trying to handle his delirium at being the only one in view of the one found captive in Leith or in the double-act played to general patience by Harp or Coit. Silvera is no slouch of course, with his pursuit for one great act of courage in the face of certain end being a curious one to let itself play out. As a whole, it is a curious film wrapped in a puddle of fear and expression that obviously shows the potential for its director rather than serving as an avoidable exercise, and it should be celebrated for the useful execution that squeezes by rather than left in the dust.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Oppenheimer.

Review #2050: Oppenheimer.

Cast: 

Cillian Murphy (J. Robert Oppenheimer), Emily Blunt (Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer), Matt Damon (Leslie Groves), Robert Downey Jr (Lewis Strauss), Florence Pugh (Jean Tatlock), Josh Hartnett (Ernest Lawrence), Casey Affleck (Boris Pash), Rami Malek (David Hill), Kenneth Branagh (Niels Bohr), Benny Safdie (Edward Teller), Dylan Arnold (Frank Oppenheimer), Gustaf Skarsgård (Hans Bethe), David Krumholtz (Isidor Isaac Rabi), Matthew Modine (Vannevar Bush), David Dastmalchian (William L. Borden), Tom Conti (Albert Einstein), Michael Angarano (Robert Serber), Jack Quaid (Richard Feynman), Josh Peck (Kenneth Bainbridge), Olivia Thirlby (Lilli Hornig), Dane DeHaan (Kenneth Nichols), Danny Deferrari (Enrico Fermi), Alden Ehrenreich (Senate aide), Jefferson Hall (Haakon Chevalier), and Jason Clarke (Roger Robb) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, and #1618 - Tenet)

Review: 

“I’m always pushing various things forward, but this is one where a lot of different planets aligned. Los Alamos, this place that will always live in history or infamy, was first a place where Oppenheimer and his brother loved to go camping. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, I’m looking at the most personal possible connection between a character and a massive change to the world that couldn’t be undone.” - Christopher Nolan

There is no way to state how damn good the film is besides saying it is a really great achievement that should be seen. Blah blah Barbie, you could see that any time in the next couple of weeks but consider Oppenheimer as early as one could possibly do. No really, see it as quickly as you can, the three-hour runtime is worth the time presented, and I am sure you will be rewarded by the experience that makes for a fascinating biopic. The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer has been argued to be one of a modern tragedy, and this film proves that very point by the time it even has built two-thirds of the scope required of three hours of breathtaking film. Lord do I wish it was easy to just say what I mean in less than a handful of paragraphs, but if one can say roughly over 900 words for a film involving humans and dolls, clearly one has to make sure to put in the hours to articulate the importance of watching a film (specifically Nolan, who wrote the screenplay) that took its inspiration from the 2005 biography of the famed Oppenheimer in American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (incidentally, some of the subjects interviewed by Sherwin had been featured in The Day After Trinity, such as Haakon Chevalier). Oppenheimer is seen in various places besides Los Alamos in New Mexico, of course, such as his time as professor at thee University of California, Berkeley and his time spent after the war at the Institute for Advanced Study, while one other moment in history is seen under the cloud of Oppenheimer with the 1959 confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss for the Secretary of Commerce, after having taken office via a recess appointment the previous year (the film obviously doesn't have time to mention everyone, but the scuttling of the confirmation had help from Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, whose disagreements with Strauss drove him to drive such an effort, complete with an ally in fellow Senator and committee member dealing with commerce in Gale W. McGee). You can thank the efforts of folks such as J. David Wargo and James Woods (both executive producers) for getting this film to the finish line, since plans for doing one based on the book had muddled for over a decade; the only film to feature Oppenheimer in a prominent role was Fat Man and Little Boy (as played by Dwight Shultz for a film released in 1989), which absolutely nobody remembers fondly, at least when compared to say, the 1980 BBC TV serial Oppenheimer, which had Sam Waterston as star. Nolan has stated the purpose of having scenes in black-and-white is meant to present an objective view of the story of Oppenheimer from the point of view of the one most seen in these scenes with Strauss.

Oppenheimer the man is presented in all of his epic qualities of contradiction of brilliance. He is the namesake for both a process and approximation in science (with collaboration with other scientists, naturally) that is also wracked in paradoxes that make the heart of the film. Pride really does come before the fall, especially for someone who was under constant surveillance by the FBI before and after the war. The man is presented as a man with qualities and flaws apparent to all of us, a man of brilliance, a man of guilt, a man of womanizers, a man fit to argue as one of great tragedy. There are so many performances in this film that one can't mention every single person that portray these figures (some of whom only appear for a time such as Gary Oldman as President Harry Truman or James Remar as Henry Stimson). It is easy to state however, that Murphy and Downey Jr rein in the best performances of the whole film, with each of their stories being told in such compelling detail. Murphy has the weight of the title role on his shoulders, but he handles it with such clear conviction that one sees him as Oppenheimer with perfect efficiency that makes it so one never sees an actor playing a man but just the man and all of his qualities thrust upon us, and it takes a most exceptional person to give the role justice with such persuasive power. We live in a world created by Oppenheimer's actions and we feel it firmly with his performance. Downey Jr is practically the mirror of Oppenheimer when it comes to how he handles being cast into the light of his own hearing. All great villains believe themselves to be in the right, ones who believe that power stays in the shadows because only amateurs chase the sun, and Downey Jr plays this with such devastating power that is conniving and breathtaking in the time he is on screen. His arrogance is breathtaking in the greatest of ways possible, one filled with pique that is accompanied in moments with Ehrenreich for fascinating interaction. Murphy and Downey Jr clearly deserve all the recognition they have gotten for this film already and I am sure they will endure in the years to come. Of course, the rest of the performers are magnificent as well in conveying the players to destruction necessary, mostly in the case of Damon and Blunt. The clash of hard-driving practicality in Damon clashes with the philosophical Murphy for such riveting tension and even more riveting in the respect you see between the two that comes out because of how effective it all is played out. Blunt and her own contradictions make for a worthy pairing with Murphy, one with razor-sharp timing and unwavering confidence that goes well when you consider how Murphy is presented with Pugh on the other side of feminine curiosity (which in of itself is useful to watch). You get the point about these performers, they are useful in all the ways that matter without distraction, which is bookended by Conti but also sees people such as Hartnett and Safdie shine too.

Nothing is more exhilarating than seeing Lewis Strauss not become a member of a cabinet. Nah, just kidding (fun fact: he was the first person not confirmed for a cabinet seat by the US Senate since 1925 - never let it be said that Movie Night does not try to deliver "education" beyond rambling), because the buildup to the Trinity test is one for the ages. The buildup to the bomb and the accompanying music by Ludwig Göransson is absolutely worth the price of admission, complete with the moment itself in its beautiful destructive quality (the film was done with minimal computer-generated imagery). Of course, other sequences such as expressing certain scientific aspects (remember that the real Oppenheimer made contributions to various theories such as black holes) is a reminder that seeing this film on the biggest screen possible really can be a rewarding time for all involved. The guilt is crushing in all of the ways that matter when it comes to the level of involvement one has in forming a bomb and seeing it go away from your hands or seeing the results of it. Of course, since the film includes the noted scene of President Truman mocking Oppenheimer of just who has "blood on their hands", the fascination will endure further in discussion of ethics and beyond. Far from just a biopic that goes from point A to point B, the film flourishes from the very get-go and never lets up in conveying the wonder that comes in seeing the Manhattan Project meet its destiny that intertwine with the destinies of both Oppenheimer and Strauss with their hearings. God do I love this film, and I can't say enough about just how brilliant it is or how devilishly well-timed it is to make the three hours pass by without a single complaint. It serves as both an informative feature of the time and also a warning to the danger that comes with living in a world that Nolan believes is one shaped by Oppenheimer, whether we like it or not.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Barbie.

Review #2049: Barbie.

Cast: 

Margot Robbie (Barbie), Ryan Gosling (Ken), America Ferrera (Gloria), Kate McKinnon (Weird Barbie), Issa Rae (President Barbie), Rhea Perlman (Ruth), Will Ferrell (CEO of Mattel), Michael Cera (Allan), Ariana Greenblatt (Sasha), Helen Mirren (Narrator) Directed by Greta Gerwig (#1983 - Lady Bird)

Review: 

“My mom would check out books [Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls] from the library about parenting, and then I would read them. They’re funny and brash and confident, and then they just—stop. How is this journey the same thing that a teenage girl feels? All of a sudden, she thinks, Oh, I’m not good enough.”

I'm sure at least one of you had a childhood experience with the Barbie doll. Ruth Handler popularized the doll that was named after her daughter after seeing her play with paper dolls. Noting the limitations that come with such "one-dimensional" function, Handler obviously saw an opening for an adult-bodied doll and so she suggested it to her fellow co-founder of Mattel in Elliot Handler that led to the start of the Barbie in 1959. Actually, Handler couldn't get her idea accepted for mass production and she had let go of the idea for a time. But a family trip in Europe led to her seeing a doll called Bild Lilli that got the creative process rolling again. The doll was actually merchandise for the Lilli comic strip (as created by Reinhard Beuthien) that was being published in the German tabloid Bild. The adult-sized doll, complete with a look described by Handler as "naive and clever" when it comes to red lips and winged eyeliner, was clearly something to "take inspiration" for well, Barbie. I mention this if only because the film has a character named "Ruth". Anyway, there have been a handful of films and television based on Mattel products, such as Masters of the Universe or Max Steel, or, well, the dozens and dozens of direct-to-video Barbie films. But the road to making a live action Barbie film took over a dozen years of development that had various people attached to star or direct, so here we are with a film loaded with various Barbies and Kens that I'm sure some of you already know about (sorry folks, this childhood was dedicated to any odd little toy that came along, whether that was Lego, or heaven forbid, the Slinky). The film was written by Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach, which occurred after Margot Robbie (star and co-producer) asked the former about serving as writer/director.

Oh hell, I picked the movie because I wanted to know what exactly one was going to see in a film that has Mattel near the front of the line in production companies listed (right next to Warner Bros.). What type of possible Faustian bargain with corporate overlords could possibly happen here? Given the amount of folks I saw in line for the film (with quite a few in pink), I'm sure that at least one of them will be surprised with what they see on screen, parent or not. Well, whatever you expect, you could probably throw that out the window. If the script is described as one done in "literally imaginative play", the film seems to have plenty of varying inspirations, whether that involves old Technicolor musicals such as The Red Shoes, but I'm sure folks familiar with Pinocchio will make an interesting observation. But hey, that film did not have a "Techni-Barbie" template or present two distinct moments within its first thirty minutes that detail someone asking if they think of death or stating if they have genitals. It is the kind of movie where the lead performance is basically equivalent to a person that doesn't have a voice in their head that likes to make note of just where self-discovery goes when it comes to, well, when one is Barbie and the other is "& Ken". The deal of expectations versus reality in a world that is most certainly not the same as the one that saw Barbie come onto the eyes of children everywhere is at least a useful quandary to present in a film that never really stops reminding you of, well, its title subject. This is an interesting tightrope that reminded me of another product-named film with The Lego Movie (2014), so go with me on this for a moment: a movie based a product built on imagination for children (not like all boys played with just Legos) with an ordinary (or stereotypical in this case) lead character going on an adventure built on entering the real world to deal with something that could seep into their world. Of course, that film was about creativity while this deals with finding one's identity and surely an interesting discussion about feminism that more knowledgeable people can talk about than me (coincidentally, both of those movies happen to feature Will Ferrell as a businessman). For me, the Lego movie handled its goals better, but obviously it's up to you to interpret which is which.

With all of that in mind, Robbie pulls in the best performance of the film, one that has honesty in the route of discovery that comes from going from an earnest figure of self to one wrapped in crisis that she handles gamely. It is an adventure with a handful of useful gags involving the very nature of "Barbieland", and she manages to make it work in timing without selling herself short. Of course, who better to serve the other part of the double-act than Gosling, who sells the other side of self-realized identity that starts with the most basic point of "the beach" and goes on from there with pathos and sincerity. In a world that doesn't think about "just Ken", he is more than (k)enough in presenting the conflict necessary from what might as well really be a Barbie-version of the Garden of Eden (no guesses for which sounds easier to talk about between theology and patriarchy). The rest of the cast (which includes a handful of other versions of Barbie and Ken in small bits (such as Kingsley Ben-Adir and Simu Liu as Ken #1 and #2, respectively) do fine, setting up the contrast between the two worlds and societies with useful warmth, mostly with Ferrera or the active McKinnon. Folks who are invested more into what the movie aims for (analysis or in the crosshairs of wondering what the fuss is about with Barbie being a movie brand) will find plenty to surely come back to in another viewing while others might just let it go by the wayside. For me, it is a reliably average time, and that is better than being a hollow thud or being a shocking mess, as it is instead about as goofy as it might sound under the surface. I think the 114-minute runtime is just about what I expected for a film that ultimately achieves some of its goals when it comes to entertainment for an entertaining execution in style and certain lines (who among us can resist a long-worded good-girl master plan for the climax), so there may be hope yet for one not seeing their favorite star or director not be thought of as sold their soul to the plastic machine. Would I want to see Mattel become the type of thing that inspires a hodgepodge of films based on their products like a certain cinematic universe? Absolutely not, unless they are actually worth seeing in a theater, one that can maintain some sort of imagination beyond the usual attempts shelled out already. So yes, the movie is just fine for those who are curious or already set on seeing it on the biggest screen possible. 

Of course. there exists another film that is opening the same day as this one...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Day After Trinity.

Review #2048: The Day After Trinity.

Cast: 

Interviews and archival footage of various individuals [listed by profession]:

Interview: Haakon Chevalier [writer], Hans Bethe [physicist], Francis Fergusson [writer], Robert Serber [physicist], Robert Wilson [physicist], Frank Oppenheimer [physicist], Isidor Issac Rabi [physicist], Freeman Dyson [physicist], Stirling Colgate [physicist], Stan Ulam [mathematician], Robert Porton [G.I.], Françoise Ulam [writer], Dorothy McKibben [office head], Robert Krohn [physicist], Jane Wilson [writer], Holm Bursom [rancher], Dave MacDonald [rancher], Susan Evans [resident], and Elizabeth Ingram [merchant].

Archive: 

J. Robert Oppenheimer, General Leslie Groves, President Harry Truman, Senator Joseph McCarthy, among others. Produced and Directed by Jon H. Else.

Review: 

On July 16, 1945, the first detonation of a nuclear weapon occurred in human history. Trinity, if you did not know, was the code name for the detonation of the atomic bomb, one that would be dropped in a desert basin formerly known as "Apache country" but was known by folks as Jornada del Muerto. The following month after the test, two atomic bombs would be dropped in Japan that served as the precursor to end World War II. It was the culmination of years of development that triggered a tremendous effort wrapped in anxiety. This anxiety was wrapped in layers: the fear of trying to develop a bomb in a race against time and also the fear of just what might happen when it would go off. At the time of 1980, it was noted that there had been over a thousand nuclear explosions since that day, with the atomic bomb being not even the second-most destructive force ever done to the earth we walk on. The film, if you did not know, takes its title from a quote stated by J. Robert Oppenheimer, described as "father of the atomic bomb", who when asked about efforts to try and initiate talk in politics to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, said that it should have been done "the day after Trinity". The film is narrated by Paul Frees. The film had writing done by David Peoples, Janet Peoples, and Jon H. Else, with the latter also serving as a both director and interviewer. It is his most known film, although he has maintained a steady career of directing and shooting various productions for nearly five decades. The results of the film (as funded by various sources, one being an association with KTEH, a California TV station) was an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature.

One does become quite fascinated for the need for such plutonium and the need to have as many people possible in Los Alamos, complete with footage to set the canvas.  You get a useful sense of who Oppenheimer was when it comes to the type of personality it takes to deal with urgency and curiosity that come with the dawn of being involved in the world more than just science by the 1930s (as one does when becoming involved with certain left-wing outlets); with these links comes being trailed by the FBI. There is a wry humor that comes and goes in the perspectives shown in the film, whether that involves the recollection of bets about how much the impact of the bomb will be in TNT count or if it could incinerate the whole state of New Mexico. You can hear from various noted sources such as Dyson, who at one point mentions a "Faustian bargain" when it comes to the bomb or the depression that kicked you for one scientist when it came to the bombing. Frank Oppenheimer's perspective on his brother is also quite helpful. In the end, one can only agree that the desert really does seem small when it comes to seeing the bomb footage. Such a day brings a fledged horror if you think about it: folks who were there in the preparation of doing something that had never been done before that saw fufillment of their mission...with the immediate next thought being shock and awe. Oppenheimer went from doing a "kind of strut" when the test was done to, well, distress. The last section of the film shows footage of people who suffered the effects of the atomic bomb along with the perspective that comes after the war. Perhaps it is for the best the film doesn't mention Oppenheimer and his encounter with President Truman, in which the latter later called him a "cry baby scientist" when it came to the fallout from the decision to drop the bombs (and therefore achieve surrender). Oppenheimer is featured here in archival footage most prominently, one who obviously felt the best course of action was to unite people together rather than blow them apart in terms of knowledge that contrasts with the growing paranoia of the age, as represented by folks like Joseph McCarthy (a true bastard if there ever was one, although he is only seen briefly). The dealings of the people around Oppenheimer (which included several members of the Communist Party, such as his brother) and the machinations that come with politics and just who gets to say what happens with pressing a button would come to haunt him. This would lead to the hearing involving the Atomic Energy Commission, which was mainly driven by Lewis Strauss. It is the type of documentary that will drive great curiosity and emotion to learn more, even about people such as Strauss or Edward Teller (I would like to point out that Isidor Issac Rabi, interviewed for this film in 1980, is often thought to be the one who popularized the saying that "It would have been a better world without Teller." - food for thought). As a whole, Oppenheimer is presented in the most ideal way possible for a documentary about a dead subject: one that seems alive in the hearts and minds of those who knew him best. It makes the kind of tragedy that could make for a film, perhaps one that would fully show what it means to say about the test, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Adventures in Babysitting.

Review #2047: Adventures in Babysitting.

Cast: 

Elisabeth Shue (Christina "Chris" Parker), Keith Coogan (Brad Anderson), Anthony Rapp (Daryl Coopersmith), Maia Brewton (Sarah Anderson), Penelope Ann Miller (Brenda), Bradley Whitford (Mike Todwell), Calvin Levels (Joe Gipp), George Newbern (Dan Lynch), John Chandler (Bleak), Ron Canada (Graydon), John Ford Noonan ("Handsome" John Pruitt), Albert Collins (Himself), and Vincent D'Onofrio (Dawson) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, #118 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, #304 - Home Alone, #310 - Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, and #831 - Mrs. Doubtfire)

Review: 

I do try to keep up with as many filmmakers as possible, particularly in tracking debut features. So here we are with Chris Columbus. Born to a coal miner and a factory worker in Spangler, Pennsylvania (but raised mostly in Ohio), he grew up with an interest in books, comics, and movies, which honed to his modest living. He studied at New York University but learned his key lesson due to a mistake that had him work in a factory for a summer that drove him to write above all else. He started to write screenplays in the 1980s, and Reckless was the first one bought for a director to make, albeit one that was a flop. However, his next script in Gremlins (1984) was a major hit that saw him receive further work for screenplays that led to The Goonies and Young Sherlock Holmes (both 1985). Adventures in Babysitting (1987) was written by David Simkins, and Columbus picked the script from the countless ones he read because he was fine with the small sense of scale it had. After the release of the film, he would follow it up with Heartbreak Hotel (1988), which was not quite as successful as this film with audiences, but then came an offer from John Hughes to direct a Christmas comedy with Home Alone (1990), and I think you know the rest (which included him later co-founding his own production company). 

If you want, you could do an entire game of how many things seemed ripe for sitcoms. You've got 24-year-olds meant to be playing high school seniors (one of whom gets mistaken for a Playboy model for a few jokes, because, well...?), folks getting into wacky hijinks in tall buildings, a chase to fool the parents, and so on and on. The fact that the movie is set in Chicago as a presentation of folks from the suburbs getting into the big city all by themselves is probably the least surprising thing ever to happen in one of these teen comedies. Shue is at least delightful in the lead role, warm and engaging that suits the need of the film in the most basic element in engagement. Granted, her (and Whitford, most significantly) is probably a bit too close to the edge of being "young" enough to play high schoolers, but at least she makes the most of being the heart of the film in the ways that matter. The trio of Coogan-Rapp-Brewton is at least decent enough as kids to go along with Shue, in terms of trying to sell such cheap gags. The less said about the totally-hilariously panicky Miller, the better (oh look, a young Vincent D'Onofrio!). The film badly needs a more prominent threat than Chandler, who might as well be ripped from some other film about the city, which goes for Levels as well. I think your enjoyment of the film will depend on just how many twee things you can take for something that would make Weird Science (1985) blush in how average it all ends up being, right down to its climax involving a drawn-out sequence involving heights. I wish I could embrace the film, but there is something so corny about its entanglement that makes me reluctant to give credit beyond a few decent performances that come with hit-and-miss gags. It reminds me of the kid in the back of the classroom: it doesn't matter if he can sit still or not, the attempts at making a joke are going to feel the same no matter what the time of day it is. The most interesting sequence might be a blues one involving Albert Collins that sees an impromptu song that makes the most of being just as silly in setup as everything else by that point. Writing about the film and its runtime of 99 minutes seems fruitless in trying to beat down the point that it doesn't have enough foundation to back up its ambitions. It reminds me of Footloose (1984) in that regard. Columbus shows some promise with his first time here, but there are better ways to spend looking at someone's first film.  As a whole, it lacks that certain type of magic beyond the paint-by-numbers stuff to make it worthy to recommend beyond for folks who are pretty familiar already with the time it was made for.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Flesh and Blood.

Review #2046: Flesh and Blood.

Cast: 

Rutger Hauer (Martin), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Agnes), Tom Burlinson (Steven), Jack Thompson (Hawkwood), Fernando Hilbeck (Arnolfini), Susan Tyrrell (Celine), Ronald Lacey (Cardinal), Brion James (Karsthans), Bruno Kirby (Orbec), Simon Andreu (Miel), John Dennis Johnston (Summer), Marina Saura (Polly), Kitty Courbois (Anna), Jake Wood (Little John), and Nancy Cartwright (Kathleen) Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop, #632 - Total Recall, #1922 - Starship Troopers)

Review: 

"The triangular relationship [of] Martin–Agnes–Steven is now the main story line, but in retrospect I think we should have stuck with Hawkwood and Martin. The failure of Flesh and Blood was a lesson for me: never again compromise on the main story line of a script."

Admittedly, it is probably easy to forget that the second phase of Paul Verhoeven's career that saw him leave his native Netherlands started with Flesh and Blood (1985). He started making films in the 1960s, with only a spell in the Royal Dutch Navy in between this, and it was his efforts in directing the television series Floris (featuring Rutger Hauer as the star) in 1969 that was set in the early 16th century during the country's Guelders Wars that took inspiration from earlier TV programs such as Ivanhoe. Business is Business (1971), his first feature, wasn't successful, but Turkish Delight (1973), featuring Hauer, still ranks among one of the most famous films made in the country. Hauer and Verhoeven would work together for three of the next four films that the latter made in the Netherlands, which included another famous film with Soldier of Orange (1977). Anyway, after 1984, Verhoeven had received offers from Hollywood to direct but was debating whether it was necessary to leave his native country. As such, he described this film as a "compromise", one that was shot in Europe that was a multi-country production with primary funding by Orion Pictures. Originally, the film was to be about the gradual disintegration of the friendship between the characters ultimately played by Hauer and Thompson. However, the producers pushed introducing a love interest within the character of Leigh that would create a love triangle (Hauer-Leigh-Burlinson), which he went with, much to later regret, although the ensuing troubled production did not help matters. Gerard Soeteman, who had developed the aforementioned Floris and had written a handful of scripts such as Turkish Delight, co-wrote the film with Verhoeven. Made on a budget of $6.5 million, an absolute shoddy promotion effort by Orion led to the film being a flop with audiences.

Wait a minute, people didn't go for this kind of film? A film set in the Middle Ages (1501) that is thrust with plenty of unwieldly characters involving swordplay and wonderful design? It might not have the most conventional of leads to follow, but who the hell cares? Granted, medieval fantasy can be one to favor in entertainment with good ol' swordplay, but with the right execution, you can lend a dose of reality to that hodgepodge, especially with Verhoeven and his approach to violence. In other words: death will happen in the Middle Ages, and it will rarely happen naturally. Well, that, and folks love God. This was the fifth and final film collaboration between Verhoeven and Hauer. During production, the two had such a disagreement with how the lead was supposed to be played that it led to a rift in which they never worked together again, because the former favored moral ambiguity while Hauer did not wish to play such a scoundrel given that he was just breaking into more mainstream features (such as The Osterman Weekend (1983), for example). While I can certainly see Hauer's point, time has clearly favored Verhoeven. The moral ambiguity that Verhoeven aims for when making a Middle Ages tale of such odd people is especially right for Hauer and his rough exterior to make a useful rogue rather than if he had tried to play it with any sort of heroic bent. He is supposed to lead this band of undesirables, and he leans into it with great conviction that is a brute through and through to the worthiest endgame. Verhoeven obviously had an interest in showing a confident woman with convictions that want to go anywhere to get their goal, as represented by Leigh. Consider how she handles her first scene where she consults her maid-in-waiting (Cartwright) about how one, well, has sex. She watches for a bit and then goes to hit her to put it to a stop. The way she deals with both Hauer and Burlinson is exquisite in its cat-and-mouse game of who ends up playing who, one who sells the act as more than a mere observer. Burlinson is undoubtedly the lesser of such a lofty triangle, but being warped by the mesh of trying to seek reason in a world that desires swift retribution does at least make for some sort of interest. I can't imagine the disappointment that could come from Thompson in going from a potential lead to basically support, but he at least makes a worthy character presence that obviously merits curiosity (I should mention his name happens to be the same as a 14th century mercenary leader). I enjoy the atmosphere of the film, because it never betrays the ambition in 126 minutes to make a suitable tale of, well, flesh and blood mixing for craven desires that deserved better marketing. The film doesn't skimp on the brutality that obviously had to happen in a time like this, and it reflects well that one enjoys the supporting cast for as long as they can. The real adversary is the ambition for the flesh to draw blood and not have it be their own, regardless of if the rich person happened to be sending someone off to do their battles for them or not. As a whole, it is a triumph of a movie in excruciating grit, one that dares to show the flesh and blood of the Middle Ages with wonderful design and devastating consistency for a brutally good time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Good Guys Wear Black.

Review #2045: Good Guys Wear Black.

Cast: 

Chuck Norris (Major John T. Booker, The Black Tigers), Anne Archer (Margaret), James Franciscus (Senator Conrad Morgan), Lloyd Haynes (Murray Saunders), Dana Andrews (Edgar Harolds), Jim Backus (Albert, The Apartment Doorman), Lawrence P. Casey (Mike Potter, The Black Tigers), Anthony Mannino (Gordie Jones, The Black Tigers), and Soon-Tek Oh (Major Mhin Van Thieu, The Black Tigers) Directed by Ted Post (#518 - Hang 'Em High, #662 - Beneath the Planet of the Apes, and #1135 - Magnum Force)

Review: 

Hell, there really is no way to start watching a Chuck Norris film. Born in Oklahoma, Norris served in the United States Air Force Security Forces that saw him serve in South Korea and California. It was here that he trained in Tang Soo Do that lead to a black belt in that form along with him developing his own form. He participated in martial arts competitions and eventually proved quite successful. The first feature film that Norris had a credited role was The Way of the Dragon (1972), a martial arts action comedy that was made by Bruce Lee (star and director) that featured a fight sequence between him and Lee. Steve McQueen, who was a student of Norris, encouraged him to take acting classes around this time. His next prominent role was Yellow Faced Tiger (1974), a Lo Wei-directed film. Norris got his chance to star in his very own film with Breaker! Breaker! (1977), as directed by Don Hulette that was shot in just under two weeks. It ended up being a fair hit on its low budget. It was his next film, however, that he considered his breakthrough, with Norris stating that he had the faith to be as big in the movies as he was in the karate industry. This isn't to forget the directing contribution of Ted Post, of course. Post had served in the U.S. Army in their Special Service division in Italy before his return to the States saw him become a dependable name to hire for television, as signified by the many credits for shows such as Peyton Place, Gunsmoke, and several others. His most noted films either involved Clint Eastwood (two films) or certain cult classics such as The Baby (1973) and Go Tell the Spartans (1978). The screenplay was done by Bruce Cohn and Mark Medoff while the story was done by Joseph Fraley.

I will say this much, it technically is entertaining as a film despite being an obvious case of overblown hooey. Maybe it is just because it is my first experience watching Norris on a big screen (in the early parts of the career), but I think I can sum up his acting in a couple of words: he talks like an instructional guidebook for using a power tool, which is almost sort of amusing when he is meant to be presented as the serious man of a conspiracy thriller that we know is going to eventually have to do some kicking. Even at 96 minutes, the runtime is perhaps a bit too drawn out to actually merit anything other than bemusement for its paranoia despite not having enough there to really make a grand film. Simply put, it does not have enough action to back up its ambition nor is it effective enough in its convictions to get out of the quicksand despite having a cynical bent. Maybe it is a bit silly to compare, but think back to something released later on such as Above the Law (1988), which featured an American karate name starring in a film playing an ex-CIA guy thrust back into the world of danger that has a villain all about using people for their own means without caring about the consequences (of course, the hero in one of them is a cop and the other is a college professor, so there's that). Sometimes you just need a bit more. I will say though, that the film at least has a few distinct names, whether that involves Haynes (most known for Room 222), Andrews (hey, he was a noir lead for the 1940s and a dependable character presence), or Archer (in an early moment), or with Franciscus (a regular television presence and a few films). Of these folks, it might be Andrews who steals the show when it comes to chewing the scenery in one-note effectiveness (read: exposition), although Haynes is dependable. Archer and Norris don't fare particularly great together, but it is more than can be said for Franciscus, who only gets to show the scuzzy side in the opening and closing. It isn't particularly thrilling to be interesting, and it isn't particularly active to be dependable entertainment beyond the scale of mediocrity. Norris and company obviously know how to stage a good stunt, but it takes a bit more to really make a useful winner, but one never knows with a different film in the future.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Never Let Go.

Review #2044: Never Let Go.

Cast: 

Richard Todd (John Cummings), Peter Sellers (Lionel Meadows), Elizabeth Sellars (Anne Cummings), Adam Faith (Tommy Towers), Carol White (Jackie), Mervyn Johns (Alfie Barnes), Noel Willman (Inspector Thomas), David Lodge (Cliff), and Peter Jones (Alec Berger) Directed by John Guillermin (#726 - King Kong (1976), #1231 - Shaft in Africa, #1447 - The Towering Inferno)

Review: 

The temperamental director may be a tough one to rein in, but when they excel in multiple genres or continue to get dependable work, they deserve everything they do. What does one expect from a man called many things from having an "irascible streak" to being a "pain in the ass"? John Guillermin was born to French parents in London. The dawn of World War II saw him join the Royal Air Force before his childhood interest in film got him into documentary filmmaking (with a few bits for a perfume company) and eventually features before he turned 30. He did his time with modest budgeting for Robert Jordan Hill, Vandyke Productions, television productions, and so on; the films that gave him first notice beyond the usual small expectations were Town on Trial (1957) and I Was Monty's Double (1958). He was then hired to do Tarzan's Greatest Adventure (1959), which was also pretty successful. The basis for the film came from a real event that I would hope doesn't happen to you: a man finds his car was stolen. Guillermin had his car stolen and told Peter de Serigny about it, with the latter happening to be a producer. They had a discussion about what if one had their whole livelihood dependent on their car. They made a brief story outline and then approached Alun Falconer to do a full script, with the result being the film here. This was the second of two films released in 1960 with Guillermin as director, after The Day They Robbed the Bank of England (1960).

Admittedly, it is a tantalizing kind of "kitchen-sink noir", one that shows just how far a man can go if they are pushed to the brink of what they deem to be unfair. You know, I actually did suffer a robbery once. It was October 20, 2022, when I foolishly went a path I probably should have thought twice about going in broad daylight. I may have been robbed of some money, but I'll be damned if they were going to steal my cell phone. The point I want to make (aside from not merely asking them to go to hell) is that some things are easy to take for granted until you have to fight for them to stay in the right place. Far from being just a movie about wanting their car back, it also is a movie about wanting to assert themselves as a man once again. For a time, Todd was a name actor with reputation in studio features (such as Disney and 20th Century Fox) after The Hasty Heart (1949) had him in demand. It is clear to see why, because he proves palatable in the panic shown without turning into a whimpering caricature. His refusal to give in becomes our refusal, one that we firmly believe in despite one's thoughts for how sad it all seems when shown up close with Sellars, who can only watch in blistering shock. If you can believe it, Sellers was actually approached to play the lead but asked if he could play the villain instead. Already a presence in various comedies (such as The Goon Show), this would stand out as a distinct dramatic role in his career that had seen him play a few roles making light of authority figures. He excels pretty well here, one who manages to achieve the conniving task of arrogance without being just a bland heavy, one who is more than a guy who at one point smashes a turtle. He never breaks once in his tension as a gritty portrayal of ruthlessness, which works right to where the film must lead to in the final climax (evidently, he was unable to stop from letting the performance not seep into his homelife, which resulted in a tense recollection from his wife). Faith was a pop singer teen idol who tried to make something within acting while only just in his twenties, and he makes a decent showing in the tension of youth and rough reality (as one expects from him and White). I do love the final sequence right after the fight, where a bruised and battered man in triumph drives off with his badly desired car, one who could care less about procedure or anything when being off to rest at his home, one who sits in the dark and finds a surprise awaiting him. With an efficient runtime of 90 minutes and a somewhat interesting music score from John Barry, this results in a pretty neat effort for all involved, one that is wrapped in sincerity in the heart of stubborn nature above all else that rewards the viewer in solid performances that really does not let go of your attention.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

No Escape (1994).

Review #2043: No Escape.

Cast: 

Ray Liotta (John Robbins), Lance Henriksen (The Father), Stuart Wilson (Walter Marek), Kevin Dillon (Casey), Kevin J. O'Connor (Stephano), Don Henderson (Killian), Ian McNeice (Tom King), Jack Shepherd (Dysart), Michael Lerner (Warden), Ernie Hudson (Hawkins), Russell Kiefel (Iceman), and Brian M. Logan (Scab) Directed by Martin Campbell (#173 - GoldenEye, #220 - Green Lantern, and #285 - Casino Royale)

Review: 

Honestly, the only reason I picked this movie is because of the confounding elements that come from its director and stars. How does a movie that features Ray Liotta as star and Martin Campbell as director one year before GoldenEye (1995) slip by under the radar? The most noted film that Campbell made as a director came considerably late in his career, you know. Born in New Zealand, he moved to London to become a director for softcore sex comedies and action TV in the 1970s, as represented by The Sex Thief (1973) and The Professionals, respectively. His most notable television project, however, came with the six-part serial he directed for BBC Television in 1985 in Edge of Darkness (incidentally, he would direct the feature film remake in 2010). Campbell's first film away from his initial start was Criminal Law (1988), which was as successful as his next in Defenseless (1991), which is to say not very much. At any rate, No Escape may have been a ineffective hit with audiences, but GoldenEye, the first James Bond film in the 1990s, was a major hit that he followed with The Mask of Zorro (1998). The film is based on the novel The Penal Colony by Richard Herley, with the screenplay written by Michael Gaylin and Joel Gross.

Technically, the movie does look like the cost to make it was $20 million, because it is a decent-looking "sci-fi action film", but the plot has the rumblings of something unearthed from decades ago in the B-movie realm. Think about it: a man is dropped into a totally inescapable situation and finds either savages or a slipshod attempt at community that has his own reasons to escape. Set in the then-future year of 2022 involving a lead character that suffers PTSD from his experience in Benghazi, the result is something you can see coming right from the very get-go. I really wished I liked the film better, but the only thing that may stick out for you beyond the name actors is the odd distinction that it has no women in the cast (what zero interactions with women does to a person, heh). It just seems too ordinary as a dystopian film (even with a for-profit prison depiction), so stop if you've heard this before: a loner rogue ends up leading people off to safety, an elder that is secretly dying ends up sacrificing oneself, a greedy authority (and/or traitor) figure gets what they deserve, and so on and so on. Liotta is at the very least a solid presence to give the movie some sort of attempt at a redemption story, one where he simply cannot escape being with people despite his traumas and desire to run. Henriksen certainly has a knack for playing authority figures for a handful of his roles, but it is merely too little for him to really lean into for anything meaningful (perhaps it is dwarfed by having Hard Target (1993) on my mind). Wilson seems to be having a nice time playing the heavy, even with the makeup done to portray "the law of the jungle", but yea, we both know that the conflict between him and Liotta isn't exactly the stuff that compelling duels are made of. Dillon is in the most obvious of sacrificial lamb roles and it has very little to trot in meaningful interest, which slips by more than Hudson, who comes and goes with little to no distinctions. Hell, the "rat" character and the "eccentrics" aren't exactly ones to write home about, the movie just seems a bit too plaid to do anything that would stick out that could threaten the serious time the film aims for that ends up for not much when you realize it is a B-movie with nowhere to go but the middle because you don't really know these folks that much or feel like you want to know about them for 111 minutes. As a whole, it is a movie that comes and goes without anything really meaningful to say about people beyond the mildest of conflicts of "decent" and "very bad" that can only go one way when you already know where the cards are stacked to escape. It is a decent-looking movie with decent-seeming people that just can't find that extra ingredient to carry it over the finish line, but maybe you might find something to notice for yourself.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Perfect Clown.

Review #2042: The Perfect Clown.

 

Cast: 

Larry Semon (Bert Larry), Kate Price (Mrs. Sally Mulligan), Dorothy Dwan (Rosie), Joan Meredith (Her Chum), Otis Harlan (The Boss), Curtis McHenry (Snowball), Oliver Hardy (Babe Mulligan), and Frank Alexander (Tiny Tott) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman, #674 - Grandma's Boy, #758 - Safety Last!, #864 - Hot Water, #889 - A Sailor-Made Man, #903 - Dr. Jack, #918 - Why Worry? and #938 - Girl Shy)

Review: 

Nine years ago, I reviewed a movie called Wizard of Oz (1925) that featured comedian Larry Semon as the star. It sucked. But hey, he was a comedian that had his time in the spotlight during the 1910s and early 1920s, clearly it was a case of me not picking something more representative of who Semon was as a presence in silent comedy. Born in West Point, Mississippi, he was born into vaudeville from his parents, a magician and assistant that did their own show. Semon worked for a time in graphic art with newspapers but found his way into vaudeville and later Vitagraph, where he had a contract that dealt with scenario writing, directing, and eventually starring for himself. He did a variety of short films (which can detailed in small part by better folks here) but eventually had to try his hand at feature filmmaking when it came to trying to make big financially due to his free-spending habits. All of this just so happens to match up with seeing Fred C. Newmeyer direct a film without Harold Lloyd in it. Actually, the Colorado native directed various comedy shorts and features between his time spent as an actor in the 1910s and early 1920s, which came after he had also tried his hand at minor league baseball. Newmeyer directed eight features that had Lloyd as star (albeit a few of those directing jobs were shared with Sam Taylor), but he made his first venture without Lloyd in Seven Keys to Baldpate (1925) that featured Douglas MacLean (unfortunately the film is lost). The Perfect Clown, was released not long after this one. So yes, the same year that saw Newmeyer go from directing Lloyd to going on his own was the same one where Semon was the star of two feature films, which both happen to feature Oliver Hardy (two years away from being paired up with Stan Laurel for the first time) in a supporting role.

Norman Taurog, who worked with Semon for a time, once related a story about Semon and his tactics by the mid-1920s. He would be handed a script by Semon before he left for a trip that meant that Taurog filmed the script with a stunt double (Bill Hauber) to stand in for Semon before he returned for shots of close-ups. Of course, a biography of Semon once stated that in a two-year span, Semon was reported to have taken a vacation that totaled two days. It seems that Semon had plenty of gag ideas brimming in his head that he needed to get done in some way, but that did not mean his sense of timing was good enough to execute said gags. Honestly, I wish I could say that the runtime being just a few minutes short of an hour means a jolly time for the curious. Alas, what we have is a pretty mediocre time that doesn't exactly live up to its title beyond an expressive face that its star has. It lingers in coincidences and gags that might as well pop up in a cheesy haunted house show, which is too corny to really be anything other than just the most bored of chuckles ever imaginable. Semon may very well have been trying to draw blood from a stone with his attempt at dragging comedy into feature form, he seems a bit played out within this structure. Granted, it is better than the "ambitious" attempt he did with the aforementioned Wizard film, because it is obviously less high-strung, but that doesn't mean much more than saying a man who did well in shorts necessairly should be in features. The stuff just seems a bit mechanical, not really generating anything besides mild bemusement with a persona that can't hold anything further than what you might have seen with an earlier silent comedian. There are gags here and there that make the film get a bit more chuckles (such as one involving a knocked over person), but as a whole it just is very okay. As a whole, it lingers with nothing special under the foundation that could make you want that many more like it. In short, being average is one thing, being better than generic average is another, but at least it might make you wonder just how much potential there might have been for Semon, and I suppose that is enough.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Killers (1946).

Review #2041: The Killers (1946).

Cast: 

Burt Lancaster (Pete Lund/Ole "Swede" Anderson), Ava Gardner (Kitty Collins), Edmond O'Brien (Jim Reardon), Albert Dekker ("Big Jim" Colfax), Sam Levene (Lt. Sam Lubinsky), Vince Barnett (Charleston), Virginia Christine (Lilly Harmon Lubinsky), Jack Lambert ("Dum-Dum" Clarke), Charles D. Brown (Packy Robinson), Donald MacBride (R.S. Kenyon), Charles McGraw (Al), William Conrad (Max), Phil Brown (Nick Adams), and Jeff Corey ("Blinky" Franklin) Directed by Robert Siodmak (#468 - Son of Dracula, #797 - People on Sunday, and #1826 - The Suspect)

Review: 

In 1927, Ernest Hemingway's short story "The Killers" was published in literary form. Set in his home state of Illinois, it details two hitmen entering a restaurant with an owner and a cook alongside a patron named Nick Adams, which Hemingway wrote from his own experiences. The two hitmen suddenly take Adams and the cook into the kitchen to tie them up while telling the owner that they were hired to kill a prizefighter expected to enter the place soon. Of course, when the guy doesn't show up, the hitmen leave while Nick is sent to a boarding house to warn the man about the job, but Nick is told to do nothing because it is futile for there to be attempts to save him from his fate. Hemingway later stated, "That story probably had more left out of it than anything I ever wrote. I left out all Chicago, which is hard to do in 2951 words." The entirety of that story is told in the first twenty minutes of the 1946 film adaptation (the killing depicted isn't in the actual story, of course). This was the fourth adaptation of a Hemingway story, following in the wake of A Farewell to Arms (1932), For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943), and To Have and Have Not (1944). The screenplay is credited to Anthony Veiller, although it was said in later years that Richard Brooks and John Huston contributed to the script in uncredited form. At the helm as director was Robert Siodmak, who had directed films in his native Germany and France before being driven to America by the rise of Nazism each time. He had done his fair share of genres, although most know his film noirs or B-movies that made him a "actor's director". This would work wonders for Burt Lancaster, who was making his film debut. He actually had an early interest in theatre productions and the circus from a young age, but injuries had him give up the circus. After serving in the U.S. Army in World War II, he took up acting and made an impression on Broadway in a flash. Mark Hellinger, who produced The Killers, happened to need another unknown to make up the cast after getting Ava Gardner from doing pretty much nothing at MGM (Wayne Morris and Sonny Tufts were the initial choices in mind for the role played by Lancaster). He got a tip about Lancaster (near the age of 33 when this film was released), who had signed a contract with Hal Wallis but hadn't made anything for release until Hellinger tested him and decided to sign him on. The film was an audience hit and received four Academy Award nominations that year (directing, editing, score, and screenplay), for which it received none. In 1964, a second adaptation of the story was done in film (after being thought of as too much for television) with Don Siegel as director that had Lee Marvin, Ronald Reagan, and Angie Dickinson as stars.

The premise sure is an interesting one to setup a noir, particularly one built for 103 minutes where one of the key characters is dead right then and there. But it is the journey in the way that things are shot or lit that matters when the scenarios matter most with femme fatales, double crosses, and the good ol' setup for a bag of dough. It isn't often you get a cast filled with so many dependable actors (future or at the moment), whether as stars or not. O'Brien is the one observing all of the pieces moving across the board that has the air of inevitability that he does well with, maneuvering through the tension with good timing. Lancaster is a lean block of excellence, one who generates screen presence in a near instant that delivers well among the flashback sequences told (aside from the one of his death, which he handles pretty well to begin with) in a malleable force of nature. He will only end up in one path, but it is the choices that are made there that make it interesting to see the level of challenge it takes for anyone to try and escape their big desire. It's clear to see how his face became one to reckon such desires in further films. Gardner makes a solid femme fatale, one who has the allure required to drive tension into the heart of anyone, a devastating display of dashing duplicity. The rest of the cast follow along in worthy interest for the subject at hand, whether that involves the heavy or the key part of the crisscross of who is fixing who. The robbery sequence itself is executed quite skillfully, done with resounding timing without wasting a moment. By the time the film has maneuvered its way through all of the twists and turns that come with "the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry”, the final result is a lean and mean noir that shows the potential of its stars in a solid effort from Siodmak and company. The fatalistic nature of the whole affair makes for a solid entertaining ride that merited the highest praise from Hemingway, who once called it "the only good picture ever made of a story of mine." That pretty much says it all right then and there.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.

Review #2040: Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Hayley Atwell (Grace), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Simon Pegg (Benji Dunn), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilsa Faust), Vanessa Kirby (Alanna Mitsopolis), Esai Morales (Gabriel), Henry Czerny (Eugene Kittridge), Pom Klementieff (Paris), Cary Elwes (Director of National Intelligence Denlinger), and Shea Whigham (Jasper Briggs) Directed by Christopher McQuarrie (#1117 - Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation and #1119 - Mission: Impossible – Fallout)

Review: 

I know it sounds absurd, but it really is something to look upon a long running film series reach a seventh film that has not lost a step despite the passage of over 25 years since the very first one in 1996. Granted, Mission: Impossible had bumps in the road as an offshoot adaptation that took loose inspiration from the original series as devised by Bruce Geller, but one can see the lingering consistency that became most apparent with Ghost Protocol, the first one of the series that had Christopher McQuarrie involved (albeit as an uncredited writer). This time around, McQuarrie is listed as co-writer with Erik Jendresen on what is part one of a two-part adventure that evidently will not be the end of the series (of course, "Dead Reckoning" is also a term involving how to find one's position in sea by direction and distance rather than other means). Presumably, Part Two will be in 2024, but one never knows considering how "2020" caused the delay of this film to the point where it has nearly been five years since Fallout. The runtime of the film is the longest of the series at 163 minutes. 

Well, if you want to see a man rid a motorcycle off a cliff and parachute to the ground or deal with a grand train sequence, here is your chance. Honestly, I am conflicted on just how good the film is, mostly because Fallout was apparently so good that I labeled it the best of the series five years ago. One can only remember certain things within these films (hell, remember when Jeremy Renner was in two of them?). I would say that this film is about the second or third best in the franchise (they all play second to Fallout), depending on one's mood goes. The key threat here is a bit more of a challenge for the series than usual, if only because it deals with something that lurks within modern society: rogue AI. Granted, it isn't exactly on the level of say, Skynet from The Terminator (1984), but I think you can see where it seems pretty timely to talk about AI and the weird people that could use it for their own gain. In that sense, with a fairly game cast and plenty of spectacle to back up most of its narrative stepping points, Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One is a solid reminder that it is the one of the best film franchises running today because of how it handles the expectations laid upon it. The viewer is enchanted with where the film can go in thrills within its leaps that keep them right in check without insulting the craft. The journey for any good film is valuable, and the filmmakers know how to use your time wisely. Cruise, in that sense, is the ideal standard-bearer for a franchise like this, one that shows a cipher of a man that we nevertheless love because he is the thrill-seeker in us. He and Rhames may be the only two people to be in every one of these films, but it doesn't mean we like them any less by seeing these folks again and again when they are clearly game for whatever they have to bring to the conundrum. Of course, that isn't selling other regulars like Pegg or Ferguson short, because they don't get lost in the hubbub. The thrill is in seeing new people make their mark on the series more than wondering what surprises might lie ahead (like Czerny, returning for the first time since the first film 27 years ago), which benefits Atwell and her cheerful timing for chaos. It will be neat to enjoy the return of folks like her in the next film, that is for sure. Morales and his act as essentially a religious disciple (the AI might as well be some sort of God) is a bit opaque as a threat, but a decent threat is still a threat to watch nonetheless, mostly because Klementieff is at least a useful adversary to watch within pieces of the spectacle, such as a fight in a really tight space or a chase scene with a neat little yellow car. Kirby is the huckster in the middle that is delightful in charm, obviously. I do think the overall threat within an AI that has managed to calculate many possibilities of whatever it wants to plan (and the folks would rather control it rather than destroy the crap out of it) is at least a useful change to the general threats presented in the action thriller series, if only because it doesn't plod itself with too many leaps in logic. The stakes still matter because the mission still seems impossible to all but one group. Generally, one would wonder just how many films are needed to keep a franchise going, but with Mission: Impossible, the seventh film is just as captivating as what had happened way back in the first while setting itself up for the audience to eagerly await another quality sequel.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hulk.

Review #2039: Hulk.

Cast: 

Eric Bana (Bruce Banner), Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross), Sam Elliott (Thaddeus Ross), Josh Lucas (Talbot), Nick Nolte (David Banner), Cara Buono (Edith Banner), Kevin Rankin (Harper), and Celia Weston (Mrs. Krensler) Directed by Ang Lee (#1525 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and #1564 - Life of Pi)

Review: 

"[The Hulk represents] the true self we are all hiding in the dark. When the audience sees it they will be dealing with their own Hulk, the unknown, the truthful self we try to cover up."

In the spring of 1962, the first issue of The Incredible Hulk was published by Marvel Comics. As created by artist Jack Kirby and Stan Lee; both were inspired by different things, with Kirby having witnessed a mother lift a car off her trapped child and Lee being influenced by Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The result was a character in Bruce Banner, scientist and man who turns into a large green monster when subjected to emotional stress (like anger). In 1977, the character was first adapted to live-action television, as devised by Kenneth Johnson that had Bill Bixby as Banner and Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk, which ran from 1977 to 1982 with a handful of television movies (1988-90) that has served as the iconic interpretation of the character in some eyes. Production for a film about the Hulk ran for a decade, as organized by Avi Arad and Gale Anne Hurd, who produced the film for Universal Pictures. A handful of writers came and went (stay with me on this), starting with Michael France, which then led to John Turman, then back to France again, then back to Turman, then re-writes by writers not given credit in the final result like Zak Penn, J. J. Abrams, Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, then to Jonathan Hensleigh to try to write and direct, then back to France, then to Michael Tolkin and David Hayter, then to James Schamus (a frequent partner with Lee in writing and producing), and I think you get the point. Schamus, France, and Turman were given credit for the screenplay while Schamus was listed as the sole writer of story. At the helm as director would be Ang Lee, fresh off the success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) who once told his star in Eric Bana that he was shooting the film as if it was a Greek tragedy (which would be in contrast to the Hulk aspects created by Industrial Light & Magic). While the film was a modest success with audiences, the next Hulk film would instead be a "reboot", which had Edward Norton as the star that resulted in The Incredible Hulk (2008).

Maybe the timing just wasn't right for a mega-popular Hulk film. Schamus has been quoted as stating his fears about the potential of the film when it came time for the release of Spider-Man (2002) and the idea of the Marvel brand becoming a genre of itself. Honestly, I'm more surprised that he didn't take into account that Hulk was the third of three features released in 2003 that were based on Marvel characters, following in the wake of Daredevil and X2 (no points to which film is the better of those three). Of course, the real progenitor of making Marvel films goes first with Blade (1998), but that's another argument entirely (and yes, one shouldn't forget Blade is something I will argue in perpetuity); hell, it wasn't long after that Batman Begins (2005) came to give audiences a refined origin story to a familiar comic character. Honestly, the one film that I was reminded of when it came to certain techniques used to reach for a comic atmosphere was Dick Tracy (1990), although obviously the split-screen technique and psychodrama involving "the green monster in us" aren't exactly a clear match for the latter's attempt at style. The 138-minute runtime signifies two things: a movie that is somehow a bit too long and yet seems a bit lacking in the expectations department. It is a quality feature, because how could it not be with that level of casting and commitment, but it doesn't thread the needle on making its title character any more interesting than mild melodrama. Bana actually does make a quality presence to balance out this tragedy of man and beast, one who is vulnerable to the world in emotional distance in all of the facets that matter in viewing drama. He doesn't wash away from our mind when it comes to pass to actually see the motion capture Hulk (as voiced by Lee). Your milage may vary on how much of it you need to really see, but one thing I can say is that it certainly looks "interesting" when compared from day vs. night, which translates to "fine, just don't show me the Hulk fighting dogs again". I wish I could say Connelly and Elliott make the best of such mild roles, but that would be window-dressing for folks that are trying to sleepwalk through mildly involving dialogue. You could almost put anyone there and it might be the same result in mild lingering drama. Lucas at least seems venal enough to merit a ridiculous end-fate. It probably speaks something about expectations when the most interesting supporting presence is seeing Nolte chew all the scenery possible in power-mad haggard beardman of traumatic chaos. Oh sure, the climax is going to be a CG-muddle, but the buildup to Nolte deciding, yes, he can just chew on this little wire, is at least something to give me a smile (oh hell, you can play the angle of a man wanting to see his "real son", but the underlying curiosity of seeing Nolte engage in the role is always apparent, abuse or not). At any rate, the film is okay. Whether it is thought of as ahead of its time or a missed opportunity, it can be certainly be said that it is the perpetual misfit, one that is fated to stand out in its distinct stylings from other features of its time that cannot be tied down so easily as being any one thing. Being an average misfit isn't always a bad thing, so take that for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.