Hamburger Hill.

Review #1591: Hamburger Hill.

Cast: 
Dylan McDermott (Sgt. Adam Frantz), Steven Weber (Sfc. Dennis Worcester), Courtney B. Vance (Spc. Abraham 'Doc' Johnson), Don Cheadle (Pvt. Johnny Washburn), Michael Boatman (Pvt. Ray Motown), Anthony Barrile (Pvt. Vincent 'Alphabet' Languilli), Michael Dolan (Pvt. Harry Murphy), Don James (Pvt. Elliott 'Mac' McDaniel), Michael A. Nickles (Pvt. Paul Galvan), Harry O'Reilly (Pvt. Michael Duffy), Daniel O'Shea (Pvt. Frank Gaigin), Tim Quill (Pvt. Joe Beletsky), Tommy Swerdlow (Pvt. Martin Bienstock), Tegan West (Lt. Terry Eden), and Kieu Chinh (Mama San) Directed by John Irvin.

Review:
"If you are able, save for them a place inside of you and save one backward glance when you are leaving for the places they can no longer go. Be not ashamed to say you loved them, though you may not have always. Take what they have left and what they have taught you with their dying and keep it with your own. And in that time when men decide and feel safe to call the war insane, take one moment to embrace those gentle heroes you left behind." - Major Michael Davis O'Donnell

My father shaped my experiences in watching film by the rows of films that were on the shelf collected by him while I grew up as a child. There was a small but significant portion of films that dealt with war in some way, which likely made sense with his service in Vietnam (he did not talk about it much, but the point remains). One of those films that stood firm was Hamburger Hill (1987). Time and time again one needs to look on a war film to see what seems familiar and what seems different from a depiction of a war, whether that means films made during the war itself (like The Green Berets (1968)) or ones made about the war years later (with or without a filmmaker with some war experience involved somewhere). Hamburger Hill came out in the run of the 1980s that depicted the war (with root from real life events or experiences) that ranged from Platoon (1986) to Casualties of War (1989). This was the sixth feature film from John Irvin, who apart from starting his work in television (with his most famous production being the miniseries Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) had done work in Vietnam in documentary filmmaking. The film was written by James Carabatsos (who also served as a co-producer), with this being the third of his six theatrical film efforts revolving around the war (the other two being Heroes (1977) and Heartbreak Ridge (1986)), as he had served in the 1st Air Cavalry Division in 1968; he did years of research in interviews with people of the conflict that took place over "Hill 937" from May 10-20 that is generally referred to as the Battle of Hamburger Hill.

As is the case with a number of war films, this one (produced by RKO Pictures) utilizes an ensemble cast, comprised of fresh faces that would include a few faces later to become familiar for subsequent works (whether involving film, television, or stage). Throughout the 110 minute run-time is a build to its title focus with a little bit of development before making its jump(s) to the battlefield, which generally turn out fine. As a chronicle of combat, it generally will rank well, mostly because it is a satisfactory film with unflinching perspective for the plight that comes with war that make it effective for what is needed. In other words, it's a good movie, sprinkling itself with a few interesting presences that we follow with as they try keep themselves from tearing oneself apart. The head among the cast (which has been listed both alphabetically or rank) falls to McDermott, making his feature debut. He does pretty well here, leading in steel weariness, young but still worthy in presence to lead folks on without being trapped in cliché. Vance (who had starred in the original 1987 Broadway production of Fences before making his film debut) also provides interest as the sense of soul for this group of folks to follow, hardened but still fascinating to view. Others do well in moments apart from warfare, such as with Weber, Boatman, or with Barrile, since one is dealing with a war of keeping one's will intact in a war of attrition and social unrest. By the the time the film makes its move on the hill (which took place over several assaults), the film is generally on its toes about where it wants to go in showing a group of people in a certain view without needless mythmaking or too much statement-making (although a scene jawing at reporters on the hill is certainly...interesting to think about). As a whole, it can certainly prove a harrowing pick for those who find interest in war films, whether for the experiences that come from it or something deeper inside.

Happy Veterans Day, folks.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

House of 1000 Corpses.

Review #1590: House of 1000 Corpses.

Cast: 

Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Bill Moseley (Otis), Sheri Moon Zombie (Baby), Karen Black (Mother Firefly), Chris Hardwick (Jerry Goldsmith), Erin Daniels (Denise Willis), Jennifer Jostyn (Mary Knowles), Rainn Wilson (Bill Hudley), Walton Goggins (Steve Naish), Tom Towles (Deputy George Wydell), Matthew McGrory (Tiny), Robert Allen Mukes (Rufus), Dennis Fimple (Grandpa Hugo), Harrison Young (Don Willis), William Bassett (Sheriff Frank Huston), Irwin Keyes (Ravelli), and Michael J. Pollard (Stucky) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007))

Review: 

"The first film I directed, which people seems to love, is just a calamitous mess. Well, when it came out it seemed like everyone hated it. Now everyone acts like it’s beloved in some way. All I see is flaw, upon flaw, upon flaw… upon flaw.”

Sure, there have been quite a few directors that came across film after having made a name for themselves with another form of media. But how many were musician-turned-directors? Rob Zombie (born Robert Cummings) is one such director. He grew up with an three-pronged fantasy of being like Alice Cooper, Steven Spielberg and Stan Lee, having grown up with an interest in horror as a young child, noting the boom of horror in the late 1960s with media that ranged from The Munsters to magazines like Famous Monsters, although other favorites later included Dawn of the Dead (1978) and Westerns. The Massachusetts native attended both the Pratt Institute and the Parsons School of Design for a time before coming up with the idea for what became the band White Zombie in 1985, which he co-founded with Sean Yseult. Alongside others in the band, they contributed four albums over the next thirteen years, eventually finding recognition for their heavy metal sound, with Zombie directing the music videos. His first album after going solo was influenced by classic horror films (complete with some songs having samples and quotes from his favorites) while also doing work for various media (including animation for Beavis and Butt-Head Do America in 1996). He expressed an interest in directing in 1997, with an actual plan to have him write and direct a sequel to The Crow (set in 2037, I kid you not) before it was shelved. He worked with Universal Studios in designing a haunted maze attraction in 1999, and it was its success that led to them wanting to work with him on a film (thought of on the spot while designing another attraction), which he started directing in 2000. The resulting film did not please Universal, who shelved it in fears of receiving a NC-17 rating due to its violence (an Adults Only rating, as if Universal decided releasing a violent horror film was suddenly too much) before Lionsgate Films eventually signed on to release it, with this serving as the first of so far seven theatrical films directed and written by Zombie.

One can see the influence of films such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) and Spider Baby (1968) while also seeing the drive-in qualities that make a gritty and weird experience. Is it for everyone? You best believe it isn't for everyone, because for some it will feel tedious even at 89 minutes for where it wants to go in the art of the grotesque, a film that seems constricted by its influences to be anything more original. On the other hand, there are arguments to be made in favor of Zombie and his direction (alongside co-contribution to the music with Scott Humphrey) when it comes to his mix of horror and dark humor with ghoulish charm, which is why it has proved to have a cult following (alongside two sequels released in 2005 and 2019). I can firmly state that while it may not be exactly as well-developed as something like say Motel Hell (1980), I found enjoyment with its vision of macabre thrill and a fairly consistent cast to make it a worthwhile effort. I found it to be pretty enjoyable, in the sense that it made a madhouse worth investing time to look into without being driven senseless into gore without something to go along with it, even if it isn't exactly the most subtle horror film (its setting of the 1970s is believable to those who want to pretend it looks like that era). To start off, one goes with the first focus-point in Haig, the actor-turned-hypnotherapist-turned actor again (going from blaxploitation and heavy roles to horror). He mainly has three scenes to highlight, but he sure makes them ones to enjoy in ghoulish curiosity, amusing but effective in keeping you on your toes (he, alongside Moseley and S.Zombie, would feature in both sequels). Mosley (best known for his role in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) alongside other cult horror films) proves just as fiendish in grabbing attention to creep on one's shoulders, demented but useful to what is needed from him. S.Zombie (a dance choreographer and fashion designer that has featured in each of her husband's films) does fine with providing wicked allure for what is needed here, wrapped in terror just like the others that holds well with other fellow familiar actors in horror, such as the case with Black (long noted for work in independent films alongside horror fare), soothing but just as out there with the other members of family creeps (one that seems reminiscent of the Mansion family, what with Zombie inspired by recordings of them for the rants presented here). The other side of the action is the doomed travelers, which is mostly amusing to think back to the faces that eventually found prominence beyond horror, which involves Wilson, eventual star of The Office (2005) and Hardwick, comedian and podcast host (if one is into that sort of thing...no comment). They, alongside Daniels and Jostyn are just fine, in a room temperature kind of charm. I mean, we're watching a haunted ride of ghoulish people that murder people, the least one can do is make sure we aren't taken out of the experience with some jarring seriousness or bland set-ups for body counts. In that sense, I found it to be just enough to win out in the end, despite my reservations about its unwieldy consistency, which may seem like an excuse for Zombie to show off with references or in its weird cuts to those who desire more. It is exactly the kind of weird drive-in charm that makes Zombie an interesting face in horror cinema, one with a passion for the genre that yearns to creep its viewers out to their enjoyment (whether squeamish or not). It's a love it or hate it kind of movie - and I'm just fine with what it is.

Well, it's November 7th. I'm glad to have reached just as many films done in the week following Halloween as it was for the year before with five, and I hope you enjoyed Halloween: The Week After Part II. You can always throw suggestions in for horror films to be done any time of the year, but it is fun to make time for ones to really highlight in the month of fear alongside my personal extension week - enjoy the fun. There may or may not be another themed week coming up before the year ends, so stay tuned.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Hellraiser.

Review #1589: Hellraiser.

Cast:

Clare Higgins (Julia Cotton), Ashley Laurence (Kirsty Cotton), Andrew Robinson (Larry Cotton), Sean Chapman (Frank Cotton), Robert Hines (Steve), Doug Bradley (Lead Cenobite), Nicholas Vince (Chattering Cenobite), Simon Bamford (Butterball Cenobite), Grace Kirby (Female Cenobite), and Oliver Smith ("Skinless" Frank / Frank the Monster) Written and Directed by Clive Barker.

Review:

"I see no reason to apologise for any kind of generic formation. As you know, you go back to some of the most striking images, the most lasting images, in cinema, and they come from horror films. Some people think horror films are some sort of second-class filmmaking, and the only way we can hope to bypass that thinking is by being proud of the fact that we do it."

"There was no doubt in my mind that this unnamed guy with the pins in his head had a certain je ne sais quoi that a mattress-delivery guy didn’t."

As goes the writer, goes the director, you might say. Clive Barker was originally an author, having studied at the University of Liverpool in English and Philosophy. Barker had an eclectic amount of influences growing up in terms of media that ranged from authors such as Herman Melville (such as Moby Dick, once described as his favorite novel) to William Blake to films as well. He did work in the theatre at first with plays starting in 1967 (while also occasionally doing work with 8mm and 16mm film) before moving into writing with 1985, which focused on horror and fantasy. The source material for this film was his second work in The Hellbound Heart (1986), a novella, which drew upon his experiences in hustling as a prostitute (as he did when needing to pay bills as a struggling writer). Barker was spurred to do his own film based on the experience of seeing two of his stories be turned into films (described as "cinematic abominations" by him, since he wrote both screenplays) in Underworld (1985) and Rawhead Rex (1986), with an intent to direct something cheap - enter Roger Corman's New World Pictures, which gave him $900,000 to fund the film. The design of the film was inspired by his experiences at night clubs (such as seeing people pierced for fun). He was inexperienced at the art of directing, but he managed on with a mix of fairly tolerant cast and crew that did not balk at the first time director (the one stipulation that the studio did have however came with dubbing some of the accents to make what was a British tale seem more American).

What we have here is a horror film of the senses, mixing pain and pleasure for some interesting visceral moments. It sets most of its 93 minutes within the confines of a house horror film that builds tension with its ooze of atmospheric dread that make it understandable to see why there was more than one Hellraiser film. In fact, there were nine subsequent films, with Barker helping to write an outline for Hellbound: Hellraiser II as its executive producer before taking less duties with the third film while Bradley starred in seven of those sequels, and a television series was recently announced to be in development. In any case, the film sticks out among others of its decade in its difference from the popular aim of the time in slashers - there are moments with blood, but it seems more serious with its approach than say, A Nightmare on Elm Street [1984] (although each are equally qualified in horror). To me, there are moments that remind me of the vampire story, what with a character that desires blood while being confined to a certain place for the day for others to help do his bidding, although an inspiration for the film was actually the urban legend of "The Devil's Toy Box". In any case, the real threat involves the Cenobites, who can't tell the difference between pleasure and pain that can be angels or demons depending on one's perception that seemed to have a repulsive glamour (with a design inspired by S&M clubs, as stated by Barker).

One starts at first with Higgins (an actress of the stage in native London and Broadway), one who we follow along with in pursuit to deception and lust that nevertheless is compelling to follow. Laurence goes along with curiosity on the other side of pursuit with the box without being turned into a vehicle for cheap screams (her and Higgins would return in the sequel). Robinson (best known for his villainous role in Dirty Harry) also does well here as the family man needed to contrast the macabre (at least to a point). Chapman captures craven crawling with the moments needed in pursuit as the last key of the human puzzle needed in nature. The Cenobites sure are a highlight in design, and it only seems fitting that Bradley (a close friend of Barker for over a decade prior to this film) would eventually take bigger focus with each passing film, dignified in quiet tone that seems reminiscent of Christopher Lee's portrayal of Dracula - fine by me, obviously (it should be noted that the eventual name given to his character was not actually by Barker but by the crew). In general, the film works best in grisly terror for what one sees and feels from terror from the deep dark senses that found a following and place within horror that stood beyond the litany of follow-up sequels that came after it in the three decades that followed because of what Barker did to keep his vision to make the screen.

Next Time: House of 1000 Corpses

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Day of the Dead.

Review #1588: Day of the Dead.

Cast: 

Lori Cardille (Dr. Sarah Bowman), Joseph Pilato (Captain Henry Rhodes), Terry Alexander (John), Jarlath Conroy (William "Bill" McDermott), Richard Liberty (Dr. Matthew "Frankenstein" Logan), Anthony Dileo Jr. (Pvt. Miguel Salazar), Sherman Howard (Bub), Gary Howard Klar (Pvt. Steel), Ralph Marrero (Pvt. Rickles), John Amplas (Dr. Fisher), and Phillip G. Kellams (Pvt. Miller) Written and Directed by George A. Romero (#738 - Night of the Living Dead (1968) and #1155 - Dawn of the Dead (1978))

Review: 

"I just wanted to make a film about something extraordinary that is happening and the people are unable to grasp it. They continue to argue about stupid things instead of recognizing that there’s something really awful going on. So that’s what I wanted, and I thought, ‘What if the dead don’t stay dead and what if they were going around eating people?’ That was my idea of something awful!”

When it comes to the first zombie film, the general argument is that White Zombie (1932) was the first one to be released, and the subsequent decade that followed resulted in other "zombie" films like I Walked with a Zombie (1943). However, the latter half of the 20th century found a new voice for zombie films, one that has generally led to him being nicknamed the "Father of the Zombie Film." That man was George A. Romero. Romero found an appreciation of film as a child growing up in New York City, with one film that shaped him being The Tales of Hoffmann (1951), which he appreciated for the power of visual media that could be experimented with a film like this (as done by the famed duo of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger). He attended and graduated from Carnegie Mellon University in 1960 and moved to doing projects in commercial work for the next few years (one of which being work with Mister Rogers' Neighborhood). Alongside his friend John Russo and Russell Streiner, they aspired to make a horror movie together, which they would do with various producers for a small budget in Pittsburgh. That film, written by Romero and Russo, was Night of the Living Dead (1968). Its grisly effects alongside its devastating story about human nature at the forefront of an apocalypse proved to be a classic of independent cinema and for horror as a whole. Ten years passed before the USA/Italy co-production of Dawn of the Dead (1978), which is thought to be as compelling as the earlier film from a decade prior if not better. Romero mixed horror with drama in the second gap between "Living Dead" films with Knightriders (1981) and Creepshow (1982, a film on the waitlist for quite some time) before his aspiration to make "the Gone with the Wind of zombie films" with this feature, which he wrote and directed.

Romero described this film as a tragedy involving lost communication and chaos within a small "pie slice of society." The tragedy besides that is the fact that Romero had to reduce his original intent when producers curtailed the budget that led to reduction of the script by Romero, who aspired for a unrated version while United Film Distribution Company balked at the idea of doing an estimated $7 million project even with an R-rating - this led to Romero cutting his script (reportedly around 200 pages) to make for a film that could be done on $3.5 million. With the 1968 film, it dealt with an assault on a farmhouse with a growing spread of un-dead, with the 1978 film dealt with a larger scale crisis that had an assault on a shopping mall. Here, we have a film where the humans really are on the run (estimated to be about 400,000 zombies for every one living person), barricading themselves in bunkers and trying to find some sort of possible solution to the pandemic of zombies before the other conflict bubbles onto the surface - the struggle of humans to get along and stick together. When it comes to comparisons between the films, Day of the Dead has been regarded as a lesser follow-up to Dawn of the Dead, but honestly it is still a pretty enjoyable effort in the art of panic within survival, and in some ways it could be thought of as a misunderstood classic. Romero wanted to make another film about panic with humankind and the undead with a certain type of actors involved, ones that while not exactly well known still make a useful effort to the growing sense of paranoia and fear that make a worthwhile time in nerves with its own kind of thoughtful ending (which could be argued to be the most hopeful or just as indefinite as the others); like the other two films, it also has been remade (twice, actually!), and a television series is reportedly in development. Romero would not return to the undead creatures until two decades later with Land of the Dead (2005).

The characters have been criticized in part for the varying level of unlikable aspects to them, but I find it pretty appropriate for such a tense movie, one that depicts a conflict of reason and aggression that is reminiscent of before from Romero without being a rehash. He wanted to make a tragedy and I think he succeeded pretty well with what he set out to do. Cardille (daughter of Bill Cardille, featured in the first Dead film) headlines the cast with well-done tolerance, handling her side of tension with useful timing that balances time spent in combat with strong assertive conviction that seems stronger as a lead than other before her, mostly because she makes a worthy double act with the other side of conflict with structure besides undead ghouls, which is where Pilato comes in. Pilato (whose first role as an actor was a bit part in Dawn of the Dead) is undeniably the highlight of the film, making a brash study of instability and stubborn nature come out with great interest that reflects the film in paranoia without seeming too privy to just being ham for the sake of it, an absolute perfect foil to grit the teeth with. Alexander makes a calm third rail in all the hubbub with a bit of soothing charm. Liberty does quite well here in parts, delivering ghoulish charm in the curiosity that befits what the film lightly presents with the making of a zombie, which naturally goes hand in hand with the instinct delivered by Howard that ranks as the one and best performance of a member of the undead in these films in warm curiosity. The other actors are average at best, but at least they don't trip over the overall tone of the film in bleak horror, where accusation and miscommunication is just as horrifying as the prospect of being ripped apart by members of the undead without any bullets present. The effects are just as effective in visceral power (even when having to deal with warm conditions that came with filming in a former mine shaft in Pennsylvania), with credit deservedly going to Tom Savini and his team for making a clever experience Romero reflected on the film in subsequent years as the one that was his favorite, stating that it accomplished the goal he set out to do with another Dead film in making it different from the previous film as one that is "very much me", which is generally reflected well in its 100 minute run-time. It's a bleak movie, but it's a worthwhile bleak movie that is engaging in its tone in surviving a land with lost structure with tense execution that fits upon the landscape in a distinct place among horror in the 35 years that have passed since its release. It isn't the best film from Romero, but it still serves as a well-done testament to his vision about showing the horror in both the living and undead of a society in its third different phase that maintains his place as a director deserving of one's curiosity in the horror genre.

Next Time: Hellraiser.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dracula A.D. 1972.

Review #1587: Dracula A.D. 1972.

Cast:

Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Peter Cushing (Lorrimer Van Helsing / Lawrence Van Helsing), Stephanie Beacham (Jessica Van Helsing), Christopher Neame (Johnny Alucard / Follower of Dracula - 1872), Marsha Hunt (Gaynor Keating), Caroline Munro (Laura Bellows), Michael Coles (Inspector Murray), Janet Key (Anna Bryant), Michael Kitchen (Greg), and Lally Bowers (Matron Party Hostess) Directed by Alan Gibson (#477 - The Satanic Rites of Dracula)

Review:

Well, here we are again, with another Dracula film. One can always look upon the last one of the Hammer films they see and just make up their own continuity about how there is yet another appearance of the famed icon in elegant-ish horror from the British. One of the films involved death by running water, another involved a test of faith to take down the vampire, and another involved a plague across the world spread by Dracula. This is the seventh of nine overall Dracula film made by Hammer Film Productions, which had started with Dracula (#258) in 1958. The previous film was the 1970 film Scars of Dracula (one of two I have not covered, with the other being the The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974), the true end of the series). Technically one can't finalize a best/worst of the sequels to the original (which I last watched eight years ago with engagement) without having seen all nine films, but one can definitely pull an opinion of the choices to pull Dracula into the 20th century setting with this film - Dracula A.D. 1972 is most definitely a lesser sequel, one that cannot justify itself or its premise even with the promise of having Peter Cushing back into the fray for the first time in a Hammer Dracula film in twelve years (with this being his third of five appearances).

Supposedly the film took inspiration from an actual media case involving supposed vampires that occurred in London in the late 1960s that involved graveyard desecration and supposed mysterious figures being sighted (which naturally involved "vampire hunters" that occurred in Highgate Cemetery. Sure, "vampire hunters" and figures seen in the dark near the graves seem like an apt inspiration when it comes to Dracula, but it doesn't do any favors in the eyeroll of the skeptic with horror, that much is true (one detail of the Highgate sensation involved hunters that were also supposed to have a "magic duel" with each other, I kid you not). The film was written by Don Houghton, who you might recognize from his work on television programs such as Doctor Who (which he wrote two serials from 1970-71), and he would also write the following two films of the Dracula series. Again, the continuity is up to the viewer to pick and poke with, since there are only occasionally dates referred to in these films anyway (the original Dracula was apparently set in 1885, while this film depicts a final fight between Van Helsing and Dracula in 1872, and if you go by Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968, #860), that was set in the early 20th century - oh, and Van Helsing's first name in the original was- never mind, I give up). So yes, the main setting is indeed with swinging hippies in 1972 (i.e. padding) to wash away a charming little start with Cushing and Lee before Cushing is back again at minute 20 (Lee comes back 15 minutes after that). Oh, right, I forgot, there's a bunch of swinging 70s characters, which I guess is supposed to be more fresh than having the usual 19th century British folks, no doubt inspired by the success of earlier 70s vampire films like Count Yorga, Vampire (1970). Is there any more semblance of "plot" than before? Nope, and it only goes to show that just having Lee and Cushing back can't override the sense of boredom that comes from hippies and a Dracula that only comes around to lurk a few feet, never really experiencing the swinging locale besides having people being brought in to scream. Jeez, the blood being poured into the chalice (with ashes from 1872) can't even bring the fright level up. All that is happening is padding but with "hip" stuff, and Lee and Cushing literally only show up together again with five minutes left of a 96 minute feature. They are both at their usual level of curiosity, but they clearly have had better scripts to go along with (after all, they starred in a far better film with Horror Express the same year as this one). Beacham is okay in trying to draw new blood on the catacombs of familiarity, which works to a point in some tension while being quite bland in other respects. Neame is quite silly here, a laughable stooge of dark arts that is at his most bewildering in the fight between him and Cushing - fear the might that comes from a rising sun and "moveable mirrors" to go with water to end it all - oh the horror (there is even a scene that does the whole Alucard = Dracula bit...older fans might recognize this as a familiar bit from Son of Dracula (1943), of all things). At least Munro gets to have a scream scene to note. As a whole, it's a bland movie, reminding me of the "How do you do, fellow kids?" meme that shows the age of the Hammer films even with attempts to move from Victorian era making to 1970s stuff that shows plaque on the fangs of Dracula more than anything. To be fair, there are supporters of the film, with Tim Burton even once calling it one of his favorite films. If one finds something to like or found it to be one of the blocks that built scares as a kid, all power to you. It's a jumbled mess, but it is likely one you could find some amusement with just along the line of the other Dracula films from Hammer - for better or worse.

Next Time: Day of the Dead.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Revenge of the Creature.

Review #1586: Revenge of the Creature.

Cast:
John Agar (Prof. Clete Ferguson), Lori Nelson (Helen Dobson), John Bromfield (Joe Hayes), Nestor Paiva (Lucas), Grandon Rhodes (Jackson Foster), Dave Willock (Lou Gibson), Robert Williams (George Johnson), Charles Cane (Police Captain), Robert F. Hoy (Charlie), Brett Halsey (Pete), with Ricou Browning (Gill-man - Underwater), and Tom Hennesy (Gill-man - Land) Directed by Jack Arnold (#420 - The Incredible Shrinking Man, #464 - It Came from Outer Space, and #1290 - Creature from the Black Lagoon)

Review:
Undeniably, it is hard to make a sequel work. But hey, having a director return is at least a promising start. Jack Arnold read science fiction as a child, and he wanted to be an actor growing up before serving in the Signal Corps (and later the Air Corps) in World War II, learning under Robert Flaherty on camera work in military films. From his first film in With These Hands (1950) until his last film (a TV production) in 1980, Arnold had a career of three decades as director, yet it was the films he made involving science fiction that have lasted in the public consciousness. Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) and The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957), his best regarded films, happened to be released by Universal Pictures. The first film had been written by Harry Essex, Arthur Ross, and Maurice Zimm, while Revenge of the Creature would be done by Martin Berkeley and William Alland (who like the first film also served as producer). The film was primarily filmed in Marineland, Florida (a town that has the oceanarium of the same name), as the Gill-man now has his biggest foe: being trapped in a marine park.

If you can believe it, this film is not exactly up to the standards of the prior Gill-man film a year earlier. One way to start is the fact that a good part of its 82 minute run-time is spent with the creature just being trapped away from its surroundings in a tank, while Agar and Nelson serve as our new human focuses, while the only ones to return are Lucas (for the first few minutes, anyway) and Browning. The first feeling one has for this film is "rushed", because this is seriously the best idea they could come up with? Actually, I should have seen this coming, because one would have to be convinced by its opening sequence to even sell the idea of capturing the not-quite dead Gill-man: they blow up the water with dynamite and knock out the creature (hey, it works to get fish, why not a fish/human looking hybrid?). Agar and Nelson lead the film in their study of the creature, and they sure are a boring duo to lead the way through. Bromfield isn't really much better, and Paiva is again only there for a momentary time and is then just out of the film (unsurprisingly, it seems like the creature has less bodies to sort through this time, although there is a slight novelty in seeing a scene with a young Clint Eastwood appear). Somehow, it just all seemed more interesting before with the pursuit of the leading lady by the Gill-man a year before, mostly because one was interested in this ancient amphibious creature of the sea in its sympathy and interest driven by the bare surroundings of life around him (some people even found inspiration in having sympathy for the creature for their own film, such as with The Shape of Water (2017)). Here, it is a bunch of wooden acting that interact with the creature too many times in the water that make it seem like one is at the zoo, which makes it a rather tiresome affair to wait for the inevitable escape. The costume for the Gill-man looks a bit different here, seeming a bit more easier to breathe for its costumer, which may or may not help in terms of seeing googly eyes when the monster does appear in his cell-tank from time to time. The creature even gets the same fate as before, being shot by an array of bullets after his captured lady escapes his clutches, as if this end is any more final than the one before (with a sequel following a year later, owing to the fair success of this film). There seems to be more inevitability this time around, which doesn't benefit a film that looks like it was made just to further the profits along, but it seems to honor one Universal horror tradition in mediocre sequel-making as opposed to abysmal quality-making. It isn't anybody's best feature, but those who would like to see more from director Arnold or for some occasional gill-man horror might be okay with the 82 minute run-time for a lark. It doesn't go enough to recommend it as a positive winner, but average isn't too far off.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Surprise! In a year that spread horror films lightly across the year, it never hurts to further the horror trend with Halloween: The Week After Part II, which will continue with surprises along the way until November 7.

1917.

Review #1585: 1917.

Cast: 

George MacKay (Lance Corporal William "Will" Schofield), Dean-Charles Chapman (Lance Corporal Thomas "Tom" Blake), Mark Strong (Captain Smith), Andrew Scott (Lieutenant Leslie), Richard Madden (Lieutenant Joseph Blake), Claire Duburcq (Lauri), Colin Firth (General Erinmore), Benedict Cumberbatch (Colonel Mackenzie), Daniel Mays (Sergeant Sanders), and Adrian Scarborough (Major Hepburn) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall)

Review: 

“I wanted something that had the quality of a dream at times, but had real-life stakes. Any narrative, any fiction is a compression in time, a compression of character. You’re trying to find the tip of an iceberg. And if the tip is well done, the iceberg becomes clear. You don’t have to see it if you know it’s there.”

Most films in some form have something to do with family. Sam Mendes was inspired to do the film from stories that were told to him by his grandfather Alfred Mendes about his service in World War I. The elder Mendes was born in Trinidad in 1897, with chances of study in university being curtailed by the start of the Great War (also known as World War I). He served in the war under the 1st Battalion King's Royal Rifle Brigade and carried messages between no-man's land through the muddy trenches of war. After his war service, he wrote short stories and novels while working in provisions and civil service. His grandson Sam was the son of an author and a professor, who first developed an interest in cinema from a young age. His studies at Peterhouse, Cambridge helped him find interest in theatre as well, where he directed a number of plays at the Marlowe Society before his graduation in 1987. He soon became a director for plays in the theatre that rose in prominence over the next decade and a half before being brought in to direct his first ever film with American Beauty (1999), a tremendous success (he aspired to make films like the ones he had seen at Cambridge, such as Paris, Texas (1984), Repo Man (1984), and River's Edge (1986)). Other films (mostly successes) followed in its wake, with this being his eighth feature film (and first script written, done with Krysty Wilson-Cairns). He described his idea to do a film based on a messenger on a short time period to where he needs to go in the trenches of war that he described was "fundamentally about paralysis and stasis", one that would appear as two continuous shots (with the use of long takes). The primary stars and supporting characters are fictional, but the film's inspiration is Operation Alberich, in which Germany made their withdrawal to change their positions on the Hindenburg Line that happened in the span of a month in 1917 (as opposed to the date of April 6, 1917 that the film begins its story). 

There have been quite a number of war films over the years, with a portion of them revolving around World War I in some manner, whether that involves the silent era with The Big Parade (1925), or with sound in novel adaptations like All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Paths of Glory (1957) or further down the line of perspective with Gallipoli (1981). To me, the sense of urgency that comes with the film seems a bit reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan (1999, a messenger film of sorts) or perhaps a more modern example would be with Dunkirk (2017, which dealt with an escape through three storylines and minimal dialogue), and the enjoyment of the film comes from how much of its filmmaking reaches you in interest for its urgent pacing for 119 minutes. The camera almost seems like a person following these two main characters at times, as cinematographer Roger Deakins weaves together a dynamic look and execution to following along with the span of one moment in time. For better or worse, the film is more a technical achievement than an achieved war film - it is fairly entertaining, in the same way that it will generally keep you on your toes for what could come around the screen next, but it can be easy to see a small divide between viewers that find marvel with its shot structure and others who find it more distracting to the real sense of the war as a whole. Having just two main characters mixed in with a group of glorified cameos also in some ways seems to tinker with its magnitude of war. MacKay does well with a role on the routine, having to move fast with bits and pieces of useful dialogue mixed in with the sounds of war that are fine without being wooden - in other words, we can follow him fine in those long takes without constantly checking our watch. Chapman does alright as well with his time to spend on screen, as each make for a useful duo that can have small exchanges beyond just the mission, such as when they have to get through a trapped place with one blind leap. The others come and go in parts, notably with Firth as the one detailing the mission, Strong as one of the leaders in transport, and Cumberbatch as the person to focus on to end the goal, and they all do fine here (it isn't exactly a role to mug the scenery if the camera is on the move anyway). As a whole, it is generally engaging with its intent of urgent moviemaking that will likely prove fascinating for those looking to find films of its era that capture curiosity in technical terms with a good hand guiding the way to looking back to the past as a way to keep it around in the present.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And so this ends the Tribute to the Decades project (January-October). This was the largest project that Movie Night has ever had, and it is that drive to do ten months of reviews to cover a wide range of films that led to this being the greatest year ever for writing (the previous record was 242 in 2012), and it isn't quite over yet. Plans for what happens next will be on a smaller scale (namely, not more themed months for a while), but I hope you all enjoyed this project for what it covered and what it could have covered - Thanks, folks.

Parasite (2019).

Review #1584: Parasite.

Cast: 

Song Kang-ho (Kim Ki-taek), Lee Sun-kyun (Park Dong-ik), Cho Yeo-jeong (Choi Yeon-gyo), Choi Woo-shik (Kim Ki-woo), Park So-dam (Kim Ki-jung), Lee Jung-eun (Gook Moon-gwang), Jang Hye-jin (Chung-sook), Park Myung-hoon (Oh Geun-se), Jung Ji-so (Park Da-hye), Jung Hyeon-jun (Park Da-song), Park Keun-rok (Yoon), and Park Seo-joon (Min-hyuk) Directed by Bong Joon-ho.

Review: 

"It's not that they were parasites from the start. They are our neighbors, friends and colleagues, who have merely been pushed to the edge of a precipice. As a depiction of ordinary people who fall into an unavoidable commotion, this film is: a comedy without clowns, a tragedy without villains, all leading to a violent tangle and a headlong plunge down the stairs. You are all invited to this unstoppably fierce tragicomedy."

Korea has had plenty of film directors in the century that has followed from the first Korean film in 1919, and it is a welcome occasion to add another name to the list, particularly one that has rocketed himself to prominence both in South Korea and abroad like no other in Bong Joon-ho. He was the son of a professor of art that grew up in Seoul. Bong was inspired to direct movies by seeing his father doing drawing as a child, and seeing films on television also helped in that regard. He made his first films while being in college (such as with stop motion and 16mm) before graduating and moving on to study at the Korean Academy of Film Arts. He moved on to working on other films in cinematography and writing before getting the chance to direct his first feature film with Barking Dogs Never Bite (2000). Memories of Murder (2003) proved his major breakthrough in South Korea (being one of the biggest hits of its year), while The Host (2006) proved even more popular. This was the seventh feature film from Bong. It was during production on Snowpiercer (2013; the first of two films to feature Hollywood stars) that he came up with the idea for the film (he had been a math tutor of a wealthy family for two months as a teenager), inspired by a suggestion from a friend to do a play (which has limited space but spurred on a story that could be told with two houses), with the second half ideas coming in the last few months of writing (he wrote the story by himself while co-writing the screenplay with Han Jin-won). He has stated in interviews about the divide in South Korea in terms of "relative wealth" as widening, and he described the film as "neutral" more than just being a film about clashing class systems, aiming for bittersweet with honesty rather than random hope (he also noted one inspiration being Kim Ki-young's 1960 film The Housemaid) - he also once argued that you could see either family as being a parasite in their own way, so there's also that point to consider of a film with numerous surface levels to look upon.

There was certainly a bit of high expectations, mostly because it was one of the most talked about movies of 2019 (the one defense I have is the fact that I never saw it advertised as playing in my local theater, and 2019 was certainly a busy theater year), and the Academy Award wins (including the first international-language film to win Best Picture) only cemented the curiosity. The art of a great film can come from the balance of tragedy and comedy. The art of seeing human fallibility depicted with such tremendous skill and honesty is what makes this a tremendously devastating film. It does so much without needing to be in your face about what it is saying, whether that involves elements of family drama, dark comedy, suspense, and particularly satire. One of my favorite little things about the film is the fact that both of the family houses for the film were actually sets, with one of them being designed by the director and the other doubled as a water tank. In general, this is a well-crafted film in its details that spring from its look to its management of tone that never wilts, keeping the attention of the viewer high while leaving a curious question or two to ponder after it ends (it is a film with shades of gray, after all). The acting (with a main core of seven) lives up to the enjoyment of the film. Song (who had worked with Bong before) makes for an engaging performance, capable of the everyman type that can be clever in moments that can either reflect a dark comic tone or family drama. Lee reflects this just as well on the other side of the coin in the family dynamic, engaging at a distance that make for some useful moments in the house (such as talking about someone's smell when believing he is only in the company of his wife). Cho does well in reflecting naivety without being used for ultra-cheap amusement. Choi and Park make worthy youthful sly support, while Jang contributes well to snide humor on the side. Rounding out the cast is J.Lee and M.Park, a reflection upon a reflection in people living on the margins with their own sense of craven desperation. The film takes its time with 132 minutes to set its surroundings and characters with delicate precision while allowing its story to breathe in observation (as opposed to having a soapbox moment). Once it jumps into another gear with its movement for the second half, it proves a roaring ride of carefully crafted thrills within its dark humor for those who enjoy what it aspires to tell about society in some form while not seeming like it will age badly. It proves worth a watch as a classic for the era and a stand-out film for South Korean cinema and its well-regarded director in Bong as a whole with its well balance of cast, story, and style.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

A Star is Born (2018).

Review #1583: A Star is Born.

Cast: 

Lady Gaga (Ally Maine), Bradley Cooper (Jackson "Jack" Maine), Sam Elliott (Bobby Maine), Andrew Dice Clay (Lorenzo), Rafi Gavron (Rez Gavron), Anthony Ramos (Ramon), Dave Chappelle (George "Noodles" Stone), Greg Grunberg (Phil), Shangela Laquifa Wadley (Bar Emcee), Willam Belli (Emerald), Ron Rifkin (Carl), Rebecca Field (Gail), with Michael Harney (Wolfie), and Lukas Nelson & Promise of the Real. Directed by Bradley Cooper.

Review: 
"I always knew, goddamn it, I’m gonna have to at some point put it out there, directorial debut. And then I was like, when am I gonna have the guts to do it? And I also knew I could only direct something that I had a point of view about. And I always wanted to tell a love story. I thought, there’s nothing better for me cinematically to able to tell a love story, like a real love story, a broken love story."

Here we are again, seeing the old become new with prominent faces behind it to headline a new take on the traditional stardom story. One starts with the director, who also served as director, co-producer, co-writer (with Eric Roth and Will Fetters), and singer. Bradley Cooper wanted to become an actor when he was introduced to films like The Elephant Man (1980), which he later starred in a Broadway adaptation of. The Philadelphia native studied at Villanova University before transferring and graduating from Georgetown University with studies in English. He trained in acting with the Actors Studio and got into acting on television in 1999 and film soon after. Regular work and some recognition came with the TV series Alias and Wedding Crashers (2005), but it was his starring role with The Hangover (2009), which had two subsequent sequels with him as star alongside films like Silver Linings Playbook (2012) that helped him find prominence as a lead. But of course there are two stars to nearly every film, so enter Lady Gaga. Encouraged as a child to be a "cultured young woman", she learned music from a very young age such as the piano while also doing high school stage productions. She also studied method acting at the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute and Collaborative Arts Project 21, although she dropped out of the latter school to focus on music. Her album The Fame (2008) was her first success, and she has moved on to further success with her music that range from electronic to dance to pop; this is only her second film role (not counting a handful of appearances as herself in documentaries), having had her first prominent television role in American Horror Story: Hotel (2015). 

The strange thing is that I forgot to do this film when it originally came out. Even though I had seen the first two films of the same name, I honestly did not think to do this film because it was quite a busy time to do other stuff (that, and it felt better to cover the other film...which took nearly two years to do). So, why not a quick little rundown of each of the three films: The original film was released in 1937 with a story by William A. Wellman and Robert Carson (with several other writers contributing and direction by Wellman). It is the only one to not have any songs (since it isn't a musical) - as a whole, it was a pretty good movie, tender in its setup between stars Janet Gaynor and Fredric March that was noted for having similar aspects to What Price Hollywood? (1932) alongside inspiration from the marriage of Barbara Stanwyck and Frank Fay. The 1954 remake (written by Moss Hart) was a grand classic with Judy Garland and James Mason as the key stars, dynamic in its music with well-timed direction from George Cukor. The 1976 version (written by John Gregory Dunne, Joan Didion, and Frank Pierson), starring Barbra Streisand & Kris Kristofferson and directed by Frank Pierson, was a monumentally cheesy affair, an ego-trip involving Streisand that can't sell romance nor as a rock star. It shouldn't be a surprise that there had been plans by Warner Brothers to do another A Star is Born for years, with ideas of casting stars being as early as 2000 that looked for directors such as Clint Eastwood and musicians such as Beyoncé; Cooper expressed interest in doing the film despite close friends warning him. 

What we have is a romance between country rock and pop, which seems more fermented in attempts at honesty within addiction and fame that may rank it just as good as the 1954 version if not better. Gaga does well with trying to hew down-to-earth quality in terms of find confidence within dazzling chemistry with Cooper that is enjoyable to see her journey through soulful singing that includes an easy favorite performance with "Shallow" that keeps the line between celebrity and vulnerable at the right distance. Cooper simply makes a welcome debut in directing, one that seems like a personal film for him (as he also struggled with alcohol addiction early in his career), and all that training of singing and music-playing seems to have paid off greatly - he grits his way towards struggle and self-assured damage with the right sense of conviction needed to make a worthy pair come alive with star-crossed romance. Elliott carries his traditional resonant presence and voice with efficiency, easily believable to see interact with Cooper with resolved and unresolved ends of brotherly conflict and love. Clay (a stand-up comedian with various turns in acting - both comedic and drama) proves equally as useful in homespun warmness, useful for what is needed in his scenes with Gaga without becoming sopped in sentimentality. Gavron, Ramos, and Chappelle round out the cast well enough in the edges with what is needed, whether in ambition or devotion. As a whole, it makes a worthwhile 136 minutes in how it makes a fine-tuning on the original structure from before that seems fresh enough to seem necessary while having interesting presence and an engaging soundtrack full of songs (which Cooper and Gaga did live, by the request of the latter) that are pretty enjoyable in earnest grit with a mixture of pop and country rock. It is a welcome remake that contains some grounded performances alongside music and story to make a mostly worthwhile experience with a winning duo at the helm to carry it along.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Isle of Dogs.

Review #1582: Isle of Dogs.

Cast:

Bryan Cranston (Chief), Koyu Rankin (Atari Kobayashi), Edward Norton (Rex), Liev Schreiber (Spots), Bill Murray (Boss), Bob Balaban (King), Jeff Goldblum (Duke), Scarlett Johansson (Nutmeg), Kunichi Nomura (Mayor Kenji Kobayashi), Tilda Swinton (Oracle), Ken Watanabe (Head Surgeon), Akira Ito (Professor Watanabe), Greta Gerwig (Tracy Walker), Akira Takayama (Major Domo), Frances McDormand (Interpreter Nelson), F. Murray Abraham (Jupiter), Courtney B. Vance (The Narrator), Yojiro Noda (News Anchor), Fisher Stevens (Scrap), Mari Natsuki (Auntie), Nijiro Murakami (Editor Hiroshi), Yoko Ono (Assistant Scientist Yoko Ono), Harvey Keitel (Gondo), and Frank Wood (Simul-Translate Machine) Directed by Wes Anderson (#1553 - Fantastic Mr. Fox)

Review:

"Jason, Roman, and I started this project with wanting to do a movie about some dogs abandoned on a garbage dump, a pack of dogs who live on garbage. But we had also been talking about wanting to do something in Japan, about Japan, something related to our shared love of Japanese cinema, especially Kurosawa. The story could have taken place anywhere, but it came together when we realized it should take place in a fantasy version of Japan.”

It is not often that a director known for live-action work makes a bon-a-fide classic on their first venture into animation, particularly with stop motion, so undeniably there was anticipation to cover another Wes Anderson film, with this serving as his second in stop motion. For all the information one could say about him or his films, it was certainly still interesting to hear him once state his top three filmmaker influences as Francois Truffaut, Orson Welles, and Bill Melendez. Oh sure, there are likely others that Anderson has also stated an influence, but it is the fact that he wanted to make a self-contained world like those Peanuts specials (stating this once during an interview about Rushmore) that Melendez (who in addition to directing was also a producer/voice actor and animator for over 60 years) helped to make over numerous decades that will undeniably stick with how one could see Anderson's films as a whole. He is an eccentric director with his own visual and narrative style that balance comedy and drama in their own distinct way.

The film was written by Anderson, Roman Coppola, Jason Schwartzman and Kunichi Nomura. It takes inspiration from the films of Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, as well as the stop-motion animated holiday specials made by Rankin/Bass Productions, with the fur here being made from alpaca wool (there were other inspirations in terms of dog-centric films like 101 Dalmatians and The Plague Dogs). There will be quite a few references to look upon in interest, such as name-drop references to Seven Samurai (1954) alongside a selection of music that mixes songs from Japanese cinema alongside work from Alexandre Desplat as composer. Is it as great as his previous animated work? Not quite, but it sure is a welcome treat regardless, one that proves interesting as a standout piece for its decade. There is quite a fascination to be had with a film that makes an interesting atmosphere come across with flourish and respect for establishing what needs to come across with a dystopian setting of a futuristic Japan. It relies on deadpan humor that makes for clever moments without needing a heavy nudge, relying on casual conversation between its group of main voices / supporting voices that show up, while the nature of language also helps in some interesting subversion (having both English and Japanese with certain moments of translation) that makes a useful 111 minute adventure. There is quite a diverse amount of voices to hear sprinkled through the film, ranging from Anderson regulars like Murray, Goldblum, Norton, and Swinton to go alongside new ones like Cranston and Gerwig. Cranston (familiar for his roles on television such as starring on Breaking Bad) proves quite well here, engaging with careful tenor that leads the way in gruff charm. Rankin does fine with a performance (primarily in Japanese) with wistful curiosity for what is needed here (mainly acting alongside a voice pack of dogs). Schreiber is warm in parts in terms of snappy devotion. The meat of the film is split between them alongside the group of Norton, Murray, Balaban, Goldblum, who make for an interesting group to exchange a few amusing lines together in casual warm conversation. Johansson shows up for basically three scenes and does alright with use towards small cute moments with Cranston. Nomura proves a worthy focus on the mainland storyline, while Gerwig (actress-turned-director) shows some pep to go against that. Others have brief lines in highlights, such as with Abraham, Swinton, Ito, or translators with McDormand and Vance (alongside ones to listen closely to hear, like with musician Ono, Stevens, or Keitel). As a whole, I found it to be mostly successful in maintaining balance of charm and humor with a mostly-put together story that will at the very least make a viewer go home happy by its ending without decrying artificiality. Whether a dog-lover or not, it will prove a useful experience for its variable amount of audience reach, working just as well for children or adults without seeming too much in its visual and story language.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Annihilation.

Review #1581: Annihilation.

Cast:
Natalie Portman (Lena), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Ventress), Gina Rodriguez (Anya Thorensen), Tessa Thompson (Josie Radek), Tuva Novotny (Cassie “Cass” Sheppard), Oscar Isaac (Kane), Benedict Wong (Lomax), Sonoya Mizuno (Katie / The Humanoid), and David Gyasi (Daniel) Written and Directed by Alex Garland (#884 - Ex Machina)

Review:

"I try to figure out: What is the thing that I'm adapting? And in this instance, it was the feeling, the experience of reading the book; it was the atmosphere of the book. That was the thing that I was concerned about."

One never can hurt to find a worthy director within being a writer as well. Alex Garland fits the requirement since his first publication nearly 25 years ago. He was a graduate of the University of Manchester after studying History of Art. In 1996, his first novel was published with The Beach, based on his travels across Europe through backpack (which he described as satire against backpacking) that became a hit based on word-of-mouth praise - to the surprise of everyone, including Garland, which included a subsequent film adaptation that Garland observed its production (it was seeing the collaboration between the screenwriter, producer, and director that he felt looked like fun). Although he would write two more novels, he decided to take his interest to screenwriting with 28 Days Later (2002). He followed this up with work on Sunshine (2007) and Never Let Me Go (2010) before taking an "unorthodox collaboration" with writing Dredd (2012). Ex Machina (2014) was his first breakthrough as a director (alongside writing duties), a science fiction film achievement. One of the producers of that film (Scott Rudin) later approached Garland to read a particularly recent book named Annihilation (written in 2014 by Jeff VanderMeer), which he described as a "really strange, really quite beautiful book". It was the first of a trilogy of books called the "Southern Reach Trilogy", although Garland wrote the script when only one book had been released. He wrote it as a "memory of the book" that wanted to make a dreamlike kind of film.

What we have here is a fascinating movie that surely deserved better upon release. A dispute with the head of Skydance Media (one of the production companies behind the film) and leaders at Paramount Pictures meant that the film would have just under three weeks of release in theaters before it was readily available on Netflix to stream (a terrible decision, for those who desire cinema releases as first priority). Take one good guess why this occurred: imagine funding a science fiction film and then deciding it is "too intellectual" and "too complicated". This is literally the same major studio distributor that allowed mother! (2017) to go along unscathed without preview screenings, but here we are. One does not get the feeling of being talked down to here within its mix of science fiction and horror, this much is true. It most certainly is not too complicated to elude interest from an audience (older audiences might see an unintentional relation to Predator (1987), while most would note familiarity with H. P. Lovecraft's "The Colour Out of Space"), because it most certainly is an entertaining and useful experience in the means of human nature with self-destruction with a shimmer of terror. It isn't a film with an easily defined monster, but there is one easy detail to keep on the toes: the only thing that survives is the frightened pain of those who are taken by it, one that has turned the environment around it into something extraordinary and frightening at the same time. One works the film out on its own terms for 115 minutes with carefully planned unraveling, which makes for a wonderfully strange time to build towards pondering the means to get to its ending, for better or worse. Portman does pretty well with handling the capability of self-destructive nature around her with useful regard to the surroundings around her that isn't lost in a show of effects. Leigh keeps it carefully on-key with quiet planning for the inevitable, while Rodriguez and Thompson each do fine with building the layers of shaky chemistry between people entering the unknown with fears and interests to go alongside it all (which works mostly without a hitch). The others are fine, including Issac and his carefully constructed post-escape act between here and there. It proves efficient with visual sense to go alongside a fairly well-crafted atmosphere to inspire a few questions (mostly on the inquisitive side, although it could also prove interesting to pick at, such as its ultimate fate) that rewards those with patience to make it a worthwhile sophomore film for Garland. It wasn't a huge winner at the time of its release, but only time will tell how it does with those curious enough to look upon it somewhere in the margins for horror or sci-fi.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

mother!

Review #1580: mother!

cast: 
Jennifer Lawrence (mother), Javier Bardem (Him), Ed Harris (man), Michelle Pfeiffer (woman), Domhnall Gleeson (oldest son), Brian Gleeson (younger brother), Kristen Wiig (herald), Jovan Adepo (cupbearer), Stephen McHattie (zealot), Amanda Warren (healer), Laurence Leboeuf (maiden), and Emily Hampshire (fool) Written and Directed by Darren Aronofsky (#1112 - Pi)

review: 
“The idea with all my films is to entertain, to give audiences a journey they haven’t had before. But I want to do it with a subject that makes me passionate. What’s the point if you’re not doing that?”

Sometimes you can just track an interesting path of a director in their first film and see how it goes to the latest one - enter Darren Aronofsky. The New York native had an interest in the outdoors and show business as a youth, and it continued with his studies at Harvard University, where he studied social anthropology and filmmaking. Inspired by directors such as Jim Jarmusch and Spike Lee, he made his first movie with the senior thesis Supermarket Sweep (1991). His first feature film came with the release of Pi (1998), an ultra-cheap dark classic thriller. His next film in Requiem for a Dream (2000) was just as well received while noted for its intensity. The Fountain (2006) was not easily received (although it has a following), but The Wrestler (2008) and Black Swan (2010) both received considerable notice (particularly for its lead stars in each film) while Noah (2014) was his biggest film in budget/success.

Angry about the world with its environmental state and as a whole enough to strike inspiration, Aronofsky reportedly wrote the script to the film in five days, and inspirations have been argued that range from Rosemary's Baby (1968) to The Exterminating Angel (1962). The easiest word to describe this film would be "esoteric", really. Get it? A film about mother (Earth)? Drawing a story based on the Bible (there is one character name capitalized, after all)? And it is still a cloying, divisive, ridiculous mess? The real surprise is in how much you want to know before seeing it - the answer would be none, because hearing an endless supply of "you just don't get it!" vs. "I don't get it, because X" would likely cause a great headache for all involved. It certainly won't help anyone wanting a film pegged under one genre, since "psychological horror" doesn't really seem to cut it. I mean, hey a husband-and-wife living in a country house wrapped with writer's block and intimacy problems suddenly have a couple of strangers turn up sounds fine. Is it blasphemy? Is it pretentious? Is it something else? It can fall under either or all of these three categories, depending on the patience and the point of view of the person watching it. To me, I thought it was incredibly silly, a monumentally weird movie that seems more like therapy for Aronofsky than anything else. It might as well have taken place on the stage (with...some modification to its gruesome scene at the end) with how it plays to the rafters of allegory, allegory, and allegory. Lawrence (having become an actress as a teenager and one with prominence years later) does fine with what she is given, balancing that fine line between emotional vulnerability and being stuck like a statue to ham-fisted metaphor. No one is really confused in their acting, although Bardem sure comes close here. Truthfully, one would hope to see more of Harris and Pfeiffer, each being equally amusing in pushy fervor that begs for more time to spend with loopy interlopers. 

Is it a challenging movie different from the usual fare released in mainstream theaters? Sure, but so was Zardoz (1974), and all one remembers from that film is Sean Connery in a nappy. Why stop there with the reference to that film? After all, both films try to meander through a certain type of philosophy from its director while subjecting their lead to some sort of memorable outfit/character (which in the case of Lawrence is a bunch of heavy stuff amidst statuesque acting all around) that involve some sort of supreme being (one being a rock and the other being...take a guess) while taking a hard swerve for its climax with some sort of revelation (in this case, a literal mad-house). Whether one believes in God or not, it is sure to be a strange one to evaluate, although truthfully I wish I could show this to a religious friend of mine, if only to see if they would get mad at it for my amusement. In that sense, it is equally appropriate to give this film the same rating as I did years prior to that film, because neither are particularly great pieces of work, but they sure are memorable in all of their ridiculousness. I applaud Aronofsky for continuing his vision of filmmaking with passion, and the commitment to have his actors participate in some weird pretentiousness, despite the overriding result of said camp. It will prove a welcome curiosity for those that favor Aronofsky and his films for what they attempt to do in story, while proving an irritant for those not in line with its ultimate goals.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

It Comes at Night.

Review #1579: It Comes at Night.

Cast: 

Joel Edgerton (Paul), Christopher Abbott (Will), Carmen Ejogo (Sarah), Riley Keough (Kim), Kelvin Harrison Jr. (Travis), Griffin Robert Faulkner (Andrew), David Pendleton (Bud), and Mickey (Stanley) Written and Directed by Trey Edward Shults.

Review: 

"With this one, I think I jumped into it as the audience would. The way it’s written is the way I jumped into it. I let it spew out of me. Also, it stemmed from something super personal, so it started from that and spewed out from there. I don’t build out this whole, huge world and start writing. It comes from this personal, little space and let it build out. And then I have my logical reasons for everything else, but I intentionally keep stuff out."

Never count out seeing a young voice find their place in resilient prominence in cinema, whether for drama for horror, particularly from a name that could prove quite useful to know in the future in Trey Edward Shults. The native Texan already had a love of films by the time he was a teenager, but his chance to move into the work of filmmaking came at the age of 19 when he was hired to work in the camera department on The Tree of Life (2011), directed by Terence Malick (a visionary director to discuss another time). The experience shaped his decision to drop out of Texas State University (having been at school for business management) and do work interning for Malick (which resulted in work on Voyage of Time (2016) and Song to Song (2017)). He made three short films as a director from 2010 to 2014, which includes Krisha - he would convert it into his feature debut the following year with members of his family participating in the film, which was a hit with the festival circuit. The basis for the film came from his reaction to his father's death, in which he tried to help his dad find some peace with the regrets he had, with the film being about the process of grief and regret that is torn by fear, reflecting his biggest fear - mortality. He found inspiration with films such as Night of the Living Dead (1968) and The Shining (1980) alongside works from directors such as John Cassavetes and Paul Thomas Anderson.

I'm sure you have heard this before, but sometimes it is what you don't see that is more scary, which can be drawn right in the open from the prominent featuring of Pieter Bruegel the Elder's painting The Triumph of Death. If one is expecting a slow burn involving paranoia wreaking havoc over all as opposed to a monster movie, you might be in for quite a tense winner. It relies on pulling the strings in stress and doubt for the majority of 91 minutes, and the enjoyment is in exactly how one feels about seeing fear play out like this, seeing people trying to survive despite the threat of sickness while cooped up away from the world (or at the very least trying to escape the problems the world can bring), because fear is one thing, but death is another. Edgerton is dependable here, capable of reacting to his surroundings with the conviction required to move in fear without seeming brazen about it. Abbott does just as well here, expressing his own control on the situation as it grows, maintaining the other side of tentative balance of family just fine. On the other side of reflected families, Ejogo and Keough each do well in matching the surroundings needed that keeps the doubts in check. Harrison (having been in small roles of film since 2012 before having a breakthrough here) proves the key piece of the main group, capturing a yearning fear and growth that makes for a usefully different kind of youth horror story. It builds a carefully-planned atmosphere of quiet doubt to longer on who and what one knows and doesn't know that makes for delicate human nature drama that works best within the details (such as during its dream moments, for example), relying on one's patience to make an efficient time (with an equally appropriate ending to go with said buildup). It won't merit the best for everyone in delivering everything in horror, but it is a quietly effective film of family and fear to match the moment needed to ponder on its content after the screen goes to black and one goes back to their normal life behind the screen.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Moonlight.

Review #1578: Moonlight. 

Cast:

Trevante Rhodes (Adult Chiron Harris / "Black"), André Holland (Adult Kevin), Janelle Monáe (Teresa), Ashton Sanders (Teen Chiron), Jharrel Jerome (Teen Kevin), Naomie Harris (Paula), Mahershala Ali (Juan), Alex Hibbert (Child Chiron Harris / "Little"), Jaden Piner (Child Kevin), and Patrick Decile (Terrel) Directed by Barry Jenkins.

Review:

"I want to create productive images, not necessarily positive images. Overt positivity can sometimes deflect attention away from the problem, or create myths that aren’t helpful. The way I described it to the actors was, ‘Everything in this movie is a gray area. The characters are gray, the situations are gray.’ There’s some very dark shit in this movie, but you have to acknowledge the ugliness. You just have to.”

As the saying goes, sometimes the past makes the difference for what matters in the present for a worthwhile effort into film. Barry Jenkins made a film set in Miami, Florida for his breakthrough feature, and it fits right into his background as a Miami native. He studied film at Florida State University College of Motion Picture Arts, and he subsequently took up production assistant work to help him on a journey towards filmmaking as a career. His first short was My Josephine (2003), but his first feature film came with Medicine for Melancholy (2008). In the eight years that followed, he did work on scripts that led to dead ends alongside work as a carpenter and with a commercial studio of his own before being encouraged by associates to work again. The basis for the film is an unpublished play by Tarell Alvin McCraney called In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue, with Jenkins writing the screenplay adaptation. Both shared similar backgrounds, since each both were born in Miami and raised in the same neighborhood and each had been raised by a mother that struggled with her vices - they only met for the first time just a few years prior to the development of what became this film (since a friend gave Jenkins the play to read). The key change between the original work and film was the fact that the former depicted a day in the life of Chiron through the three stages of his life at the same time (because one only realized it was the same life of the same person halfway through reading). If you can do a film right near where you grew up, particularly one filmed in Miami in the Liberty City neighborhood, you have already accomplished part of the goal already, particularly with a budget of just $1.5 million.

What we have here is a film making a journey on those moments of silence to ponder through three points in one person's life, whether that involves childhood, teenage life, and adulthood. It doesn't aspire to have all the answers to what it means, particularly when it comes to masculinity that moves in a hauntingly tender manner that will reflect well upon those who find it something to resonate with or draw upon their own experiences. In other words, it is a usefully-crafted drama that does quite well within its quietly layered narrative that doesn't need to play to cliché or expectation but instead on the engagement one finds with these characters and who they represent to those living in the margins of life in some way. There have been plenty of coming-of-age movies that have come and gone over the past few decades, but one can always find a way to make it useful when it comes to depicting the struggle for one's identity. Regardless of how one is with their family, orientation, or with their life as a whole, the struggle to find a way out and be who they are is one we can all find important to dig for ourselves for 111 minutes. One starts with the opening storyline in "Little", featuring a quiet but effective performance from Hibbert, who resonates well with those moments we see him interact with the surroundings that will undoubtedly shape him that keeps the level of dialogue with others such as Ali, Monae, Harris, and Piner to worthy poignance. Ali (previously known for his work on shows such as The 4400 and House of Cards) is undeniably excellent here, doing so much in shaping the tone of the film with the look upon making one's path with nuance for such a small span of time on screen. The same applies in care with Monae, while Harris does quite well in unifying the film with anguish that comes to us without needing to play for pretense. The middle story in "Chiron" keeps pace going in quiet energy that bubbles to the surface on its own time, which Sanders and Jerome handle fine, making the exchange on the beach compared to on the schoolyard that more poignant. The closing story in "Black" opens as many doors as it seems to close, in that time passes on without needing to spell things out for that time spent with Rhodes & Holland. Is it a flawless experience? Not entirely, but it is the fluidity of its drama that keeps things grounded in tension that succeeds more often than not in what is needed. It is the film for people who need a story of spoken and unspoken light between the darkness as a film fitting for its era.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars