Avatar: The Way of Water.

Review #1942: Avatar: The Way of Water.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Redux Review #001: Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

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

Review: 

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

From December 20, 2010:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Redux: The Terminator.

Redux #063: The Terminator.

Cast: 

Arnold Schwarzenegger (the Terminator), Michael Biehn (Kyle Reese), Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), Paul Winfield (Ed Traxler), Lance Henriksen (Vukovich), Bess Motta (Ginger), Rick Rossovich (Matt), Earl Boen (Dr. Silberman), Shawn Schepps (Nancy), and Dick Miller (Clerk) Directed by James Cameron.

Review: 

From my review on July 30, 2011:

This film is in a word a classic. It has good acting for the most part, a good film noir, (which will be referred to as TechNoir) and a great plot. Good effects especially at the end. Good action and also good direction with a young Cameron at the wheel.

"The Terminator themes had been important to me since high school. Those apocalyptic visions, ideas about our love/hate relationship with technology, our tendency as a species to move in a direction that might ultimately destroy us, and a central faith in the resourcefulness of humanity." - James Cameron

In 1981, James Cameron was trying to become a feature film director when he was hired to do Piranha II: The Spawning, rising from special effects director to the main job due to creative differences with the producer (Cameron had become interested in films due to reading about special effects while in school, if you remember). The movie was not a pleasant experience for him (namely because he got fired days into the film), but it was during a moment spent in Rome after being fired that proved important for Cameron. One night, wracked with a fever, he had a fever dream of a metallic man with knives that dragged itself from an explosion. Taking inspiration from John Carpenter (once described by Cameron as his idol) and how he made Halloween for less than $100,000 as a stylish horror film, it helped serve as a launching pad for what became the initial script of The Terminator. Cameron did have help in the script, for the most part. William Wisher, Jr helped turn Cameron's draft into a script, such as writing scenes involving the police or early scenes with Sarah Connor (he got an "additional dialogue" credit); Gale Anne Hurd, who suggested edits to the scripts, was given screenwriting credit to go along with serving as producer, as both Hurd and Cameron had worked under Roger Corman at New World Pictures (Orion Pictures, who distributed the film, had two ex-Corman associates on staff). Cameron even did concept art for trying to sell the idea to prospective filmmakers (such as Hemdale Film Corporation), to the point where Lance Henriksen was the likeness for the drawing along with being brought in to spook the staff in boots and leather, which worked out well in a deal with Hemdale and Cameron. Admittedly, any mention of The Terminator (1984) might bring a reminder that Harlan Ellison is listed with an acknowledgement in the credits. He loved the movie, but he thought it seemed familiar to his script for "Soldier", written for the TV program The Outer Limits in the 1960s. The filmmakers decided to settle and give him a credit in later prints of the film, much to the chagrin of Cameron.

Roger Corman has one hell of a filmmaking tree when it comes to people he employed who ended up becoming directors, and James Cameron essentially had his first major film success come with a production that he treated like a Corman film, complete with filming at night with guerilla-style shots done on a small(ish) budget; the fact that the film runs at 107 minutes is a testament to making a lean but effective piece of entertainment without any sort of element that seems unnecessary. I know I have said the movie is a classic, but the movie has only gotten better with age and further viewings, in my view. Every so often you have to remember that this is basically a slasher movie when you consider the body count. Aside from failing to take his main target, the Terminator takes down over two dozen folks, probably doing so with more efficiency than slasher villains of the time ever did. Hell, Biehn and Schwarzenegger have only one moment together where they are even in the same frame, consider that. Stan Winston and his studio had the task of doing a "flesh-covered endoskeleton", i.e., not just a man in a robot suit. They clearly made a great result, one that menaces the screen and achieves the art of seeming quite real to the audience without distraction. A creature that can't be reasoned with that manages to come after you even when it is shed of its humanoid skin, that is one hell of a concoction for a film that veers into horror, science-fiction, and yes, even noir territory.

Schwarzenegger had one key film credit to his name with Conan the Barbarian (1982), and it should be noted that he actually speaks less lines in this film than the prior movie. The funny thing is that he was actually thought by Orion for the film not as the title character but for the Reese character. This was contrary to Cameron's expectations of using low-key actors to do a cheap film, since he figured that he would have Henriksen play the Terminator, since it was meant to be a character that could blend in a crowd (go figure, Orion had O. J. Simpson in mind for the title role). A meeting between the two made it apparent to Cameron and Schwarzenegger that he would probably be better suited for the Terminator role, which clearly was the right decision. He sells the role in ways that one could only dream they could do in a role with little to say beyond having to act like a machine. Aside from a few television appearances, Hamilton had one prominent film credit before this film: Children of the Corn (1984), which was released a few months before this film. Hamilton is given the task of playing both relative innocence and hidden strength in a variation of the "Final Girl" trope in horror, which she handles expertly. Her terror at the situation she is thrust into becomes one we feel is thrust onto us. Biehn was actually cast because of his role in The Fan (1981), a movie that Cameron saw where Biehn plays a nice-looking guy who ends up being a killer stalker. For a good part of the film (at least for those who haven't seen it once), Biehn is effective in that mindset before he enters the picture as the would-be protector, which he handles quite well without having to strain to make the dialogue (consisting mostly of reacting to the Terminator or to Hamilton) work as well as it does. Henriksen may not have a big role, but the fact that he was effective in helping the film gain some interest with the whole "dressing up like the Terminator" stunt makes him an unforgettable part of how The Terminator became what it was. Winfield is the other part of the supporting cast that is basically cosigned to police beat elements, which works out pretty well for what is needed. It really is a lean movie, one that wraps itself quite tightly in efficient storytelling that shows just enough of the future landscape in perspective to make the drama occurring back in the present seem even more thrilling, particularly when it comes to the last sequence within a factory setting, where a machine stripped to its core is still on the chase and even still a menace with diminished legs. The synthesizer soundtrack by Brad Fiedel only adds to the level of terror in ways I hadn't really appreciated until listening to it once again, one that doesn't come off as dated (not to say that synthesizer music is dated, just that the use of it can have consequences in lesser hands). 

As a whole, the real crime is that the film was not even more successful. Sure, it did strike well with audiences, but Orion did not have as much faith for such a great movie as one would expect, doing little promotion (owing to wanting to elevate some of its other features of the time, such as Amadeus, the eventual Academy Award winner for Best Picture that year). At any rate, Schwarzenegger was clearly interested in making a sequel more so than Cameron, but a sequel wasn't commissioned until the film right were purchased back from Hemdale and Hurd. At any rate, with a story idea cribbed from the first film and a bigger budget, Terminator 2: Judgement Day was released in 1991. Four sequels would follow in the next three decades, with varying reception made worse by the fact that T2 is generally thought to be one of the greatest sequels ever made. At any rate, The Terminator is the film that made James Cameron a name to be reckoned with as a filmmaker and Arnold Schwarzenegger a true star, and it is a grand achievement for all involved as a science fiction action masterpiece.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Liliom (1930).

Review #1941: Liliom (1930).

Cast: 

Charles Farrell (Liliom), Rose Hobart (Julie), Estelle Taylor (Madame Muscat), H. B. Warner (Chief Magistrate), Lee Tracy (The Buzzard), Walter Abel (Carpenter), Mildred Van Dorn (Marie), Guinn "Big Boy" Williams (Hollinger), Lillian Elliott (Aunt Hulda), Anne Shirley (Louise), and Bert Roach (Wolf) Directed by Frank Borzage (#1611 - A Farewell to Arms and #1863 - History Is Made at Night)

Review: 

The movie is an adaptation of the 1909 play of the same name by Ferenc Molnár. The original play actually didn't become a success until the English translation happened on Broadway in 1921, which was followed by a number of a revivals before a musical adaptation was created by Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II with Carousel in 1945, which also had its own film adaptation released in 1956. The original play is the one with the sadder ending, let's just get that out of the way. S. N. Behrman and Sonya Levien served as the screenwriters for the movie adaptation, which was the second released adaptation, with the first being A Trip to Paradise (1921). The next adaptation was not too far off, being released in 1934 as a French production by Fritz Lang. Both the 1930 and 1934 versions were distributed by Fox Film Corporation. Since this was a movie released before the Film Code, you get to see the lead characters have a child out of wedlock. At the helm was Frank Borzage, who had joined the sound revolution in features such as Song o' My Heart (1930) that made him quite a prolific presence in romances with distinct visual sense at his peak. Like the original play, it is set in Budapest.

It is an odd little movie, packed with odd imagery within its artificiality, complete with shadows and a romance between two people who can't articulate their emotional feelings for each other beyond a spiritual connection. A grouping of two insecure people probably didn't seem like the kind of film to be an audience hit (and not with anyone who has opinions to say about how the film handles the afterlife, particularly in those days), and it was the kind of movie that for years wasn't even on DVD. But one can now experience a film with a climax that delves a bit into fairytale expressionism before having a few "interesting" words to say about hitting people and the nature of love. It does this despite being more of a film for Hobart and her wonderous eyes that you see shot by Chester A. Lyons. This was one of the first sound movies for Farrell, who you might recognize for his starring roles in silent romances such as 7th Heaven (1927) or City Girl (1930). The high pitch voice was apparently a surprise to some when it came to release, but I'm alright with the withering confidence meant to come out in this odd role that could have been just pathetic for a lesser presence. Hobart was making her feature movie debut, having come in from the theater to the shock of probably no one. The two actors enunciate their lines the way you would expect from a film made in the first few years of sound movies, which means one is watching a pretty stagy movie. Their romance is shaky, but you at least get why they would find themselves in this situation without trying to leave the other in the gutter, complete with their last scene together. It all rests on how the material sits with you once it reaches the train (via rear projection, which was quite new at the time, used by Fox in this and Just Imagine) bringing someone to talk about why they need one more moment among the living. If you can get through that, then it falls down to the climax to hold it all together for one fateful decision that will either strike one as somehow fitting the material well or off-putting. The two characters have about as much chance at moving forward without each other as a carousel has a chance of rotating in a non-circular path, and I guess it means that one really does have to put enough into love when the other partner isn't quite up to putting all the work to match them. As a whole, it definitely isn't the best effort for Borzage when it comes to his prior work, but it is at least a dour curiosity worth a watch for those who want to see a deliberately paced romance go through with a few visual interests for 94 minutes. It makes a suitable bittersweet tale. Laborious for some, but curious for others who choose to seek it out is probably the best way to describe the whole affair.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Bodyguard (1992).

Review #1940: The Bodyguard.

Cast: 

Kevin Costner (Frank Farmer), Whitney Houston (Rachel Marron), Gary Kemp (Sy Spector), Bill Cobbs (Bill Devaney), Ralph Waite (Herb Farmer), Tomas Arana (Greg Portman), Michele Lamar Richards (Nicki Marron), Mike Starr (Tony Scipelli), Christopher Birt (Henry Adams), DeVaughn Nixon (Fletcher Marron), and Gerry Bamman (Ray Court) Directed by Mick Jackson (#202 - Volcano and #1630 - L.A. Story)

Review: 

Well, even the popular entertainment has a shelf life worth looking into. Three decades have only kept the attention for the second-biggest hit of the year in the discussion, if only because of the even more popular soundtrack with Whitney Houston. The Newark native was after all a major singer with a string of hits since the late 1980s, and her performance and production made the best selling album for a soundtrack...ever. All of this happened for a film that had seeds of creation first planted a decade earlier. It probably should surprise you that the film was originally written with Steve McQueen and Diana Ross in mind. Yes, in the mid 1970s, this was pitched as a film, and yes, it was apparently rejected for being "too controversial". An attempt to do the film a few years later with Ryan O'Neal as the lead stalled because of strained relations between O'Neal and Ross. The film was written by Lawrence Kasdan (who had written the initial script in 1975), who you might recognize as writer of films such as The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and director of films such as The Big Chill (1983). Attempted revisions to the script apparently made it dark enough to where Mick Jackson insisted on just returning to the original concept. This was the third feature film for British native Mick Jackson, who was fresh off his success in directing L.A. Story (1991).

This is a confused movie, one that somehow is too silly and contrived to be taken seriously for anybody thinking this might be a thriller along with being too stoic in the art of going beyond first gear for what is meant to be called romance. It is also way too ordinary to run for 129 minutes. The only thing the movie has going for it is the songs, because yea, who can resist "I Will Always Love You" (sung by Houston as a cover, since the original song was done by Dolly Parton). It isn't even a case of being paint-by-the-numbers, because even other movies would know when to get on with the show. Costner probably was quite proud of himself for getting do a film where he also served as producer (just like previous efforts in Dances with Wolves) and could cut his hair like McQueen to try and hone his presence. He certainly acts like a bored McQueen would have likely been if this had been done in the 1970s, that much is sure. If you want to watch the film to make fun of it, you might have a ball looking at how understated his performance ends up being, as if he was replaced by discount Costner. The only scene that has any impact is one where he has a scuffle with Starr which ends with him throwing a knife right near him to close out a silent fight where he shows just how good he is. Houston had never acted in a film before this one, and, well, that is pretty evident early on, which results in a very mild case of "well, natural acting is technically a thing" that is then followed with "she can sing, just get her better material". She acted in three further films before her death in 2012. The movie doesn't even bother to have a middling attempt at a threat, since there is never one moment where the tension rises to any sort of interesting level. You would think a movie that has its climax during an Academy Awards ceremony would bring out some sort of curiosity to things. Nope. Kemp was one of the musicians for Spandau Ballet. That is pretty much all one can say about his performance. Cobbs and Waite are practically standing there begging for more substantial lines, but nope, this patchy romance is totally stable enough.

I kid you not, there was almost a sequel to this film. Apparently, Costner wanted to do another film with a different famous name, one who was a friend of his. The friend was Diana, Princess of Wales, but her death in 1997 put an end to it in predevelopment. A musical adaptation was done in London in 2012, and there are apparently plans for a film remake (heaven forbid they make a film that might actually show some depth - well, a man can dream, can't he?). As a whole, the best way to approach the film is to close one's eyes and just think really hard about what the hell they are watching. It might be the only movie where shutting everything but the music off might be a better experience than this overlong average movie. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Help!

Review #1939: Help!

Cast: 

The Beatles [John Lennon • Paul McCartney • George Harrison • Ringo Starr], with Eleanor Bron (Ahme), Leo McKern (Clang), John Bluthal (Bhuta), Patrick Cargill (the Superintendent), Victor Spinetti (Professor Foot), Roy Kinnear (Algernon), Alfie Bass (Doorman), Warren Mitchell (Abdul), and Peter Copley (Jeweller) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, #785 - Superman II, #786 - Superman III, #972 - The Three Musketeers, and #976 - The Four Musketeers)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember A Hard's Day Night (1964), the first feature film that starred the wildly popular group of The Beatles. It was the third feature effort from Richard Lester, the American-born director who had lived in England since the 1950s. In my review for that film, I forgot to mention that one of the main attractions of Lester for the Beatles was his work on a short film called The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film (1959), although his experience in directing musical acts with It's Trad, Dad! (1962) probably also helped. The movie was a hit before it even came out (owing to pre-sales), but there was always a plan to do more than one Beatles film. At any rate, Lester followed the aforementioned Beatles film with The Knack ...and How to Get It (1965), a wide hit itself. Since the sequel wasn't going to feature the group doing what they were doing in their life, naturally the film would be about them being "passive responders to some external stimulus". Help! (working title: Eight Arms to Hold You) was a bigger budget film with more time (which meant filming in The Bahamas and Austria) and in color, which resulted in a generally pleasant experience, aside from the fact that the group got into marijuana during filming that made for plenty of giggles. The film was written by Marc Behm and Charles Wood. It should be noted that the film was apparently inspired by Duck Soup (1933), while the comedy stylings of the group was inspired by The Goon Show, which Lester had experience with. The next project with the Beatles was with the TV musical film Magical Mystery Tour in 1967, while Yellow Submarine (1968) saw them appear for exactly one scene, and the documentary Let It Be (1970) was their swansong. Lester would continue to do a variety of features in the next couple of years, whether that meant comedy in How I Won the War (1967, which had Lennon in a supporting role) or The Bed Sitting Room (1969) or other efforts such as the wildly successful Musketeers films.

At the time, the group did not particularly like the experience of filming - John Lennon felt like the group was like extras in their own film before calling it "advanced" years later. Of course, having to do a film alongside doing songs for it and touring probably didn't help matters. The two Beatles films were inspirations for filmmakers too: Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider saw the success of the two films and decided to revive an idea the former had for television involving teenagers and rock.... which eventually became The Monkees, which had their own feature film (but that is another time...). If you came to watch a film about The Beatles do a bit of singing and have a bit of fun with each other, you came to the right place. There's a handful of songs to view here, such as the title song (duh) or "Ticket to Ride". The group of four may be easy to describe with a sentence or two as performers rather than outright actors, but one always smiles when they are on screen, mostly in the case of the hapless Starr or the charm in McCartney (evidently, Lester felt Harrison was the best actor of the group, so take that for what it's worth). Besides, they seem to be having fun with the whole affair, whether that involves trying to deal with a stubborn ring on the finger or whatever - the lines go off one another like paper in the wind. It might not be as effective in general energy as their previous effort, but it has enough casual flair for adventure to make it a useful follow-up. It has been termed as being at the forefront for the "music video" (no, it didn't create the trend, but it sure had a key place with the filmmaking techniques used for sequences such as the title song). All of the fun happens around a movie about Eastern cultists and mad scientists chasing the group for a ring one of them has on their finger - McKern, Spinetti, and Kinnear make suitable foils to see involve themselves in the silly chase. Things come and go with the film, which all ends with tomfoolery on the beach. For 92 minutes, you can't really go wrong with this light fare of music and comedy with one of the most noted quartets of their time at your side for a playful goofy time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ruthless People.

Review #1938: Ruthless People.

Cast: 

Danny DeVito (Sam Stone), Bette Midler (Barbara Stone), Judge Reinhold (Ken Kessler), Helen Slater (Sandy Kessler), Anita Morris (Carol Dodsworth), Bill Pullman (Earl Mott), William G. Schilling (Police Chief Henry Benton), Art Evans (Lt. Bender), Clarence Felder (Lt. Walters), and J. E. Freeman (Bedroom Killer) Directed by David Zucker (#585 - Top Secret!, #664 - Airplane!, #699 - The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!, #821: The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear), Jim Abrahams (#028 - Hot Shots!, #375 - Hot Shots! Part Deux, #585, #664), Jerry Zucker (#585, #664, #1274 - First Knight, #1626 - Ghost, #1714 - Rat Race)

Review: 

This is an interesting film to cover. Oh sure, the filmmaking trio of Jim Abrahams and the Zucker brothers (Jerry and David) did plenty of comedy material back to their days with their own small theater in their native Wisconsin, but this one was certainly interesting to consider among the rest. For one, it is the only time that the trio directed a film together that they did not write themselves. The film was written by Dale Launer, who took inspiration from the kidnapping of Patricia Hearst; when asked about the similarities between the film and "The Ransom of Red Chief" (a story about a kid so annoying his kidnappers to where they pay the father to take him back), he said it was just a coincidence. He later wrote for films such as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) and My Cousin Vinny (1992). This was the third of three films that the trio directed together (after Airplane! and Top Secret), as from that point on, they would direct their own solo projects. The reason for their split was because they simply were ready to move in different directions alongside the fact that they did not see as much financial success as they believed they would from this (due to studio accounting, since the directing salary was split three ways with them). So yes, David Zucker would direct the first two Naked Gun films while also writing it with his brother and Abrahams, and each respective director went their own way in comedy.

So yes, here is a comedy with a premise built on a kidnapping that spirals into silliness when the hostage situation is really a one-way street, complete with mistaken identities, an unrelated serial killer, and a climax on a pier. It may be the odd film in their features, but it is a still a pretty good experience, one with plenty of amusement as a farce with fun misanthropes, complete with a look and style perfectly decadent for the era of the 1980s. With such a cheery dark premise, the key to making it all work is to have folks with enough energy to carry the material with the edge required. What we have is a key quartet ready to handle it together: DeVito, Midler, Reinhold, and Slater. DeVito shows great passion within a role designed with slime in mind: who else but him could play such an earnest villain? He has such confidence in the role, one that can sell the opening monologue with gusto, whereas a lesser actor would make it sound like an exposition-dump. Comeuppance or not, it is satisfying to see him engage as the master of the shit-eating grin in ways that other actors could only dream to get down the way he does. Midler (an actor when not singing on a regular basis) is the perfect type of abrasive: confident in her abilities and roaringly amusing, one who gets on the nerves with righteous timing and no sense of inordinate irritation. Reinhold and Slater play the kidnapping duo with resourceful timing as the nicest folks of the whole film (playing to the irony of them being the only folks we see commit a crime) as beleaguered and shy folks that we like just as much as the folks designed as being ones loved in hating. Morris and Pullman (in his first film role) are the other key group to the puzzle, with the former being good in the conniving side-person to the over-the-top hilarity and the latter being quite amusing as the dimwit. Probably the best representation of the film in its dark glee is an exchange between DeVito and Reinhold in which the latter is trying to lower the price down in the hostage giveaway only to find that the former is practically daring them to send the hostage to the morgue (they would know, because they just came from there!). As a comedy of misunderstandings filled with odd little people, it works out pretty well for 94 minutes, presenting its ever-growing odd situations with useful execution by pros in a useful curiosity: a dynamite script without their intervention that they handle just as well as their other films. Crude but unapologetic, Ruthless People is a neat little gem worth looking into.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Spite Marriage.

Review #1937: Spite Marriage.

Cast: 

Buster Keaton (Elmer Gantry), Dorothy Sebastian (Trilby Drew), Edward Earle (Lionel Benmore), Leila Hyams (Ethyl Norcrosse), William Bechtel (Nussbaum), John Byron (Scarzi), Joe Bordeaux (Rumrunner), Ray Cooke (The Bellboy), Mike Donlin (Man in Ship's Engine Room), and Pat Harmon (Tugboat Captain) Directed by Edward Sedgwick (#774 - The Phantom of the Opera and #1774 - The Cameraman) and Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, #805 - The Navigator, #877 - Three Ages, #908 - The General, #926 - Our Hospitality, #941 - Sherlock Jr, #1037 - Go West, #1058 - Battling Butler, #1173 - Steamboat Bill, Jr,, #1774 - The Camerman)

Review: 

It may be an odd film to term as a "swan song", but this is one such case where it applies. This was the second feature film with Buster Keaton as star at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, a decision that he later called the worst mistake he ever made. But The Camerman (1928), his first effort for the studio, was actually pretty good, since it had plenty of spontaneity along with scope to make a fun comedy. As such, Keaton wanted to make his second MGM feature a sound film, but the studio did not have enough of the recording equipment for that they felt was just another comedy. The following year, he did his first sound film with Free and Easy, but Keaton never directed a full feature after this film (which he didn't even receive credit for anyway), aside from a handful of gag direction assignments. In fact, the film was more in the control of the studio, who clearly wanted to cultivate a moneymaker with their star rather than the decent success of the last film. In short: the long and wavering road of improvisation became washed away by a studio that just wanted to see things run smoothly. Well, for the last Keaton silent film, there is one key exception: The film has a musical score and sound effects that come in from time to time. The film runs from 74 to 80 minutes, depending on what kind of print you find of the film.

The story was written by Lew Lipton, while Ernest Pagano also wrote for it, and Robert E. Hopkins wrote the intertitles. It certainly isn't the best Keaton feature when you consider the ones that came before it, but the movie is generally entertaining in the general ways that you would expect to make a worthy high note to finish the silent era for Keaton. His physical performance seems quite adept to what is needed for the general climax (on a yacht) while playing just fine with the loose plotting and scenario. The movie basically seems like two loose scenarios presented into one: a lovable oddball tries his hand at marriage when a lady wants to make someone else jealous (after trying his hand at acting that goes how you would expect) that eventually segues into adventure on the sea when the marriage falls out of hand (before falling into hand). Sebastian does make a decent leading lady in charm, while Earle makes a suitable cad. Undeniably, the highlight sequence might be one where you get to see an attempt by one inebriated person to get another inebriated person to bed without waking them up. The comic timing of the film may feel as fresh as one sees from Keaton, but the scene is still quite diverting in execution. Of course, Keaton participating in a Civil War melodrama play is a last little gasp at Keaton trying his hand at something only to fall down the pit of amusement, which works to the level one would hope in silly falls without riding the joke down to the ground. The climax does have semblances of his previous works such as The Navigator (1924) and Battling Butler (1926), but even familiar Keaton material is still fun material to watch play out, mostly because Keaton still has the energy to make the chuckles come out. As a whole, it is a light charming movie, a last hurrah for Keaton in the silent era that closes out his run of visual gags and physical comedy with a solid enough impact to make it worthy to view last among the accomplishments done by the actor/director. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Getaway.

Review #1936: The Getaway.

Cast: 

Steve McQueen (Carter "Doc" McCoy), Ali MacGraw (Carol McCoy), Ben Johnson (Jack Beynon), Sally Struthers (Fran Clinton), Al Lettieri (Rudy Butler), Slim Pickens (The Cowboy), Richard Bright (The Thief), Jack Dodson (Harold Clinton), Dub Taylor (Laughlin), and Bo Hopkins (Frank Jackson) Directed by Sam Peckinpah (#590 - Ride the High Country, #591 - The Wild Bunch, #944 - Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, #1439 - Straw Dogs, and #1685 - The Deadly Companions)

Review: 

“As a filmmaker I must look at both sides of the coin and do my best as a storyteller. I have no absolutes. I have no value judgment. Why does violence have such a point of intoxication with people? Why do people structure their day on killing?”

Admittedly, the prospect of Sam Peckinpah and Steve McQueen is an interesting one to ponder, particularly since their only other collaboration was Junior Bonner (1972), a rodeo rider movie. Actually, the original director for this film was Peter Bogdanovich since The Last Picture Show (1971) had made an impression on McQueen and producer David Foster. Foster had been McQueen's publicist before McQueen had encouraged him to become a film producer, and Foster encouraged McQueen to do the film, since McQueen was apparently looking for a "good/bad guy" role. The movie is based on the 1958 novel of the same name by Jim Thompson, and he was slated to write the screenplay for the film (this was the first film adaptation of one of his works since Paths of Glory (1957)). Disagreements would lead to both departing: Bogdanovich was approached by a different studio to do What's Up Doc? (1972), but McQueen got upset at hearing about this, while Thompson would be replaced as writer by Walter Hill, since McQueen was not particularly keen on the ending of the novel: an imaginary Mexican town filled with criminals that was apparently "surreal" in nature, and Peckinpah described it as "written in the fifties, takes place in the fifties, but...really a thirties story". The Hill script was modified by Peckinpah to add a bit more action and make it a non-period piece; Hill felt it was the far and away the best script he wrote. Oddly enough, due to the deal made between McQueen and First Artists, he had final cut privileges on the film, and Peckinpah felt that the actor played it safe with the "pretty-boy shots", and it probably doesn't help that McQueen once admitted to wanting the film to look and feel like High Sierra (1941). While the film didn't receive great reviews, it did make quite an impact with audiences, and it was the biggest hit of Peckinpah's career, with only Convoy (1978) topping it. A remake of the film, this time having Hill listed as a co-writer (complete with retaining the same ending), was released in 1994.

As a heist thriller for 122 minutes, it proves just fine. It is sometimes a tough little film when it sees two characters spend their time in a garbage truck with a hydraulic compactor. It is more of a greasy thriller than an underdog film that McQueen surely thought he wanted, but since it ended up being a hit for everyone involved, I'm sure that pleased him just fine. It makes for a decent heist and a decent chase film, but it does leave one wanting a bit more from its wandering edges. McQueen makes the role count when it comes to the "tough as nails" elements to a character wrapped into a heist straight out of prison, but the elements where he needs to show some sort of tenderness with MacGraw don't particularly sell as well. MacGraw was known at the time for her role in Love Story (1970). Her next role after this film was six years later with Convoy (1978), oddly enough. It isn't so much that she is the weakest element of the film as it is that there is a variety of talent all around her that generates more energy, where even three minutes of Slim Pickens is worth investing a smile. She just comes off as dry, which makes an "on the run with wife and husband" movie more of an obligation than a big thrill. Hell, Johnson just does a few speeches of spiel and you might remember his time in the film a bit more, although at least Lettieri makes a solid heavy fitting for a chase film. Struthers (in her first key film role and fresh in the minds of folks familiar with All in the Family) makes a solid moll, complete with scenes between Lettieri being quite oddball potent. Bright also makes a worthy shifty man in the middle in terms of flim-flam trickery - the locker swap and train sequence makes for a neatly executed sequence between Bright and the main duo. As a whole, it moves a bit too casually in one particular speed to really make anything more than rip-roaring thrills, but Peckinpah still managed to make a conventionally interesting feature that holds up in the ways that matter after a half century because of the way he cuts his action together.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Verdict (1982).

Review #1935: The Verdict.

Cast: 

Paul Newman (Frank Galvin), Charlotte Rampling (Laura Fischer), Jack Warden (Mickey Morrissey), James Mason (Ed Concannon), Milo O'Shea (Judge Hoyle), Lindsay Crouse (Kaitlin Costello Price), Edward Binns (Bishop Brophy), Julie Bovasso (Maureen Rooney), Roxanne Hart (Sally Doneghy), James Handy (Kevin Doneghy), Wesley Addy (Dr. Towler), Joe Seneca (Dr. Thompson), and Lewis J. Stadlen (Dr. Gruber) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express, #1450 - Dog Day Afternoon, #1545 - Before the Devil Knows You're Dead)

Review: 

A combination of a director known for his crafting of actors into diverting character dramas and a powerhouse star and script surely would work out for a fair classic, you might say. The movie is an adaptation of the 1980 novel of the same name by Barry Reed. In addition to writing for American Bar Association Journal alongside novels, Reed had his own legal practice in Boston, Massachusetts and he had a reputation for specializing in medical malpractice, personal injury, and civil litigation. Interestingly, one of his proteges was Jan Schlichtmann, a lawyer noted for his own case that became a book and film about a lawyer taking on a big name (in this case, two companies sued for leukemia deaths), which you might know as A Civil Action (1998). Right before publication of The Verdict, producers David Brown and Richard D. Zanuck purchased the film rights. The two hired David Mamet to write a screenplay based on the book. By this point, Mamet was noted for his array of off-Broadway plays in the 1970s such as American Buffalo. The first produced screenplay by Mamet was the 1981 adaptation of The Postman Always Rings Twice. It shouldn't be too surprising that there were numerous choices for directors and main stars: James Bridges was the initial choice for director and Robert Redford was the first-pick star, but when Bridges became busy with Urban Cowboy (1980), the producers went with Arthur Hiller as the potential director...before a disagreement with Mamet saw him depart (of course, Zanuck wasn't particularly big on the ending of the original script, which ended before the jury came back with the verdict). Jay Presson Allen came in to try and deliver a new script, and when Bridges had time at last to do a project, he also seeped his fingers into writing for the film, but it all went for naught when Redford and Bridges had disagreements over the nature of the main character (Redford irked at the idea of playing the character with the flaws as written). Not long after, Lumet was asked to do the film, and he elected to go back to the original Mamet script, complete with Paul Newman as star. 

Admittedly, the legal aspects of the film aren't completely on the level, as I suspected from a cursory bout of research. For the record, if you are suing a hospital and they offer you a settlement, your lawyer cannot simply reject the offer (without even consulting the clients), and the opposing council doesn't go around telling the client about offers either. But I suppose if you can buy a film that hinges its big finish on having the jurors challenge their doubts in their beliefs, institutions, and the law itself, you can do almost anything. But the movie as a whole is pleasant as a stone-cold thriller of possible redemption as baptism by fire, utilizing its 129 minutes to general effectiveness. It relies heavily on the performance of Newman, in his only appearance in a feature film with Lumet as director. He pulls off a great performance, plundering the depths of redemption in an understated and powerful manner that never blusters or hits a false note from start to finish, one where burying the case is not the end of his own road. Sure, one could put the highlight as the last scene in the courthouse or even the final shot with a rejected call, but the best one might be a sequence where Newman is taking photos of his client (a comatose victim) before he processes what he is doing when the photo is developing and snaps himself to action without having to say a word. It isn't so much as chewing the scenery as it is just a case of a damn good actor being accompanied by pretty decent support in the cast besides him. Rampling makes a quality counterpart to Newman, since each are wayward spirits to begin with, and the last sequence where they share time together (i.e., not just stare at each other) is quite effective in its shock, while Warden accompanies Newman as the long-suffering lawyer pal in useful character presence. Mason (in the twilight of his career) is the ideal foil to Newman, bringing dignity to a role of slime, which goes just as well for O'Shea in steely impatience. As a whole, it is more of a thriller of the lead character rather than a straight-boiled court drama, which results in a slow burn experience that ultimately shows Lumet and Newman in their proper environments: rehearsed excellence, one that has endured well for itself after four decades. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Kiki's Delivery Service.

Review #1934: Kiki's Delivery Service.

Cast: 

Minami Takayama (Kiki), Rei Sakuma (Jiji), Keiko Toda (Osono), Minami Takayama (Ursula), Kappei Yamaguchi (Tombo), Kōichi Yamadera (Fukuo), Mieko Nobusawa (Kokiri), Kōichi Miura (Okino), and Haruko Kato (Madame) Produced, Written and Directed by Hayao Miyazaki (#1111 - Spirited Away, #1233 - Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, #1480 - Castle in the Sky, and #1758 - My Neighbor Totoro)

Review: 

In 1985, Eiko Kadono wrote a children's fantasy novel called Kiki's Delivery Service. The resulting success of the book inspired a film and eight further novels from Kadono over the next 35 years. When it came time for a film adaptation, Studio Ghibli had intended either Hayao Miyazaki or Isao Takahata to direct it, but each were busy with their own features (1988's My Neighbor Totoro and Grave of the Fireflies) for what would be their fourth feature film as a studio. Miyazaki accepted the role of producer while the studio looked for a new director, which he ended up choosing. With Nobuyuki Isshiki as intended script writer and Sunao Katabuchi as the picked director, the film was meant to be the latter's feature debut. However, Miyazaki felt the resulting script was dry and not what he envisioned of the film, and the result is that he would end up taking over as both writer and director (while Katabuchi would work as an assistant director on this film, he did not get his own chance to direct a feature until 2001). So yes, the film that Miyazaki intended to only produce that was meant to be an hour-long special instead ballooned into his project for a 102-minute feature. A live-action adaptation of the book came in 2014 (interesting to consider that the 25-year-old voice actress utilized in this film apparently outclassed a teenager of 17 from what I heard about the remake). Incidentally, the movie is distinctly different from the film, as the book was a series of episodic events happening around the title character, with no sort of crises to deal with. This was done because Miyazaki felt that since "movies always create a more realistic feeling", one needs stronger setbacks and loneliness for said title character. Kadono wasn't too keen on the changes, but she was finally persuaded to give her consent to the film when invited to see the studio.

Several cities were inspirations for Koriko, such as Napoli, Lisbon, Stockholm, Paris, San Francisco, and Visby, with the intent to make a location that looked like Europe in the 1950s if there weren't any World Wars, albeit one that wasn't simply easy to peg a year in. With that in mind, one gets a coming-of-age story where growing up isn't as easy as being a 13-year-old witch. In order to grow up, sometimes you have to go through compromises and challenges to get a new step of what you think you want to be. At least, that's what I get from it, since coming-of-age movies are in the eye of the beholder, depending on how one feels about making friends only to suddenly not be able to bear being with any of them. At any rate, Miyazaki knows what he wants to tell in a story of growing youth going through growing pains without resorting to pandering or narrative rug-pulling. It's not like the movie needs to dwell much on the mythology of witches beyond just having teens go forth on their journey with a task in mind (it plays to that old trick that magic is just magic, man). It is a warm and snappy film with mostly impeccable timing to carry the importance of independence alongside friendship with endearing characters. Miyazki surely has an eye for making whatever animated adventure he wants to show look as cinematic as it has to be, and it carries the film just as well when it comes to light pacing and nice-looking scenery. Takayama actually plays two roles: the kid witch and an older friend, which actually fooled me - take it as a compliment that she makes a pretty good voice for the title character with no phony notes and going with all charm. The characters in general are fairly charming, such as a chatty cat (for a time) or the varying reaction to a witch, whether on delivery or not. There's a good chunk of little sequences before the eventual conflict comes to a head, with the most interesting one being a friendly case of helping someone make a cake with an oven. The climax is graceful and fitting to the experience, fulfilling the circle of growing as a person that leaves things as they are meant to be: ongoing and on one's general terms.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Grave of the Fireflies.

Review #1933: Grave of the Fireflies.

Cast: 

Tsutomu Tatsumi (Seita Yokokaw), Ayano Shiraishi (Setsuko Yokokawa), Yoshiko Shinohara (Mrs. Yokokawa), Akemi Yamaguchi (Aunt), and Kazumi Nozaki (Cousin) Written and Directed by Isao Takahata.

Review: 

"I see infinite potential for animation. I don’t know if that is a wonderful thing or not. All of the arts, whether they be music, drama, or painting, have infinite potential. But no one knows whether this unlimited potential can be a force for creating many works that can offer delight to people."

The easiest statement for animated films is the one that I find has to be said over and over again until it is made clear: animation is for everyone, not just for kids. You don't really need to read a review of a Studio Ghibli film to have this point made, but I will beat the drum of animated films being something that can work for everyone until the day I die, especially for classic films like this one. This was the first film that Isao Takahata directed for the studio. He was born in Ise, Japan in 1935; he would see (and survive) the air raid on Okayama City when he was nine years old. He studied at the University of Tokyo and graduated in 1959 with a degree in French literature, although he developed an interest in animation by this time when watching a French film called "Le Rot et l'Oiseau". He soon took the entrance exam at Toei Animation and got a job as an assistant director. Years passed with a couple of jobs before his chance to direct with The Great Adventure of Horus, Prince of the Sun (1968). Incidentally, one of the animators that worked on the film was Hayao Miyazaki. Takahata and Miyazaki would become friends due to their shared experiences of demanding work and wanting to create a "world of reality and realistic depictions in all our works". The film was not a success, which led to Toei demoting him for a time. Takahata worked in television for a number of years, before he returned to features with Jarinko Chie (1981) and Gauche the Cellist (1982). Takahata would direct three further films with the studio: Only Yesterday (1991), My Neighbors the Yamadas (1999), and The Tale of the Princess Kaguya (2013) before his death in 2018.

The film is based on the 1967 short story of the same name, as written by Akiyuki Nosaka. He had written the work based on the experiences his family had during the firebombing of Kobe, Japan on March 16-17, 1945, during World War II (the city was both a key port for the country and also filled with houses built with wood), where he saw his sister die from malnutrition. There were offers to adapt the story in live-action, but Nosaka had his doubts that a film could recreate the scorched earth for the backdrop of the story along with having child actors that could convincingly portray the characters. He was actually surprised when he heard of an offer to make the film in animation (being quoted as assuming they were "a simple pleasure viewing for summer vacations") but seeing storyboards of the landscapes made him a believer to the point where he felt it could not be done otherwise in live action (incidentally, live-action adaptations followed in 2005 and 2008). I should mention that this film was released as part of a double bill with My Neighbor Totoro, which ended up as the more noted name in the double-bill. Takahata planned to do a follow-up film with "Border 1939", one that would touch on similar themes like this film but set at the time of Imperial Japan invading continental Asia (such as China) that would've been a stronger focus on the dangers of Japanese nationalism. An outline survives, but the film never came into production. Takahata stated numerous times that the film was not an anti-war film, although I'm sure that anyone watching a film set during the last throes of war would have a bit of justification to think that. At any rate, what we have here is Takahata's attempt to show the viewer the dangers of complacency and ignorance for the horrors of the past (namely by showing how people react in crisis rather than saying the morality of the war). Takahata liked the unique characteristics of Seita and thus wanted to make a film where the audience could not have the mindset, he felt was present in wartime stories of the noble and more able character. In that sense, he wanted to show what happens when one isolates from society. Of course, the decision presented in the film about setting on one's own differs based on one's culture, so it makes for an interesting topic of discussion when it comes to pride. The fact that the actors in the film were a group of unknowns that have this film to shine in makes the film quite a unique part of the discussion for underappreciated gems and the legacy that comes with said films, with Tatsumi and Shiraishi being the ideal pairing to play siblings wracked in crisis while Yamaguchi makes a suitable adult figure in representing how war affects all to their rawest form.

This is the kind of movie where you will see brilliant animation, such as the release of fireflies in a cave to help illuminate a certain spot. The brown outlining for a softer look (as opposed to the usual black, which contrasts better and is used in certain spots for this film) makes the film a constant curiosity. As such, the film captures both the adventures of the two main characters and the scorched earth that they are walking on with great haunting clarity. No matter how much one knows how the film ends (or where it will go as you can see from its opening sequence), it still ends up being an arresting experience of 89 minutes. It asks for self-reflection more than just being a movie for grim tears. Takahata's aim for the audience to not have an inferiority complex when seeing these human beings in war-torn Japan clearly has paid off with how effective his film turned out in all of its stages from start to finish. As a whole, Grave of the Fireflies is a distinct feature worthy of being viewed alongside the rest of works from Studio Ghibli, one with formidable emotional depth that is more than just a sad movie: it is a movie for all shapes and sizes to experience and learn from.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Django Unchained.

Review #1932: Django Unchained.

 

Cast: 

Jamie Foxx (Django Freeman), Christoph Waltz (Dr. King Schultz), Leonardo DiCaprio ("Monsieur" Calvin J. Candie), Kerry Washington (Broomhilda "Hildi" von Shaft), Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen Warren), Walton Goggins (Billy Crash), Dennis Christopher (Leonide "Leo" Moguy), James Remar (Butch Pooch / Ace Speck), David Steen (Mr. Stonecipher), Dana Gourrier (Cora), Nichole Galicia (Sheba), Laura Cayouette (Lara Lee Candie-Fitzwilly), Ato Essandoh (D'Artagnan), Sammi Rotibi (Rodney), Clay Donahue Fontenot (Luigi), Escalante Lundy (Big Fred), Miriam F. Glover (Betina), Don Johnson (Spencer "Big Daddy" Bennett), and Franco Nero (Amerigo Vessepi) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, #1307 - Jackie Brown, #1551 - Inglourious Basterds)

Review: 

"I want to explore something that really hasn't been done. I want to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to."

It should only figure that Quentin Tarantino had his eye on Sergio Corbucci. Tarantino was actually writing a book about the director when he found a way to tell a story that he wanted to make in a tribute to Spaghetti Westerns, one where he found inspiration in what he saw as Corbucci's "this evil Wild West, a horrible Wild West" in his feature. Specifically, Tarantino is doing a tribute to Corbucci's Django (1966), a film that the director co-wrote that featured Franco Nero as star involving a drifter and a companion mixed into a deadly feud between Confederates and Mexican revolutionaries. The film was made to capitalize on the success of Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars (1964), which in turn was a "loose" remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961). If you remember, Inglorious Basterds (2009) was made by Tarantino as his desire to make a Spaghetti Western but as a World War II film, and we all know how that went: good for some, okay for others. Here, he has made a film that he calls a "Southern" that is part of his long line of tributes to genres of film such as revenge films, road-rage movies, and martial arts films.

Honestly, I enjoyed the film far more than I thought I would, with my hopes being that it would be a slightly more interesting of sprawling alternate history than the weird jumble that came from his last feature. Of course, Waltz and Tarantino won Academy Awards for their work on the film (both winning their second award for acting and writing, respectively), so who knows what kind of expectations were to be had here from Tarantino's seventh feature. I felt it was a consistent pulp experience that shows its respect for the filmmakers of the past in terms of classic Western types without becoming just a carbon copy of the things that were. It packs a message about slavery and racism in a revenge movie that conveys a sense of scope and scale worth all of the attention it has received in the ten years that have passed since its release. It is dignified mayhem seemingly split into two segments: a movie about the repertoire of its two main stars and a movie about revenge through the eyes of Foxx. History is taken to the woodshed in a glorious manner, with Tarantino saying that he wanted to show two types of violence: the brutal reality of slave life and the violence of retribution, since he believes the genre of the Western reflects the time it was made in more than any other genre to go along with reflecting the morals and feelings of its audience. The Western may not be the most prevalent genre of the past few decades, but they sure do pull an interesting punch when a director is interested in generating fresh voices of the West. It is funny when you think about the fact that DiCaprio and Jackson don't show up until the first hour has passed in a 165-minute movie. And yet, the pair of Foxx and Waltz are ideal to hold everything together, making a great pairing in both chemistry and their distinct approach to the art of hired guns. Foxx is confident and capable to the task at hand, and it is interesting to see that he was not the first choice approached, since Tarantino wrote it with Will Smith in mind, but he rejected it (he wanted to make a love story, not one about vengeance, go figure). Foxx knows what he wants to do and say as a knight of vengeance that is never consumed in self-parody. Oh, the film does have little moments of humor between the two, particularly since Waltz plays dignity to an amoral(ish) killer, which he plays magnificently: they are fun together without making one think the whole film is just them and nothing else. DiCaprio is magnificent in clear-cut villainy in his time on screen that makes him suitably intense when you see him on screen. Jackson is the ideal foil in as the off-center moral compass with resourceful timing and the expressive nature you expect from him that makes him an ideal actor that has collaborated with Tarantino countless times. The rest of the cast proves worthwhile in their own contribution to the terror of dignity in 1858, whether that involves Johnson and his huckster plantation act or the oozing menace in Goggins or the weary fear in Washington. The movie has a wonderful design and atmosphere to it, but I am sure you already know that.

Well, the movie is probably not for everyone, which you might say for a number of Tarantino movies depending on one's patience for violence or language, particularly with the use of one particular word. However, the movie sat fine with me, since Tarantino has a keen eye for what he wants to show in violence and atmosphere without going up his own nose in gratuitous excess (he actually trimmed the film's violence down a bit before release anyway, even though it already received an R rating from the MPAA), despite what critics may think of his interest in not just making a message movie with the usual trimmings. What's not to ponder in a movie that seems a reference of phrenology, people being used as human shields, fighting to a pulp, supremacists dwelling on how hard it is to see out of a hood, and action that might as well be called Shaft (1971) on a horse? You know what really is more of a problem than violence in movies? Folks who really believe that toning things down is better than confronting them head on. It is the grisly Western that represents its era in all of the ways it needs to be: honest without condescending, brutal but not exploitative, and entertaining but not inattentive to the matter at hand. It is the sensation you would hope from Tarantino in the art of making fresh kinetic cinema. He may not hit the mark on every moment of bold brutality, but he knows where he is going without wandering too far from wanting to entertain himself and others.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.