Troy (2004).

Review #1538: Troy.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Achilles), Eric Bana (Hector), Orlando Bloom (Paris), Diane Kruger (Helen), Brian Cox (Agamemnon), Sean Bean (Odysseus, King of Ithaca), Brendan Gleeson (Menelaus, King of Sparta), Rose Byrne (Briseis), Saffron Burrows (Andromache), Julie Christie (Thetis), Peter O'Toole (Priam, King of Troy), Garrett Hedlund (Patroclus), and John Shrapnel (Nestor) Directed by Wolfgang Petersen (#414 - Air Force One)

Review: 
"Homer's work was violent and brutal and sexy and bold and powerful," he states. "It's long and it's epic, with a lot of characters - a full spectrum of bloody, beautiful elements. The material does not ask you to cut a corner here or remove something there. This is too extreme; too rough, too violent…And I suppose I have to mea culpa, because there I was, crying in the editing room, but still doing it… I've learned a lot and next time, I promise, there will be a big fight!"

Bring on the spectacle, bring them on from all places in the world. Wolfgang Petersen gradually rose up the ranks in his native Germany through the theater (along with doing short films of his own in 1968) before studying at the Film and Television Academy in Berlin that helped him move on to television and eventually his first film feature in 1974 with One or the Other of Us. It was Das Boot (1982), his third work, that generated the most attention in his country and abroad, which The NeverEnding Story (1984) helped continue to that trend. Over the years, Petersen has made twelve films (mostly regarded as blockbusters) that have resulted in mostly fruitful successes. What better way to try and do an epic based in some part on myth by taking out the mythological effect and striving to make an historical epic? Of course this is a loose adaptation Homer's Iliad (with the script of the film being written by David Benioff, who had done The 25th Hour two years prior), considering the fact that numerous characters don't actually die in the poem as compared to the film that condenses its Trojan War to a few weeks. The original version of the film was 162 minutes, while the director's cut adds 30 minutes. I saw the original version because hey, that's the DVD I had.

Whether one eels having intervention from above is a bit silly or not, it definitely makes this film a bit strange to view through the lens of an epic, and the result is something that will either prove just fine for some and a little hollow for others. Maybe one could blame Gladiator (2000) for the idea of doing ancient epics like this with big spectacle for gladiatorial combat in ancient times and a flash of stars while taking brevity out to the toolshed to hammer repeatedly. Honestly though, there isn't anything inherently terrible about this particular movie, but it just happens to be so incredibly mediocre in pretty much every aspect, where the only thing going for it is a flash of scenery and spectacle to gaze upon. In a way, it is like seeing a large dog rumble around in the yard wearing "clothes" - it's a dopey sight, but it is probably too precious to think of as anything other than just silly. Pitt certainly looks like he tries to give his all to looking and seeming the part of the big hero (despite his subsequent reservations about the film's lack of mystery) that works in parts in trying to inspire some sort of nuance that sort of works in conviction but seems sort of lost in the shuffle of camp. Bana and Bloom come and go with about as much charm as dollar-store mannequins, where one fights the urge to look at their watch (particularly in the case of the latter, playing a bland coward). Kruger was brought in because Petersen wanted an unknown for Helen of Troy, but she never really seems that compelling to really drive drama forward to really serve as a "face that launched a thousand ships", instead seeming like a face in the crowd. Cox certainly seems to be having a grand time in being involved in a epic, and I can applaud him having bluster with a big bulky costume. Bean and Gleeson compliment things just fine in reserved moments, although it is obviously O'Toole who seems to make the most out of a paycheck-I mean appearance as a king with clarity. If I cared about what went on with this spectacle, maybe it would matter more than its ultimate result, the bastion of clichés ancient and less ancient that seems suited for irritating fans of mythology or flat-out making them yawn for all the stuff that comes out at them like a grand old cutscene.  If one believes in its scope through shots in Malta and Mexico and its 163 minute odyssey through some sort of meaning in mythology, trek on and relax with where it wants to go in its bellowing of an epic for its own time. I can't give it a winning recommendation, but you can certainly draw the line in the sand for yourself for if it matters enough to seem right for you.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Shaun of the Dead.

Review #1537: Shaun of the Dead.

Cast: 
Simon Pegg (Shaun), Nick Frost (Ed), Kate Ashfield (Liz), Lucy Davis (Dianne), Dylan Moran (David), Penelope Wilton (Barbara), Bill Nighy (Philip), Jessica Hynes (Yvonne), Peter Serafinowicz (Pete), Rafe Spall (Noel), and Martin Freeman (Declan) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver)

Review: 
"Maybe directors who are more interested in realism and naturalism come from cities, where they see things on their doorstep every day. But growing up as a kid in a very pretty but ever-so-slightly boring town, where not a great deal happened, encouraged me to be more escapist, more imaginative, and more of a daydreamer."

One needs new directors in every century, or at the very least ones that can be bold in what they want to do about the traditions of the past and be fun about it. Edgar Wright grew up with interest in comics like 2000 AD alongside interest in films that helped influence him such as An American Werewolf in London (1981), Raising Arizona (1987), and several others. He started his venture into film with shorts that began at the age of 14 with Super-8 and S-VHS cameras (Dead Right, for example, was done on his own money as an attempted pastiche of British and American cop films). He graduated with a diploma in Audio-Visual Design from Arts University Bournemouth in 1994 and thereafter got to work behind the camera, with his first feature being the low-budget A Fistful of Fingers (1995) and his first television projects being Mash and Peas and Asylum (both premiering in 1996), with the latter being his first collaboration with Simon Pegg and Jessica Hynes as Wright co-wrote and directed all six episodes further comedic work that eventually led to his most notable television production with Spaced (1999-2001), which he directed all 14 episodes starring Pegg, Hynes, and Nick Frost. It was during the process of the show that Wright and Pegg came up with the idea to do a zombie film (since they both shared an obsession of Dawn of the Dead) that didn't so much want to parody zombie films as much as they did romcom films, with Wright and Pegg serving as co-writers.

What better way to try and do a zombie comedy but to basically do one that seems like a sitcom/satire that just happens to have zombies interrupting from time to time that make a romcomzombie movie where one doesn't notice the apocalypse starting until it's right in front of your face, where lumbering lazy living and zombie could almost be confused. One could brush aside a sudden change of living if they simply are too drunk to notice (which seems awfully familiar then and now, somehow). It takes inspiration from Night of the Living Dead (1968) and Dawn of the Dead (1978) and rolls with being basically near that same amount of quality when it comes to a well-constructed pace for its chase of zombie without being lost in lame gags or excess gore for 99 minutes. There have been quite a few British low-budget horror classics, and this one definitely deserves its own place in that discussion. It all starts with Pegg, our deadpan man for the day who does a pretty good job in terms of timing that rises from sofa-life to direction in zombie-life that we care about fairly well for what needs to be done to draw a chuckle or some zombie dealing. Frost (in his film debut) is capable in complimenting Pegg with entertaining coarseness that gamely helps the first half do quite well in their exchanges with themselves that can be as simple as record-throwing or a scene at the pub about speculation (which I can definitely find pretty relevant when lost enough somewhere to do so). Ashfield does fairly well in carrying along the film with smooth chemistry with the others while Moran does stuffiness just fine along with counterpart Davis, although it is Wilton and Nighy who contribute the most warmth at carefully planned times with Pegg. It is the control from Wright and Pegg to make a film about regular joes and zombies and not have them turn into caricatures that make it a welcome surprise, complete with in-camera transitions and other little distinct things (such as a beating timed to the beat on a particular song of prime favorite band in Queen) well-enough to let us absorb things without being relentless. Honestly, my one little gripe is just the way it ends the proceedings. Maybe it just seems a little too convenient to really seal things up when it comes to its whole siege second half, particularly since it also has to seal up its romantic comedic trappings, which prove a bit better (its last exchange is fairly poignant). On the whole, it is easy to see why this has been regarded a cult classic in some circles, doing quite well for itself in marks of laughter and blood to work on the strength of Wright, Pegg, and Frost in doing something worth enjoyment on any given day.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Cold Mountain.

Review #1536: Cold Mountain.

Cast: 
Jude Law (William "W. P." Inman), Nicole Kidman (Ada Monroe), Renée Zellweger (Ruby Thewes), Eileen Atkins (Maddy), Brendan Gleeson (Stobrod Thewes), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Reverend Solomon Veasey), Natalie Portman (Sara), Giovanni Ribisi (Junior), Donald Sutherland (Reverend Monroe), Ray Winstone (Teague), Kathy Baker (Sally Swanger), James Gammon (Esco Swanger), Charlie Hunnam (Bosie), Jack White (Georgia), and Ethan Suplee (Pangle) Written and Directed by Anthony Minghella.

Review: 
"I had never thought of myself as a director and found out that I was not. I am a writer who was able to direct the films that I write."

Writers matter to a good film, particularly ones that happen to direct it as well. Minghella had aspirations of playing music prior to going to the University of Hull, playing in a couple of bands at keyboard that credited writing songs as a precursor to writing plays (once stating that he saw his early plays as "being a format for music"). His first film came at the age of 24 that was filmed in his native Isle of Wight in under three weeks with A Little Like Drowning (1978). His studies in drama led to graduation from there before attempting to study for a doctoral thesis (with his big influence as a writer being Samuel Beckett) alongside lecturing at the school for a few years. He moved himself to writing for television for the BBC and ITV alongside doing his own plays and adaptations by the 1980s, which did receive notice, although it was Truly, Madly, Deeply (1990) that proved important, since it went from being made initially for television to being given a theatrical release that resulted in praise. His time spent adapting The English Patient to film in 1996 resulted in tremendous audience and critical favor. Before his untimely death in 2008, Minghella directed seven features while also serving as producer for several other films and doing work on the board for the British Film Institute.

This was Minghella's sixth feature film, and it is an adaptation of the 1997 novel of the same name by Charles Frazier, who loosely based it off the service of William P. Inman, a member of the 25th Infantry Regiment in North Carolina that Frazier has stated is his great-grand uncle. There have been quite a few war romance films that try to carry a torrid romance into an odyssey where the time spent together is just more lasting than the segments involving war (with the despair of said war being right there as well). This is basically right in the middle of quality in terms of epics, handling itself well in style and occasional moments of inspiration that cloud over its expected glacial pace and decent splitting of narratives that is best suited for seeing its supporting characters from time to time in the fields of North Carolina (or more specifically, Romania) for 154 minutes. I wish I liked the film enough to really call it good, but I at least get why it could prove more satisfying for those who seek it out. Law does just fine with a capable element of conviction in keeping level with evoking some level of quiet range that handles courtship and war just fine. Kidman, handling the other storyline of a film that needs to handle yearning alongside farm trouble, does just alright in tender care for drama that basically works out decent chemistry with Law in that we do generally await to see what happens next. Zellweger however proves the most interesting in generating a resourceful performance that shows some humor alongside resilience despite only showing up in the movie an hour into obviously dire proceedings. Gleeson provides a warm presence to otherwise dour times, while Hoffman and Portman make momentary appearances and do fine with they need to run with, while others such as Winstone seem really lacking in time needed. Honestly, while I do note the fact that there are quite a few films that can utilize two-and-a-half-hours for well effect and the fair performances here, I just only see a decent movie that seems a bit cold to me in being anything other than just careful in treading the waters of what you might already know about brutal wars and romances that are just too much for anyone to stay put and so on and so forth. It reminds me of what a good copy of a lost painting done from fairly accurate recollection - on the surface it looks nice and could probably pass for a classic, but if you look at it a little bit more you just might see it as just fine. In any case, it sweeps the board with fair flourish that will entertain those looking for what it yearns to show in passion and style that will win admirers in the art of patience or for its particular brand of telling said story more than those who don't find it as well-meaning.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Tokyo Godfathers.

Review #1535: Tokyo Godfathers.

Cast: 
Tôru Emori (Gin), Yoshiaki Umegaki (Hana), Aya Okamoto (Miyuki), Shôzô Îzuka (Ota), Seizô Katô (Mother), Hiroya Ishimaru (Yasuo), Ryûji Saikachi (Aged Man), Yûsaku Yara (Miyuki's Father), Kyôko Terase (Sachiko), Mamiko Noto (Kiyoko, Gin's Daughter), Akio Ôtsuka (Doctor), Rikiya Koyama (Bridegroom), Satomi Kôrogi (Kiyoko, the Gangster's Daughter), Mitsuru Ogata (Hidenari Ugaki) Directed by Satoshi Kon.

Review: 
"The human brain is mysterious; we can't share the time axis in our memory with other people. I'm interested in trying to visualise those nonlinear ways of thinking."

Interesting art can come from any animator or illustrator, no matter the amount of work they make in their lives, mostly because quality in telling a good story is what matters most in delivering entertainment - whether for audiences in Japan or abroad. It made perfect sense to add Satoshi Kon to the list of directors to follow in animation because what he managed to do for Japanese animation. Kon had numerous influences growing up, such as artists like Yasutaka Tsutsui alongside anime and manga such as Space Battleship Yamato (1974) before deciding to attend Musashino Art University with initial aspirations at being a painter before shifting to illustration, and it was during that period that he did his first short manga for a contest (held by Young Magazine). He did work with Katsuhiro Otomo (best known for his manga/film Akira) as an assistant before and after graduating from university, and it was with Otomo that he worked with in his first anime (acting as art director and set designer) with Roujin Z (1991). He would once again collaborate with Otomo as writer/layout artist/designer for a segment in the anthology Memories (1995, "Magnetic Rose", which like the other shorts were based on stories previously written by Otomo). While he did do manga of his own like Opus (1995-96), Kon would move on to directing with Perfect Blue (1997), which received notice for its blurring of fantasy and reality, and it would be the first of four features directed by him before his death in 2010.

Admittedly, there never is a wrong time to view a Christmas movie, particularly one as dazzling in its own touch of animation and realism as a loose interpretation of Peter B. Kyne's novel The Three Godfathers. It is a sprawling film that dazzles the senses with its animation that depict the visual beauty that come showing the sights and streets of Tokyo with fair honesty, with Kon looking at it as a film with a mix of serious drama with fantasy based settings that Kon also wrote the story for and co-wrote the screenplay with Keiko Nobumoto. It looks upon the fringes of society with an open eye for warmth that make a capable comedy-drama, hitting its marks when it needs to in emotional touches without being drawn to too much crude sentimentality that keeps its coincidences in check. It moves with its three main characters in a way that makes moving material very quickly while still playing nicely with one's expectations for 92 minutes that tells their stories and shows what it means to rise above being left in the margins of society, whether that involves a drunk, a cross-dresser, or a runaway that is a great representation of stylized animation well-suited for audiences mature enough to handle it.  Emori (known primarily for his work in television, particularly taiga dramas) makes a wise head of our trio, doing well in generating pathos with sobering conviction for what is needed of this "family" sort of drama. Umegaki does just as well in pulling the film forward in good grace and timing without needing to play to too many cheap jokes for what is needed that pays off for family presence. Okamoto lends herself well to finishing the trio off with capability and quick temper that suits the family angle quite well in her unique perspective of youth (or at least sound like one, since she sounds passable enough to voice a teen without a stumble). Îzuka, Katô, and Terase round out the ones to really focus a bit on in support, and they each do fine in what is needed. On the whole, the film moves itself well in showing its own nuance to holiday charm within the edges of society that is charming and weird enough to distinguish itself as a good recommendation for those looking for something deeper in anime and for a director interesting enough to cultivate it usefully enough.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

American Splendor.

Review #1534: American Splendor.

Cast: 
Paul Giamatti (Harvey Pekar), Hope Davis (Joyce Brabner), Judah Friedlander (Toby Radloff), James Urbaniak (Robert Crumb), with Harvey Pekar, Joyce Brabner, Toby Radloff, Earl Billings (Mr. Boats), Maggie Moore (Alice Quinn), James McCaffrey (Fred), and Madylin Sweeten (Danielle) Written and Directed by Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini.

Review:
"We're used to coming from the most obscure world and trying to make it accessible to people. So something that's already accessible made us nervous"
“Of course I don’t think I have it made by any means. I’m too insecure, obsessive and paranoid for that."

Anybody can have a story made about them, provided that there is something of interest to really drive its creators to make it more than what might have been done before. The film is the theatrical debut of Berman and Pulcini, a wife-and-husband duo who had both graduated from Columbia University with a master's degree in film. They first worked together with Off the Menu: The Last Days of Chasen's (1997), a documentary about the end of a famous restaurant. American Splendor started in 1976 by Harvey Pekar under the desire for him to make comics as more than just fantasy or adventures, inspired by what he read from Robert Crumb's underground work in the 1960s. In 1972, Pekar showed him some basic drawings that drew upon his life and Crumb was interested in drawing them alongside others, for which Pekar would publish himself on an irregular basis (he did this for the first sixteen issues, which went from 1976 to 1991 with a page count of at least 52 pages each) before having Dark Horse Comics and Vertigo help in publication for the remaining 23 issues that followed until the last one in 2008 before his untimely death in 2010. The comics were autobiographical in nature that led him to a description as "poet laureate of Cleveland" for his work in detailing a life as it was happening (while working as a file clerk at a Veteran's Administration hospital for over thirty years) that surely will seem familiar to anyone who details numerous aspects of their life on the Internet for others to look at, although I'm sure no one also did graphic novels about a year detailing their treatment of cancer or had their life's work even result in productions in the theater (the appearances on the Late Night show with Letterman are a different beast all together, mixing real footage and re-enactment).

This is a curious and offbeat film about a human life because of its approach to depicting the life of an offbeat man and the people around him, which as you might notice includes actors playing Pekar, Brabner, and Radloff while also featuring them within documentary segments to go with certain moments of animation of Pekar that end up making a hybrid production, filmed on a budget of around $2 million dollars (shot in Pekar's native Ohio in Cleveland and Lakewood) that was originally destined for airing on HBO before becoming a HBO Films release. It is likely one of the most offbeat and most relevant adaptations of a comic book ever made, but it also probably one of the more interesting takes on the everyman ever put to film, because there definitely is a little bit of Pekar in us when it comes to the idea that maybe all of us have a story begging to be told, whether one is a file clerk or something else. There is both the cinematic vision of Pekar we see that is both biting and diverting and also the real touch that lends further perspective to what is important while also emphasizing just how well the main performances are. Let's start with Giamatti, who perfectly captures the caustic nature of the man we see and hear that sticks to us like gum on the shoe for all the right reasons in conviction that makes great pathos come alive without overextending himself as an outsider everyman. Davis achieves just as much in seeping right into the part played with no brazen difficulty, matching Giamatti in reflective awkward honesty that contributes well to a bit of perspective of following along with the second end of an ordinary couple of people with their spike of chemistry. Friedlander and Urbaniak do fairly well in contributing moments to stand out in their own way, whether that means a particularly speaking style (reflecting the actual Rafloff that we see both in archive footage and later on) or as a sort of dandy that will surely be familiar to those knowing of artists like Urbaniak with Crumb. Whether one knows much about the comic doesn't really matter to its enjoyment (a statement that can apply to several adaptations), but having Pekar and Brabner there helps in figuring out the perspective for reality's sake, which works depending on how much one is on the level with these folks. As a film about being oneself and persisting on with the habits that make a life different from another, I fairly enjoyed the experience as one excelling in creativity and its main performances that make it a good ordinary accomplishment that will prove effective for those into what it is selling from off the streets in Cleveland.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Adaptation.

Review #1533: Adaptation.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Charlie Kaufman / Donald Kaufman), Meryl Streep (Susan Orlean), Chris Cooper (John Laroche), Cara Seymour (Amelia Kavan), Brian Cox (Robert McKee), Tilda Swinton (Valerie Thomas), Ron Livingston (Marty Bowen), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Caroline Cunningham), Judy Greer (Alice), Bob Yerkes (Charles Darwin), Jim Beaver (Ranger Tony), and Litefoot (Russell) Directed by Spike Jonze (#1308 - Being John Malkovich)

Review: 
It begins with a customary quote from someone involved with the film, since Robert had felt was a fun way to differentiate reviews from 2019 to now, with this one being from Charlie Kaufman.

"I really thought I was ending my career by turning that in!"

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT
Robert sits on his couch, appalled at what he tries to write on his laptop, working at 7am like usual on yet another display of adapting words of thought of someone else's work of brilliance. He looks at his screen and some basic data about what he saw, his eyes begging to be shut for some sleep rather than yet another nap built to cheat himself until the next time. He wonders about how to start a review about a film about writer's block and originality while acknowledging the sheer talent of its cast without seeming repetitive after over 200 reviews in a year, wanting to also acknowledge the accomplishment of a writer that solved his problem by simply putting themselves into what they wrote. Perhaps he should take up making pizzas. He takes a left and then a right with his fingers as he starts typing.

It never hurts to talk about actors, particularly one involving a talented award-winning trio of actors for a film packed with such originality and talent within a main trio of actors. One can make whole paragraphs about Cage and his self-described "Nouveau Shamanic" style of acting that has made him an object of curiosity since Valley Girl (1983) with his style of mega acting. That might be enough for a film, but Meryl Streep elevates it further, since she has made a career of versatility and range since her start in theater in 1975 that evolved to television and film with productions such as The Deer Hunter (1978), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), and Sophie's Choice (1982). The third and final key to the puzzle is in Cooper, who actually took up acting after initially doing theater for set design as a way to overcome shyness and subsequently worked for years in theater an construction before shuffling the ranks to supporting roles with Matewan (1987). The Orchid Thief began originally as an article that Susan Orlean wrote for The New Yorker (published on January 16, 1995) that detailed John Laroche's efforts to poach orchids (looking for the rare ghost orchid) in a Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve with a group of Seminoles, having believed to have found a loophole in studying Indian law with the case of Chief James E. Billie, which the film mentions as having avoided conviction for hunting an endangered species of panther. Writer Charlie Kaufman was tasked to write a screenplay adaptation of the subsequent 1998 book The Orchid Thief. However, he suffered through a lack of ideas in making a film out of it (since it wasn't particularly suited for a basic film, which is why executives had approached Jonze to direct an "unfilmable" book), so Kaufman decided to use his frustrations into making an exaggerated script with a fictional twin brother, and Columbia Pictures found it fairly suitable enough to make a film of (with filming starting in 2001). Orlean, when approached about the screenplay, was not exactly supportive of what she read, but she did not get in the way of allowing the film to move forward; Orlean found that it turned out to be "very true to the book's themes of life and obsession."

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT, HOURS LATER
Now the writer is pleased and can go on with his night, confused over the fact that his cluttered table seems rearranged and his computer tabs seem smaller for 6am. He motions to acknowledge the real meat of what is meant to be writing and not words on a screen before he decides to take a nap instead. He struggles to wonder what the true difference between a 10-star film and a 9-star film in terms of "really good" and "great" without automatically tracing back to what was thought of either category. 

What we have here is a fairly playful film, one that writes the book on what it means to adapt and persist within a sense of longing and disappointment that come from trying to reach a certain passion without getting lost in its process. After all, this is a film about a writer trying to adapt a writer's tale about orchids while also getting caught up in a tale stranger than fiction. In this sense, Cage is exactly the type of actor for an dauntingly ideal situation - two performances for the price of one, complete with a fat suit and split-screen photography. In this sense, Cage does great because of how he holds true to making each Kaufman a distinct presence that isn't merely just one talking to themselves, capturing equally the weariness and foolish abandon that comes from belief (or perhaps fear) in one's ability to tell a good story that can be splattered on screen. While it does have comedic elements in it, Cage never takes the meta aspects too far into stretching credibility or making it a self-centered work. In between scenes with Cage and Cage are conversations spent between Streep and Cooper that border the lines of fact and fiction, and it takes a dedicated person like Streep to not have the other author get lost in the process of adaptation. She captures an essence of longing in passion that results in an excellent performance, engaging and right at home in conviction. Cooper has the task of playing someone once described by Orlean as "pale-eyed, slouch-shouldered, and sharply handsome, in spite of the fact that he is missing all his front teeth." - to which I say he does a tremendous job in conveying someone filled with charm that captures the essence of a man with nuance for doing things his way with no sort of false pretense or cheap tricks needed to push his passion to something we can understand. Others in the cast do fine with gradual moments, such as Cox and his portrayal of the only other real figure in lecturer/story consultant McKee, which he does quite well in measured

The writer looks upon his work. He notices that yet again he has to make that lasting decision over how much he really enjoyed this movie. It isn't like flipping a coin, because at least the coin doesn't really seem to somehow look right and wrong. You win this round, writing voice in my head.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

One Hour Photo.

Review #1532: One Hour Photo.

Cast: 
Robin Williams (Seymour "Sy" Parrish), Michael Vartan (Will Yorkin), Connie Nielsen (Nina Yorkin), Gary Cole (Bill Owens, Manager), Eriq La Salle (Det. James Van Der Zee), Clark Gregg (Det. Paul Outerbridge), Paul H. Kim (Yoshi Araki), Erin Daniels (Maya Burson), and Dylan Smith (Jake Yorkin) Written and Directed by Mark Romanek.

Review: 
"I don't know how much value I have in this universe, but I do know that I've made a few people happier than they would have been without me, and as long as I know that, I'm as rich as I ever need to be."

It's easy to peg someone as just a comedian if you only focus on the laughs. Robin Williams is likely one of the most talented comedians to ever try his hand at both comedies and dramas that ever lived. He attended various schools of study in a path to becoming involved with acting (dropping out of studying political science at Claremont Men's College to study theatre at the College of Marin) that led to study at the prominent Julliard School starting in 1973. He worked through various odd jobs before deciding to do stand-up comedy in 1976, which he would perform on a consistent basis over the following decades, even while finding prominence with Mork and Mindy (1978-1982) and Popeye (1980). He was known for both comedic and dramatic successes such as The World According to Garp (1982), Dead Poets Society (1989), and Good Will Hunting (1997) that surely proved a perfect fit for this film (strangely enough, Jack Nicholson was initially thought of for the lead role, although he turned it down). This was the second work of Romanek, who had studied cinema and photography at Ithaca College before making his first feature with Static (1985), which he later disowned. In the years that followed, he decided to take on doing music videos, directing his first one for the group The The in 1986. He became better known for his videos for music groups such as Nine Inch Nails and Janet Jackson (his video for Johnny Cash's cover of "Hurt" is however is easily the most memorable).

It's easy to look back and think about the differences time can make for a psychological thriller like this. Sure, maybe people don't exactly go out to their big-box store and have photos processed by someone in a booth anymore, but there is definitely an appeal and interest about the very idea of having someone get a glimpse into a person's life through what they process in a photo. Think about the photos you take with others or have taken of yourself and think back to the memories associated with those snapshots and wonder about how someone might perceive them differently that may verge into devotion, considering that the main character not only knows the habits of certain customers that come in regularly (like ones who like to photograph cats) but also just happens to know where you live too. It is a film that views upon a not-so-quite ordinary man with a life empty enough for one to nearly forget about in the background, which most definitely taps into the emptiness of one's soul that arises from chasing memories to worship without having anything for yourself. What can it take for one to turn from voyeur to vigilante? As it turns out, sometimes the truth really does hurt when it comes to facing reality, and it generally does work out in building small-scale chills with a distinct look and one great performance by Williams to make an adequate thriller worth checking out. If there was no Williams, it wouldn't really be anything great, particularly if it was an actor that couldn't live up to basically having to disappear in a role like a chameleon. He has a mannered patience here that captures awkwardness and solitude with quality quiet makeup and instinct that generally helps in keeping a balance between would-be object of pity or something darker without needing to be wrapped in either classification too easily. Vartan and Nielsen don't really have much to do, but they do play fine to essentially paper chemistry that also share interesting moments when paired with Williams in art of the awkward glance. Cole and La Salle make adequate authority figures for a feature that seems to emphasize perception and cold loneliness more than anything, complete with carefully picked color palates (where Williams seems to blend into the background at times, and the bright lighting for the SavMart sequences are especially apparent in that effect). It is a modest movie, with only one real quibble that I had, which mainly involves having the film begin with him being photographed for booking - regardless of how much is there to predicted with ease or not, it really didn't need to be told to us like this to really set up the film on a chilly path. The ending however does fine with sticking out the lasting decisions that can be made by someone filled with calmly-smiled desperation in the part intended for a soul that perhaps leads one to think a little closer about just who is that person who knows about details from the photos you take. It was a modest hit at the time with audiences by making back its $12 million budget four times over, and it is pretty easy for me to see why. With a fairly interesting premise built on introspection and chills beside the usual resort of blood (except for perhaps one shot, which I love) or excessive twists to go with a solidly subtle Williams, One Hour Photo is a neat little gem worth checking out for the small scares that come from what you see in and outside the picture.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ali.

Review #1531: Ali.

Cast: 
Will Smith (Cassius Clay Jr / Muhammad Ali), Jamie Foxx (Drew Bundini Brown), Jon Voight (Howard Cosell), Mario Van Peebles (Malcolm X), Ron Silver (Angelo Dundee), Jeffrey Wright (Howard Bingham), Mykelti Williamson (Don King), James Toney (Joe Frazier), Jada Pinkett Smith (Sonji Roi), Nona Gaye (Belinda Boyd / Khalilah Ali), Michael Michele (Veronica Porché), Joe Morton (Chauncey Eskridge), Paul Rodriguez (Dr. Ferdie Pacheco), and Bruce McGill (Bradley) Directed by Michael Mann.

Review: 
"The accomplishment of Will Smith in that movie is extraordinary: It’s not just the movement and the boxing — that’s difficult enough; it’s having your head in 1964, which came from sitting where you’re sitting and talking to Geronimo Pratt. That’s the challenge, because that’s what’s really, sincerely exciting — to get things to the point where they become emotionalized and real, so hopefully they have an impact upon audiences.”

It takes a life as big as Muhammad Ali to have two big names behind a biopic about his crucial years, which is why Michael Mann and Will Smith seemed destined to make this film together. The Chicago-born Mann studied English at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but it was the viewing of films by F. W. Murnau and G. W. Pabst along with the release of Dr. Strangelove (1963) that influenced him about becoming a director and making a film with an individual statement with successful appeal for serious cinema without needing to be niche. He attended London Film School and subsequently made commercials and shorts before eventually moving back to the United States to do television, which led to his TV breakthrough with The Jericho Mile (1979) before a feature film breakthrough with Thief (1981). Known for his focus on his work with detail and style, this is the seventh of his eleven directorial efforts, and he would also serve as a co-producer and co-writer on the screenplay (with Eric Roth, Stephen J. Rivele, and Christopher Wilkinson, while Gregory Allen Howard got credit for the story). As for Smith, he had risen to fame through various media, which included hip hop in the late 1980s and television with The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (1990-96) before carving a breakthrough in film with Six Degrees of Separation (1993). Smith had his hesitations of taking on Ali in part because of uncertainty about the script but also in if he was ready to be involved in the feature. He went through months of training in learning about boxing and Islamic studies while gaining weight for the role for a project that ultimately ballooned to over $100 million in budget.

Ali had been prominent on and off the ring, with his pursuits involving writing, music, and acting, which included features such as a.k.a. Cassius Clay (1970, documentary), which had archival footage and interviews with Ali about his exile from the ring, The Greatest (1977), in which Ali starred as himself detailing his life from 1960-1974, and When We Were Kings (1996, documentary), which detailed the "Rumble In The Jungle" fight with archival footage. One could likely do multiple projects on the life of Ali or study him and his prominent life through simply seeing him near a boxing ring. However, this is a film that details the most important years of his life that go from 1964 to 1974, detailing his holding to his principles through a rise, fall, and rise again to the ring and what matters to him most when it comes to holding his principles in religion and against war. In this sense, Ali is a decent film, packed to the prim with observation and some of the confidence and curiosity that made Ali such an icon while perhaps dragging its feet in covering all the fine points of what it wants to show in its vision, a man filled with idiosyncrasies that made him a courageous rebel with struggles and human flaws. In this sense, Smith pulls off a wonderful performance, wrapped in confidence that does well in bravado and stature that works as a tribute to the man portrayed without seeping into hagiographic worship, elevating the material beyond putty if in lesser hands. Foxx proves just as well in delivering someone wrapped in hype and mystery with the right kind of conviction and timing when he is needed for the experience. Voight, wrapped in makeup, pulls off a pretty convincing performance, one with enterprising presence that likely captures the blustery confidence of the real Cosell (in my vague awareness of him the film did actually teach me something I didn't know, namely that he studied law before broadcasting) without just seeming like a pale imitation. Others do fine, but they generally seep in and out of the film as time goes on that make it a bit difficult to really grab a hold on (aside from one might know about them, as is the case with figures played by Van Peebles and Williamson), although at least the film never detracts from its time period with something distracting. The boxing sequences are generally well done, handling the plight of what it means to get beaten pound-for-pound with flourish and careful cutting. Even though the film was not a success with audiences at the time, it shouldn't erase what turns out to be a useful experience to see on screen. One's enjoyment of the film comes from how much of the material will resonate with a viewer when it comes to being a celebration of Ali and what he went through in a decade of fighting others from the ring onto the system that go from place to place with a fair bit of impact for its surroundings that make a decent achievement for both Mann and Smith to be proud of.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Monster's Ball.

Review #1530: Monster's Ball.

Cast: 
Billy Bob Thornton (Hank Grotowski), Halle Berry (Leticia Musgrove), Heath Ledger (Sonny Grotowski), Peter Boyle (Buck Grotowski), Coronji Calhoun (Tyrell Musgrove), Sean Combs (Lawrence Musgrove), Mos Def (Ryrus Cooper), Charles Cowan Jr. (Willie Cooper), and Taylor LaGrange (Darryl Cooper) Directed by Marc Forster (#384 - Quantum of Solace, #542 - World War Z, and #883 - The Kite Runner)

Review: 
"She came in and said ‘I know you guys don’t want me in this movie. You think I’m just a big pretty face, but I want this part.’ And she proved everybody wrong who thought that maybe she couldn’t do it.”

It can be a wonderous thing for a film to come together if the parts all sum themselves together to one good whole. The genesis for this film came from actors-turned-writers Milo Addica and Will Rokos. The two had written a draft by 1996, with the intent of finding interest from people they knew in the business while also angling for a small part themselves. The following five years was a parade of studio and writer struggles - while it attracted various stars in interest such as Sean Penn, it was mired in development over potentially lightening the script (including having one of the characters live rather than die) while the writing partnership between Addica and Rokos ended due to creative differences. Despite this, the film eventually came along with Lionsgate Films that had Lee Daniels (formerly a casting director and manager) as first-time producer. This was the third career work of Forster, raised in West Germany and Switzerland before deciding to do his studies in film with New York and its state university. Loungers (1995) was done on a cheap budget at the age of 26, but it was Everything Put Together (2000) that received attention from festivals and Daniels that helped Forster get his break.

"Monster's Ball" apparently refers to an old English term about a condemned man's old meal and his last night before execution in which his jailers threw him a "ball". But titles aren't everything in a movie, particularly when it comes to a film about desperate people and the bond that they share with each other despite all the odds, whether that means a cycle of violence or something else lurking deep in the surface. It is a dreary movie filled with people that nevertheless live in their surroundings with spoken and unspoken pain that does well with small-scale settings for raw intimacy that very much seems like it came from a novel of tragedy. It won't exactly hit all of the high points with emotional depth for everyone, and it may very well push itself to the limit at 111 minutes, but I generally liked what I saw in how it sticks to uncompromising melodrama with a fairly dynamite cast to go alongside it. Thornton leads the film quite well, weary and involving in a progression that hints at some form of redemption without necessarily becoming a caricature, instead finding himself wrapped between regret and moving on from it. Berry proves just as capable in delivering range of vulnerability and raw energy that makes for a great performance, one that invites a pondering of the soul in terms of what it means to be compelled to feel again, or to just feel something more than what has been felt before. Ledger doesn't have too many scenes, but he does make the most of it with tenderness that make a striking punch with Thornton, which make for a neatly wrapped ball of anguish. Boyle provides venomous conviction with his moments on-screen that work to where the film needs to go with a wince for what we don't see. What we have here is an executioner's song of nuance and hard-grained efficiency that touches upon what it means to lose someone and find something to reach upon without becoming infused with sentiment or movie hokum. This is especially true with the ending, which closes some of its loose ends while weaving an end for the audience to interpret for themselves in its true meaning. As an accomplishment for independent filmmaking, this is a stark film that one can't go wrong on if one is in the mindset for what it aspires to show in drama, complete with a well-picked cast to make things happen with honesty.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Training Day.

Review #1529: Training Day.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Detective Sergeant Alonzo Harris), Ethan Hawke (Officer Jake Hoyt), Scott Glenn (Roger), Eva Mendes (Sara), Cliff Curtis (Smiley), Raymond Cruz (Sniper), Noel Gugliemi (Moreno), Dr. Dre (Paul), with Harris Yulin (Detective Doug Rosselli), Tom Berenger (Stan Gursky), Raymond J. Barry (Captain Lou Jacobs), Peter Greene (Jeff), Nick Chinlund (Tim), and Snoop Dogg (Blue) Directed by Antoine Fuqua.

Review: 
"Being a kid growing up with Kurosawa films and watching Sergio Leone movies just made me love what it could do to you, and how it could influence you - make you dream."

What we have here is a film comprised of two unifying visions in writing and directing when it comes to shades of gray in the streets and the people that live in it. Fuqua grew up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and described himself as living a rough area that nevertheless found inspiration from films of his youth that affected him such as Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven in watching people struggle through their own fight for justice. He studied engineering and fine arts at West Virginia University with the intent to join the military before deciding to enter into filming with music video directing, which he started in 1992 for performers such as Chanté Moore and moved into film directing with The Replacement Killers (1998). The writer of this film was David Ayer, who while born in Champaign, Illinois lived with his cousin in South Central Los Angeles before serving in the United States Navy for two years as a Submarine Sonar Technician (with those experiences inspiring him to write his first published screenplay, U-571). The script for this film had been developed over the course of a few years by Ayer (who would later become a director in his own right) and he spent considerable time observing with people who resided in that area for their perspective on law enforcement, with the 24-hour setting coming through his fascination with seeing a person entirely transformed through one particular day. Fuqua would also do his part in maintaining a realistic atmosphere through shooting on location all around Los Angeles (whether that meant South Central or the Imperial Courts) that meant consultation with undercover cops and gang experts (which extended to the stars of the film).

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that Washington does a great job with this role, because it clearly is a challenging role well-suited for a great actor to show nuance with. The film seems to take its lead from films like The French Connection and Dog Day Afternoon in a gritted-teeth telling about police action how it pertains to the community at large with a pace that works itself to fair standards with a solid duo wrapped around a world of brutality involving crooked cops and gangsters that still seems relevant today (the C.R.A.S.H. scandal involving the Los Angeles Police Department occurred by 1998, which was after the development of the screenplay but still prescient by the time of filming). Washington does a great job in depicting the logical next step of trying to take on the pressure-cooker type streets in going over the line and becoming an intimidator of the neighborhood. With a lesser actor, it might have just been an opportunity to go over-the-top in the guise of street justice, but Washington reins in a captivating performance filled with aggressive precision that isn't easy to pin down scene-to-scene. Hawke holds his ground on the other side of authority in ambition choked by underlying darkness, one that does just as well in driving the material forward with patience and an electric rapport with Washington that makes for good drama. Others do just fine in filling the details of a grayish world, such as Glenn with slimy calm, or an unassuming Mendes, though of course the best scene with others is one involving Yulin, Berenger, and Barry as "wise men" in their understanding with Washington when it comes to what's on/off the table. On the whole, one will find a decent experience to be had here through 122 minutes, as it has a general patience and understanding of a time and place that still adheres to how might makes right, with credible pacing and buildup to go with a well-paired duo and capable support to deliver a good thriller.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Review #1528: A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Cast: 
Haley Joel Osment (David), Jude Law (Gigolo Joe), Frances O'Connor (Monica Swinton), Sam Robards (Henry Swinton), Jake Thomas (Martin Swinton), William Hurt (Professor Allen Hobby), Brendan Gleeson (Lord Johnson-Johnson), with Jack Angel (Teddy), Robin Williams (Dr. Know), Ben Kingsley (Specialist), Meryl Streep (Blue Fairy), and Chris Rock (Comedian Robot) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, and #1520 - Saving Private Ryan)

Review: 
"While there was divisiveness when A.I. came out, I felt that I had achieved Stanley’s wishes, or goals."

This was most definitely a film I anticipated and feared ever watching. On the one hand, it has sensibilities of two great directors mixed into one prolonged experience both in length and the time it took to actually develop it to the screen. For starters, the film is an adaptation of the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss, written originally in 1969. The original work included just four characters (David, his parents, and Teddy), which talked about the doubts of a boy's existence and what is real while his "parents" wait for the chance to have their own child. Stanley Kubrick had acquired the rights to the story by the 1970s. An array of writers would come and go in writing/consulting a script for Kubrick, which included Aldiss, Bob Shaw, Ian Watson and Sara Maitland, with Kubrick treating the soon-enormous script as resembling The Adventures of Pinocchio. One key thing that stopped progression of getting pre-production going was a perception by Kubrick that effects-work had to evolve enough to suit what he wanted (the release of Jurassic Park helped spur the idea of potentially doing the film again, but Kubrick ultimately retained focus on what ended up being his last project, Eyes Wide Shut in 1999). In the middle of all that searching for the right tone, Steven Spielberg had been approached by Kubrick to direct it, and it was after Kubrick's death in 1999 that led Christiane Kubrick to approach Spielberg to take on the project; Spielberg would develop a screenplay based on the story done by Watson, with the most notable aspect being the "Flesh Fair" sequence.

The ambition shown here in bringing such a project like this to life is admirable, regardless of how the final result turns out. It is a decent film, for better or worse. It has some of the edge needed when it comes to a visual level that makes an interesting curiosity that may perhaps inspire some thought about its deeper implications involving machines, that much is for sure. And yet there is just something about it that seems hollow when it comes to being consistently interesting in actually springing a story that really makes care all the way forward, which combines with a quiet ending that really seems to try to cover too many bases without truly deserving it. In other words, it is a fine movie, but I can't say I really, really liked it enough to justify 146 minutes of runtime, where it seems more clinical verging on silly than properly bleak and innovative, which basically means you get the decent but not perfect writings of two visionaries. Osment does just fine when it comes to a really tough task: a robot boy built to love, complete with an enduring spirit and robotic actions that carry this film as much as he can in unblinking fashion that will either lead to great heights or meandering. Law does fine, amusing in the manner of trickery to go along with the other side of what makes Mecha made to love. O'Connor and Robards don't really do as well, strangely enough, since they really don't help the first half seem that involving. Evidently the 22nd century has led to parents and children made out of wooden acting, where a voice of a teddy bear has more charm in comparison. Hurt does do a fine job, but he is gravelly underused, having basically just two scenes in the whole (meaningful in terms of hammering in the whole aspects of a robot child yes, but still). Williams is funny in his one scene to shine in exposition.

I really just wish I enjoyed this more, because there certainly are bits and pieces that seem suited for greatness that get slogged out of enjoyment. At least the original author Aldiss thought it was "inventive, intriguing, involving film", so to have a film that at least doesn't make the author mad is okay by me. For a story originally just about the plight of parents who struggle with loving a robot child, it sure is strange to have a film go from that to a "Flesh Fair" involving beating down old robots and a quest to become a real boy as Pinocchio with mommy issues. In a future that has cultivated the flooding of New York and had to rebuild itself with exploiting robots, why should it be surprising that at some point in time someone wanted to make a robot that loves you - basically this is the story of an advanced robotic pet looking for a way for their master to come back. The "Flesh Fair" sequence is in some way the make-it-or-break-it sequence - either it will help the film gather depth in the underbelly of robot use, or it will seem a bit too much for its own good. I'm fine with it, but it just seems so jarring when compared to the first half. I appreciate the look of the film, which does fine with featuring the future with some decent robotic effects, although its last trick for the end is a bit unwieldy. And then of course there is that ending, one that tries to resolve the pursuit for the "Blue Fairy" with a half-measure for a fable, as his plight for chasing down this delusion is thought of as like a human's ability to chase down their dreams (I...suppose). Keep in mind, this was the ending devised by Kubrick (not Spielberg), so it only goes to show that sometimes you just can't please everyone when it comes to resolutions. The setup to its little ending was ridiculous enough (because the odds of making a robot into a boy are pretty much nil, so either I expected him to wither away or give up), and the payoff is just an eye-roller more than a tear-jerker when it comes to meaningful science fiction. It is quite possible a re-viewing would help in seeing the layers beneath a vaguely provocative film, but honestly that really seems like a tall order - why not just spend time watching a better movie again instead? If one wants to compare and match, if I want a better Kubrick sci-fi time, I'll pick 2001: A Space Odyssey, and if I want a better Spielberg sci-fi time, I'll pick E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. What we have here is a film that is too cloying and too much for its own good to really become something other than a parable gone awry. I am glad that I saw the film in curiosity for measurement as a film of the 21st century, even if it is ultimately just a decent experience in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Cast Away.

Review #1527: Cast Away.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Chuck Noland), Helen Hunt (Kelly Frears), Nick Searcy (Stan), Chris Noth (Jerry Lovett), Lari White (Bettina Peterson), Vince Martin (Pilot Al), Michael Forest (Pilot Jack), and Jay Acovone (Pilot Peter) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, #747 - Back to the Future Part II, and #748 - Back to the Future Part III)

Review: 
"I had a passionate interest in the technique of filmmaking. I think, because of how I was raised, I always assumed that I would be some sort of technician. I just love the process and I thought, "Maybe there's a way I can be a camera man or something."

Innovation is always welcome in cinema, particularly when it comes to the work of Robert Zemeckis. Interestingly, he got his interest in film in a blue-collar upbringing that did not encourage much particular interest in the arts besides television, which he felt was the one thing that was inspirational to him when it came to seeing something different from his Chicago life. He was interested in film through an 8 mm film camera that his family had for themselves, which he would use to gradually hone skills in narrative (using stop-motion work, for example). The film that inspired him the most in terms of its power was Bonnie and Clyde (1967), which made him want to go to film school, to the disappointment of his parents. He did some studies at Northern Illinois University along with film cutting at NBC News and commercial editing before deciding to apply for transfer to the University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts. He sent an essay to them alongside a short film he made that was in his words "an illustration of a Beatles song" (essentially an early example of a music video) - while he did receive confirmation to the school, he did not initially receive one from USC itself, until he pleaded with an official to improve his grades. He proved quite well with studies, and one of his short films (A Field of Honor) wound up winning a Student Film Award (which are presented to student filmmakers by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences) in 1975. He moved into features with I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978) but only reached success after Romancing the Stone (1984), which was soon followed by classics like Back to the Future (1985), Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), and Forrest Gump (1994). He is known as an innovator in visual effects along with versatility in various genres in his body of work, which involve both comedies and dramas.

The genesis for this film came in parts of three: Hanks had an idea inspired by an article he saw about Boeing 747s carrying FedEx packages over the Pacific every day involving what would happen if went down. William Broyles Jr was enlisted to develop a story from that idea (with a stay on a deserted beach being the impetus for Wilson the volleyball), and Hanks had approached Zemeckis about it a short while after making Forrest Gump. It would take a few years to both develop the right script alongside with filming, since the latter part depended on Hanks gaining and then losing 50 pounds (with the time spent during that break leading to Zemeckis making a film about another story he was interested in - What Lies Beneath, which share film crews and was released the same year as this). I must admit that this was a film long on my radar to do. The concept is an interesting one, even if it has the task of holding together for over two hours with mostly just one actor present (or perhaps not if one is familiar with Robinson Crusoe, although I was reminded of the subsequent film All is Lost). Being stuck on an island, with a few convenient things around him that changes a guy carried by time into one with all the time in the world to himself. I think we can all relate to the plight of someone that is all alone to themselves, apart from others for significant time with only a few devices (or perhaps none at all) as comfort. The film requires an actor who can exude great everyman charm that can be alone with himself and then share a conversation with a volleyball. In this sense, Hanks seems just right for the part. He carries this film for most of its 143-minute runtime with care for having us keep our eye on his evolution of solitude and desperation. We sense his anguish and heart through moments such as trying to make his first fire or searching through the packages at what was and what never will be. Undeniably though, I do enjoy the film a bit better when Wilson joins the fray as someone for Hanks to bounce off, and it is up to the viewer in what they really feel for when it comes to the beginning and closing scenes, since I do kind of wish that the film just ended without having actually meeting the others again (in other words, end on one specific shot), just to shake things up further. That isn't to say Hunt and the others are bad, only that they only serve a very basic purpose that is casual and okay to follow through. Maybe it just depends on how much one knows about the film before seeing it, though this is a 20-year-old film now, so make your own path. It isn't exactly the kind of film I rank very highly with most of his other work, but Zemeckis managed to pull off a careful curiosity, nonetheless. On the whole, it is an involving movie, one that will surely resonate well with those who like the art of seeing someone fend for their lives with instinct while watching the waves go by.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Traffic (2000).

Review #1526: Traffic.

Cast: 
Michael Douglas (Robert Wakefield), Benicio del Toro (Javier Rodriguez), Don Cheadle (Montel Gordon), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Helena Ayala), Dennis Quaid (Arnie Metzger), Erika Christensen (Caroline Wakefield), Luis Guzmán (Ray Castro), Jacob Vargas (Manolo Sanchez), Tomas Milian (General Arturo Salazar), Topher Grace (Seth Abrahams), Miguel Ferrer (Eduardo Ruiz), Amy Irving (Barbara Wakefield), Steven Bauer (Carlos Ayala), D. W. Moffett (Jeff Sheridan), James Brolin (General Ralph Landry), and Albert Finney (White House Chief of Staff) Directed by Steven Soderbergh (#984 - Logan Lucky)

Review: 
"Well, I think a part of you has to be scared, it keeps you alert; otherwise you become complacent. So absolutely, I'm purposefully going after things and doing things that I'm not sure if it's going to come off or not."

There's a difference between one doing films for a living and one making cinema, particularly when it comes to a process-driven director like Steven Soderbergh. He had an interest in film as a teenager that led to him doing his own shorts with a Super 8 and 16 mm camera. He moved to Hollywood by the 1980s and moved his way gradually through roles such as game show composing to concert video directing. His first directing responsibility was the 1985 concert film 9012Live, which featured the band Yes. An idea for a film combined with a cross-country trip led to the development of his first feature in Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989), a film regarded as an independent classic. Soderbergh (who once described himself as a synthesist) has done a mix of independent and mainstream films over the years, with noted works including Out of Sight (1998), Erin Brockovich (2000), and Ocean's Eleven (2001) that represent a versatile director of heist and psychological movies.

The basis for this film was Soderbergh wanted to make a film about the drug trade without having it be about addicts. With the rights to a property that seemed like what he wanted, producer Laura Bickford presented him with the rights to Traffik, a six-part 1989 miniseries written by Simon Moore that dealt with the illegal trade that wove a story between suppliers, growers, and customers from Pakistan to Germany to England, respectively). Looking for scripts led to one by Steve Gaghan that was about high school students and their problem with drugs and gangs that had Edward Zwick involved as producer, but the writer got him to try and do a film together with both Soderbergh and Zwick. After spending time consulting on the outline and doing films on the side, a script was finished that would have over a hundred speaking parts and split storylines to be shot in two months. The film was released by USA Films after 20th Century Fox went through wanting Harrison Ford for the lead, getting him to sign on, and dropping out even after script changes (which Douglas liked enough to take on the role after declining it initially). Soderbergh (who also shot the film himself) wanted a distinct vision for each of the three stories in order, such as having that involved different filters and contrast, such as no filter for a blue tinted Wakefield story or overexposed film with diffusion filter for Ayala's story or tobacco filter in Rodriguez's story.

It is interesting to view the film through its numerous perspectives that says what it wants about the approach to various cultures and the way that vices inhibit their little worlds in big and small ways of cruciality that shows shades of gray in every place with no real clear answer, with a war that isn't what it looks like on television. It has a cohesive edge in most areas that will inspire curiosity alongside certain emotions that make it stick with a viewer now as it did back in 2000. It doesn't compromise itself with trying to make a definitive statement or judgement on any of the three linked stories but instead lets the viewer make their own impressions on how vices (whatever kind of substance they are) can affect us or others around us without having easy solutions whatever border you live in. Obviously there isn't just one key star in the film, but the one that seems the most prominent to focus as first is Douglas, then followed by del Toro, Cheadle, and Zeta-Jones, although this isn't to diminish the effect others have in support. Douglas proves fairly captivating, one who runs with a hard-lined naivety that makes for a high-strung and capable performance that we can at least see some of which in others or ourselves in what we believe seems right. The speech at the end for example makes a point in what it doesn't say just as much as what actually is said about a fight against substances and ourselves, which Douglas handles neatly. When it comes to del Toro (a Puerto Rico native that shifted his focus from studying business to drama at the age of 20), he sticks out just as well in his distinct storyline (told to us primarily in Spanish with subtitles, which is what Soderbergh desired) in jaded honesty that we follow with great interest because of his well-timed instincts for what seems to be necessary to eke out a living within authority and corruption. This works out best in a little scene involving tourists looking for their car and del Toro telling them about calling a man to help them find the car (after stating the police won't find their car) - it is a fascinating moment that would've probably just been a one-shot blip with a less intuitive actor (incidentally he would later star in another drug war related film with Sicario, which also rules). Cheadle does just as well in reliable nature with a sort of cat-and-mouse game involving procedure and coercion, which he does with careful tension. This reflects just as well on Zeta-Jones in her evolution of principles and moments shared with a sneaky (and fairly effective) Quaid.

There are other aspects that do well, such as Christensen in driving the angle of shocking addiction without seeming like an after-school special act, but it ultimately is the balance of its three storylines in look and tension that makes it a mostly well-done film for its era. It will hold the attention for most of its intentions in 147 minutes that rewards patience through a mostly intact plot and fair camerawork and editing. It accomplishes most of what it wants to speak to us by knocking us over in its statements said and unsaid that excels in uncompromising uncomfortability that speaks truth to hypocrisy now more than ever.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Review #1525: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Cast: 
Chow Yun-fat (Li Mu Bai), Michelle Yeoh (Yu Shu Lien), Zhang Ziyi (Jen Yu), Chang Chen (Lo 'Dark Cloud' / Luo Xiao Hu), Cheng Pei-pei (Jade Fox), Sihung Lung (Sir Te), Li Fazeng (Governor Yu), Gao Xi'an (Bo), Hai Yan (Madam Yu), and Wang Deming (Police inspector Tsai / Prefect Cai Qiu) Directed by Ang Lee.

Review: 
"Nothing stands still. That's important in my movies. People want to believe in something, want to hang on to something to get security and want to trust each other. But things change. Given enough time, nothing stands still. I think seeking for security and lack of security is another thing in my movies."

It always helps to broaden your horizons when it comes to movies. Ang Lee cultivated a place for himself as a respected international director through a long road from his birth in Taiwan to studying at both the National Taiwan University of Arts and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His studies at each resulted in an interest for drama and arts (with a degree in theater to show for it at the latter), and study at New York University Tisch School of the Arts carried him into film (including an acclaimed thesis film). Despite all of this work in school, it took several years for him to find work in the film industry (where he wrote ideas and screenplays while being a house husband). He was given a chance to write and direct after submitting his work for a competition by the Government Information Office of Taiwan. The result was the martial arts comedy-drama Pushing Hands (1991), a Taiwan-United States production which he would direct and co-write. This was the first of six films he would do in the 1990s, which generally received positive notices from critics and fair audience returns with work such as The Wedding Banquet (1993, which finished second in the submission contest) and Sense and Sensibility (1995).

You don't need me to tell you that this was a great international success, because it most definitely made an impression on audiences in 2000, with over half of its $213 million box office earnings coming in America, resulting in it being known as the most successful non-English language film produced abroad in America (alongside numerous accolades, including an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film). This was a massive co-production that needed four countries and multiple production companies that ranged from Taiwanese Zoom Hunt International Productions Company to China Film Co-Production Corporation to EDKO Film (Hong Kong) to Sony Pictures Classics. This was adapted from the novel of the same name by Wang Dulu, who had written it as the fourth in his five-novel Crane-Iron Series (which were serialized from 1938 to 1944) for which Kuo Jung Tsai, Hui-Ling Wang and James Schamus (involved in Lee's films as writer or producer since Lee's first) were tasked to write a screenplay of. Lee had wanted to make a film like this ever since he was a child, and he had read the story in 1994 and was grabbed by the lead character of Jen and her story alongside its abundance of Chinese history and textures. Each country has their own cinema for which to hang their laurels on, but the wuxia genre (which translates to martial heroes) is very much tied to Taiwan, China, and Hong Kong in entertainment.

The diversity of accomplishment in such a production also serves to the cast, which has a majority of its main actors born from those three countries for a Mandarin language film (Yeoh was born in Malaysia and had to train for a year to learn Mandarin). Lee pitched the film to Yeoh as "Sense and Sensibility with martial arts", and it would seem each are perfect for each other in the film. What we have here is a fairly poetic movie in its sensibility that Lee wanted to present (in his own words) as "China of the imagination" that makes for a film of hidden strengths in its mix of Eastern and Western filmmaking that certainly makes for a fascinating experience of destiny and art. Hong Kong film icon Chow does a tremendous job here, having a great composure of integrity and stature that we see quite well in interest without needing platitudes to speak through. Yeoh (also a Hong Kong icon within action) has clearly worked just as hard in fitting with what is needed in strength and conviction in an role bound by loyalty and regret that is terrific. Zhang (a model-turned-actress in her third role at age 20) does wonders in wandering vulnerability that weaves in desire and arrogance with useful spirit that matters in generating meaningful drama between her and Yeoh in the differences that shape them in their lives and what they share in their obligations to society. Chang proves just as reliable in brimming charisma that go well enough when paired with Zhang. Cheng pulls in a soothingly bitter turn as the last main focus, doing well with her little story of counter reactiveness to her own history of repressed desires with others.

The diversity of accomplishment in such a production also serves to the cast, which has a majority of its main actors born from those three countries for a Mandarin language film (Yeoh was born in Malaysia and had to train for a year to learn Mandarin). Lee pitched the film to Yeoh as "Sense and Sensibility with martial arts", and it would seem each are perfect for each other in the film. What we have here is a fairly poetic movie in its sensibility that Lee wanted to present (in his own words) as "China of the imagination" that makes for a film of hidden strengths in its mix of Eastern and Western filmmaking that certainly makes for a fascinating experience of destiny and art. Hong Kong film icon Chow does a tremendous job here, having a great composure of integrity and stature that we see quite well in interest without needing platitudes to speak through. Yeoh (also a Hong Kong icon within action) has clearly worked just as hard in fitting with what is needed in strength and conviction in an role bound by loyalty and regret that is terrific. Zhang (a model-turned-actress in her third role at age 20) does wonders in wandering vulnerability that weaves in desire and arrogance with useful spirit that matters in generating meaningful drama between her and Yeoh in the differences that shape them in their lives and what they share in their obligations to society. Chang proves just as reliable in brimming charisma that go well enough when paired with Zhang. Cheng pulls in a soothingly bitter turn as the last main focus, doing well with her little story of counter reactiveness to her own history of repressed desires with others.

Any film that could have a fight high up into the trees and not seem reliant on CGI or tricks is clearly on the right track for greatness. Great hands of fighting need great choreographers, so enter Yuen Woo-ping, who is known for his direction as fight advisor and his own films since the 1970s that shifted from primarily working in Hong Kong (such as Snake in the Eagle's Shadow in 1978) to work in Hollywood with films such as The Matrix (1999); coincidentally, he would direct the sequel to this film sixteen years later (with Sword of Destiny adapting the fifth book). Its best sequence is likely the scene in the restaurant, one that showcases a display of fury against a whole group with great focus and action. It proves more than a martial arts film made to express a childhood goal, accomplishing a sweeping epic in what one sees and feels with its story that make its fights in the air all the more worthwhile to go along the rest. However one interprets its ending in where it leaps to close out a tale of poetry, it makes for a satisfactory closure of the circle that works in delivering tragedy on the scale of an epic without becoming bogged down in scope. With a pace of two hours, the film shuffles itself along with great air for engaging entertainment through a suitable cast, sweeping fights and music (through Tan Dun and occasional cello work from accomplished cellist Yo-Yo Ma), and an awareness for what makes a great epic come through with focus.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Gladiator (2000).

Review #1524: Gladiator.

Cast: 
Russell Crowe (Maximus Decimus Meridius), Joaquin Phoenix (Commodus), Connie Nielsen (Lucilla), Oliver Reed (Antonius Proximo), Derek Jacobi (Senator Gracchus), Djimon Hounsou (Juba), Richard Harris (Marcus Aurelius), Ralf Möller (Hagen), Tommy Flanagan (Cicero), David Schofield (Senator Falco), John Shrapnel (Senator Gaius), Tomas Arana (General Quintus), Spencer Treat Clark (Lucius Verus), and David Hemmings (Cassius) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, #739 - The Martian, and #1076 - Thelma & Louise)

Review: 
"I'm a yarnteller. My job is to engage you as much as I can and as often as I can. I love the process and still continue to adore the process, actually. I don't get attached to anything. I'm like a good antique dealer. I'm prepared to sell my most valuable table."

A director of many trades in genre can be a valuable voice worth seeing their vision. In the case of Ridley Scott, he has managed to do a variety of interesting films within science fiction, adventure, and drama. After all, Scott started with a historical drama in The Duellists (1977), a culmination of having spent years making television commercials in his native United Kingdom and graduation from the Royal College of Art (where he made his only short in 1965 in Boy and Bicycle). One surely must hope to find inspiration in paintings when it comes to creating something of their own. In this case, it was the painting Pollice Verso (Gérôme) by Jean-Léon Gérôme that was shown by producers to Scott that inspired him to do the film before they even handed him a script, as he felt that image spoke to him of the glory and evil of the Roman Empire that interested him in its duality of grace and savagery. There were three writers credited for the film, with David Franzoni having the initial pitch that became the first draft of the script done in 1998, which was inspired by Daniel P. Mannix's 1958 novel Those About to Die alongside reading history about Roman emperors while doing travelling across the world. Scott and Franzoni looked into films besides the traditional "sword and sandal" movies of the past, such as All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) while citing Ben-Hur (1959) and Spartacus (1960) as influences on his youth Numerous re-writes would be done during the production, with even cast members providing input. A second writer was brought in with John Logan that dealt mostly with the first act and increasing Maximus' motivation through the death of his family. William Nicholson was brought in a little later on in order to make the main character more diplomatic.

There is a mix of history and fiction as one could expect from an epic that wants to stick out from previous films of its kind like The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964). For example, Maximus is fictional but is inspired by several figures of history. Commodus really was a loon who actually fought in the arena, although his end was strangulation by Narcissus (which was the name the first draft used for its lead). Of course it still quibbled enough with clothing and weaponry that one historical consultant hired for the film quit. I guess for me it is like Titanic (1997), with its attempts at sweeping away quibbles of history with intensity and ambition, which may work better or worse depending on one's preference for sword combat over romance (which is the case for me). The Colosseum is shown here as a mix of fragmented reconstruction of the first tier of the famed building for filming in Malta while using CGI (as done by The Mill) to finish the rest. Other effects to note involve composited tigers on bluescreen, mixing real and CGI for crowds, and a digital body double for Reed after his death in May of 1999 (at the age of 61) before his scenes were all finished.

Sure, Crowe (known previously for rising roles in Australia and abroad) may have had his trials and tribulations with handling a main role that requires brooding intensity and a tough hand without an immediately satisfactory script to start. But he manages to do well here, hefting the film along with dignity that commands our curiosity in resonating stature that handles a sword and others quite well as a noble warrior. Phoenix delivers a great intensity on the other side of things, one hungry for power and love with the talent required to make his presence quite convincing in all that is needed, particularly when it comes to the final battle between the two of them. Nielsen accompanies the proceedings with decent results in what is needed when doing a double act of protector and advocate with care. Reed does well with a crucial segmented role, capturing gravitas with appropriate gruffness required. Jacobi and Hounsou each lend a bit of measured interest to the proceedings within bureaucracy and combat, while Harris lends momentary experience suited for the first quarter of the film.

Undeniably, this could have been a long slog at 155 minutes with a lesser director (while also perhaps being thought of as a worse Braveheart (1995), as opposed to just being thought of as at least close to its level). But with Scott here, he manages to cultivate a tale of vengeance and what it means to be a man of the people in the time of mob rule that generally hits the mark fine. What we have is a film that blazes through brutality and spectacle without too many stumbles in plot detailing, where the experience of believing one to be entertained or wincing in feeling like one is in Rome is likely enough to win over a few narrative stumbles. On the whole, I quite enjoyed the film for what it aspired to do in a sword-and-sandal epic with capturing excitement and the terror that could come from making a mythic tale of Rome. Scott and the cast do well enough with capable effects and music to back them up enough to inspire further films in the decade. If it doesn't quite reach the peaks of the great sword films of the past, it at least does its part in setting a new century on a good start for film with worthwhile ambition.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Here we are again, the ninth edition of Tribute to the Decades. We welcome the 21st century with 30 films for the month, which I hope you will enjoy.