TOM CRUISE BREAKS HIS PRETTY FACE IN VANILLA SKY

 “ I want to wake up! Tech support!”

Cameron Crowe’s remake of Alejandro Amenabar’s ‘Open Your Eyes’ is his attempt at making an uplifting, schmaltzy, surreal Lynchian flick.  It’s like a mixture of Vampire’s Kiss, Mulholland Drive, Total Recall, and a generic coming-of-age romcom.

When spoiled, rich, young, self-centered, narcissistic, pretty boy magazine exec David Aames disfigures his face in a car wreck (caused by a suicidal ex-fling he wronged), the injury gravely wounds his ego, pride, and sense of self-worth. As his life starts to implode in on itself , David is forced to grapple with questions of sanity, reality, and identity triggering a quest of self-discovery.

This is definitely Tom Cruise’s oddest film. Cruise is actually not great here ( He’s very good, but not great. I’m not used to that). He leans heavily into his character’s eccentricities and tends to go more for the silly and exaggerated. One of the reasons Cruise likely took on the role is because his character wears a creepy face/mannequin mask for a good deal of the run time (and when the mask’s off he looks like his face is starting to melt thanks to some meh prosthetics). It’s not hard to guess that Cruise might have viewed the role as a challenge. Well, he puts forth a valiant effort at least.

Vanilla Sky has a pretty solid cast including Tom Cruise, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Jason Lee, Timothy Spall, and Kurt Russel. Many other notable names appear in blink-and-you’ll miss-them roles (Steven Spielberg, Tilda Swinton, Michael Shannon, and Johnny Galecki). The dialogue is pretty bad at times, the editing and pacing is often off (probably deliberately so), and the film looks like an early 2000s sitcom (think Friends). 

Vanilla Sky isn’t bad, but it also isn’t good (By minute 12 I was totally lost.) It’s different, odd, unsettling, messy, and interesting. Vanilla Sky is not as smart, clever, or surprising as it thinks it is, but it’s still worth a watch for lovers of WTF Cinema.

2.5 STARS

A SOUND OF THUNDER IS A FORGOTTEN FAILURE

 Loosely based on Ray Bardbury's classic short story (The film keeps the main character's first name, the name of the company, the last name of one of the clients, the year the film is set in, and the "Butterfly Effect" plot), A Sound of Thunder takes place in the future (2055 to be exact), where time travel tech has been invented. A luxury safari corporation has utilized the tech to take clients on hunting expeditions in pre-historic/Dinosaur times. When one of the clients fails to follow company protocols, the past is inadvertently altered, leading to drastic, horrific changes in the future. It's up to expedition leader Travis Ryer (Edward Burns), disgruntled scientist Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack), and weapons specialist Marcus Payne (David Oyelowo) to find out what went wrong in the past and find a way to fix things if the future is to be salvaged.

It's about on the level of an Asylum film or an original Sci-Fi/Syfy TV movie. That means A Sound of Thunder is very, very bad...but in a pretty entertaining way. A Sound of Thunder was directed and shot by Peter Hyams (Who previously directed Timecop, The Relic, The Muskateer, and End of Days), and was written by Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer, and Gregory Poirier. Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer co-wrote Dylan Dog: Dead of Night, Sahara, and the 2011 version of Conan The Barbarian together. Gregory Poirier wrote See Spot Run and The Spy Next Door. Knowing this, is it any wonder the screenplay for A Sound of Thunder is so poor?

There isn't really much to praise in terms of cast. Edward Burns has been in some good films, but he isn't anything special here. He's our hero, but he isn't noteworthy nor does he do anything to really stand out. David Oyelowo has shown he is a fantastic actor, and he seems to be having fun here. He gets a laughably bad death. Ben Kingsley appears throughout as Charles Hatton, the CEO of Time Safari, but is given next to nothing to do (He pops up on occasion during the first two acts, and is thoughtlessly discarded of somewhere in the 3rd act). His character is given some development when it's heavily implied that the Govt. is involved with Time Safari in some way (though this revelation is never built upon or explained). Kingsley seems to know what kind of film he's in, and he's certainly one of the very few bright spots here.

Around an hour into the run time, A Sound of Thunder makes the decision to forego the plot of the Ray Bradbury story and go full creature feature instead. Not the worst decision. Following a bunch of wildly evolved creatures as they attack our group could be fun (and I like the idea of monkey/dinosaur hybrids). Unfortunately, extremely sub-par CGI and effects work detract from any real enjoyment that could be had. The creatures seen throughout look bottom-of-the-barrel and the choice to use a terrible blue-screen for every scene walking through the city is distracting and awful.

The design of the city is weak as well. It's very hard to get a feel for how the city is laid out, and remembering what each building is or what they house ends up being much more difficult than it should be. The whole production looks unappealing in design and aesthetics as well. In the end, A Sound of Thunder is a poorly made, bad, B movie monster flick. It's entertaining, but only in a bad movie kind of way.

1 STAR

SAY BYE-BYE TO THE BYE BYE MAN

 "You wanna watch something stupid?"

The plot, if you can call it that, follows a group of college friends who move into a creepy old house off campus. When one opens an antique nightstand and finds ‘The Bye Bye Man’ scribbled inside, he unleashes a terrifying and violent mass delusion in the group that leads to hallucinations, insanity/hysteria, murder, and suicide. 

The Bye Bye Man is based on an urban legend, that of a man born with Albinism in Louisiana in the 1920s. Teased mercilessly by his peers, as he grew older The Bye Bye Man turned violent and became a serial killer. He eventually goes blind and crafts a demon dog (named Gloomsinger) for himself out of the pieces/parts of his victims. The Bye Bye Man develops telepathy as well, so he can sense whenever someone thinks or says his name. He travels by train. Naturally, almost none of this is conveyed in the final product (there are less than a handful of hallucinations of a train in the first act, but these aren’t given any explanation). 

At least The Bye Bye Man isn't long. It's a still a total waste of time though with absolutely zero development whatsoever for our titular antagonist (and what kind of name is The Bye Bye Man anyways?). Most things are given no explanation (and likely little thought). For example: We see Elliot (played by a weepy-faced Douglas Smith. Dude also looks on the verge of death throughout. WTF?), our lead, be exposed to ‘The Bye Bye Man’ by opening the nightstand. As to how his group of friends is exposed though is never shown nor implied. 

The Bye Bye Man himself also doesn’t come across as any real threat. He doesn’t kill a single person during the run time. Every death is dealt by someone afflicted with The Bye Bye Man Delusion (it’s never referred to as such in the film, but is a moniker I made up).  The Bye Bye Man compels those he infects to kill others, but he himself doesn’t appear to partake in the slaughter.

The character design of The Bye Bye Man is unimaginative, derivative, and lazy. He is a pale, ‘Gentleman’-looking ghoul (as in the character from Buffy). He wears a black rain coat/rain jacket and tends to hang out in corners of rooms or in dark spaces. It almost feels like the filmmakers took inspiration from sleep-paralysis demons for The Bye Bye Man’s look. The decision to involve Gloomsinger, The Bye Bye Man’s blood-soaked demon dog, in the film is appreciated (though he doesn’t do much either).

The Bye Bye Man is rated PG-13, and boy does it show. There is minimal blood throughout. In fact, the first act is almost completely bloodless.There’s a scene where multiple characters are blasted away by a shotgun, with no blood splatter or visible wounds afterwards (you know they are clearly dead, but you still can’t help but wonder…). That said, even with a PG-13 rating, The Bye Bye Man can get shockingly dark.

The Bye Bye Man deals heavily with themes of suicide and mental illness/hysteria. The way it goes about presenting these themes is gross and disgusting. We have characters urging others to commit murder and suicide because it’s the only solution. What’s worse: the film seems to fall in favor of this position.

A movie following characters who are trying to maintain their grip on reality and not kill anyone while researching the entity responsible for their insanity has the potential to be (at the very least) interesting. Unfortunately, the husband/wife team of Jonathan Penner (Screenplay) and Stacy Title (Director. She passed away from ALS in 2021) fucked it up. 

The screenplay by Jonathan Penner (a recurring contestant on Survivor. Yes, THAT Survivor!) is pretty bad. Characters have little development, they act in unrealistic ways (the confrontation between Elliot  and an elderly lady played by Faye Dunaway comes to mind), and the dialogue is painfully bad. Some characters could/should have been removed completely (Here’s looking at you Carrie-Anne Moss, who appears in less than a handful of scenes and serves zero purpose), and as already stated we are given zero explanation for most events and zero back story for our antagonist. The third act comes at you like a speeding train, and the final resolution for  our group will likely piss most off. 

The direction by Stacy Title isn’t better. The Bye Bye Man looks consistently grey and muted. The film feels lifeless. There isn’t a good performance in the bunch (Douglas Smith as Elliot whines, pleads, and generally comes across as weak. A fault on the writing and direction). There is no sense of forward momentum throughout, and the film often feels like a sequence of events, or like it’s just moving from event-to-event.

In the end, The Bye Bye Man is about as bad as you heard. It suffers from an exceptionally weak screenplay, absent direction, a lack of character development, shoddy CGI, bad editing (just look at the way the deaths are executed in the first scene, no pun intended), obvious ADR, and an insulting ending. There was potential here, which makes the final product that much more disappointing. Don’t think it, don’t say it, don’t watch it!

0.5 STAR

A24 HAS THEIR MULTIVERSE FILM WITH EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE

 This review was originally posted to Letterboxd on April 9, 2022.

Where to start?

This film won’t be for everyone. I could see some being very, VERY annoyed. It’s aggressively weird and non-sensical, but what do you expect from The Daniels (the duo behind Swiss Army Man). It’s not every day you get to feel like your brain is melting while watching a film in a fairly crowded theater. Michele Yeoh is the best she has ever been as  Evelyn, a woman who’s struggling (and failing) to maintain control of her life. When she starts to experience breaks in reality, is her mind cracking under the strain or could it really be up to her to save the entire universe?

Ke Huy Kwan (aka Short Round from Temple of Doom) is superb as Waymond, Yeoh’s disheveled and goofy husband. It’s an unexpected gift to get to watch Kwan on the big screen, and he shines. Stephanie Hsu might be the most memorable thing in this flick (besides every scene featuring Jamie Lee Curtis of course, which is quite a few) as Joy, Evelyn’s gay daughter whom Evelyn is tolerating (Family is a key theme here). Hsu plays down-to-Earth and relatable well, but it’s when she’s called on to chew on the scenery that she really dazzles (Chew the scenery? More like tear down the set wall and shove it down her throat).

Everything Everywhere All At Once isn’t just uncontrolled chaos, there are plenty of poignant and meaningful themes and messages within. With a fantastic cast, an interesting score, and creative direction, Everything Everywhere All At Once is A24’s multi-verse film and so much more. It’s pretty much exactly what I was expecting, yet it still found new ways to consistently shock, amuse, confuse, and surprise me. Everything Everywhere All At Once works best if you embrace the chaos and go with it. It’s definitely one of the most different, insane, bonkers, unique, and special times you will have at a theater.

4.5 STARS

ONE FINAL LOOK AT THE PHANTOM MENACE

 Last time I saw this was 10 years ago for the 3-D re-release. My thoughts pretty much remain the same. The film sucks. The script is pretty bad (although Lucas started writing around 1994, so he had a good 2 or 3 years. You’d think with that amount of time he’d be able to really fine tune it), the plot is exceedingly boring, confusing, and uninteresting ( taxation of trade routes and politics. “Fun”. Doesn’t help the film just drops you right into the middle of things and expects you to keep up.), the character work is pretty weak, and for fucks sake they replaced puppet Yoda with CGI for the 2012 remaster!

The parts that pissed me off back then still do ( Jar-Jar remains infuriating, Anakin’s role in the final battle is insultingly stupid, and Midichlorians remain a bastardization of The Force). One thing that really stood out is just how terrible a Jedi Qui-Gon Jinn is. If you really wanted to, you could pin Anakin’s fall squarely on his shoulders. The Dual of The Fates/ The Darth Maul fight and The Pod Race remain the sole highlights and are the saving graces for the film. I don’t blame the actors for how poor the film and performances turned out. Ewan MacGregor, Liam Neeson, Kiera Knightley (as the Queen’s decoy), and Samuel L. Jackson are all great actors but there’s only so much you can do with a poor script and incompetent direction. 

Surprisingly, Ian McDiarmid reprising his role of Palpatine might be the strongest actor here. You know he’s evil, but the way he plays his character you can see why people would believe he’s a good guy (the same cannot be said about his performance in Clones and Sith). Darth Mail is another bright spot. He is given nothing to do but look menacing and have that final fight. He looks and acts like a bad-ass, and his character design is iconic and unforgettable (Ray Park’s pissed off glare is great!). 

There is a decent mix of practical and CGI, though these elements don’t usually play off of each other well. The CGI is actually stellar at times, but there are plenty of moments where it’s sub-par or distracting. When all is said and done, Phantom Menace might be more technically competent than Clones, it might be closer to being a real film, but it’s also painfully bland. Phantom Menace clocks in at 2 hours and 10 minutes (compared to Clones’ 2 hr and 16 minute running time), but it feels like a 3 hour film with how much it drags and how boring it is. 

Despite all my complaints, I still have to find time to reluctantly praise George. Before the prequel trilogy, if you asked anybody who the protagonist of Star Wars was, the answer would be Luke. In making The Phantom Menace and the prequels, George recontextualized and reframed everything. Now, the story of Star Wars is that of Anakin Skywalker, his rise and fall/corruption, and his eventual redemption through his complicated relationship with his son. George also ushered in new technology with the prequels, and while it’s sloppily executed other, better films would perfect the tech. Long story short: George failed upwards. 

I managed to find the screenplay for Phantom Menace online, and decided to study it in an attempt to more fully understand this odd film. Below are my thoughts: The screenplay structure here is incredibly convoluted, messy, and confusing. There’s also almost a mini-movie with Anakin in the middle of this one (“The B plot” or the TRUE story of Phantom Menace, and where in the screenplay it begins to seem like Lucas is getting into the groove and enjoying himself. Also seems like he is having fun writing Jar-Jar).

The A plot involving taxation, trade routes, and Palpatine’s rise to power is important, but not what audiences came to see or is something most would find interesting. Was Lucas inspired by novels? It’s written almost like a novel. First act sets up the universe and backstory, 2nd act introduces Anakin and his story, third act wraps up the backstory “A plot”. It feels like Lucas was feeling the pressure and didn’t know exactly what to write. He likely knew the ending of this new trilogy, and maybe knew some specifics about the beginning but in general did not know how or where to start. He seems unsure of what he is writing. 

The screenplay itself is also pretty poorly written ( sentences in the location tag will include poor descriptors like “the sinister battleship”, or will describe characters as “ugly” and that’s it.). There are lots of interesting things going on here, if at all you are interested in Palpatine’s rise to power. Unfortunately, most things involving the Govt./Galactic Senate, the trade blockade, and the general politics of this world are either given poor/confusing explanations or none at all.

It’s a Herculean task pinning down who the protagonist is. It can’t be Anakin because he’s introduced after the 35 minute mark and he has very little agency. I doubt it’s Obi-Wan because he’s poorly defined and isn’t focused on much. Doubtful it’s Palpatine,He is seen throughout but very little screen time is devoted to him. That leaves either Qui-Gon Jinn or Padme. 

Qui-Gon’s dramatic need (to train Anakin) isn’t introduced until the 2nd act, so Padme might make the most logical sense. Only issue is she experiences no real change or growth. I suppose you could argue she’s more worldly and experienced after the events of Episode 1, but that doesn’t really show. Qui-Gon doesn’t experience any real growth or change either, though he does die at the end (not sure that really counts as change though).

Another issue is the characters don’t have arcs, don’t experience growth or change, and some don’t really have a dramatic need. Lucas was probably approaching this trilogy as if all 3 films were really one big film, therefore character arcs would be developed not over one film but over multiple. I can appreciate the idea/approach, but it doesn’t work in reality. conclusion: I have begun to feel, looking back, that the prequel trilogy would have worked better as a series of novels. That the screenplay makes for a more entertaining and informative read than the film does a worthwhile watch only confirms this in my mind.

In the end, the answer to which Star Wars film is the worst is up to personal opinion. For myself, Phantom Menace wins that award for the brain-cell killing slog that it is.

1 STAR

COULD IT BE...COMPETENCY? STAR WARS: REVENGE OF THE SITH

 Competency never tasted so good. I was expecting many things from this film, competency was not one of them. Unfortunately, this final outing in the prequel trilogy is still fairly messy. There is no real through line or plot, but the film throws enough action at you that most should be at least entertained.

Hayden Christensen is the one actor who hasn’t really matured or grown over the films. He manages to sell some moments, but for the most part he remains somewhere between laughable and cringe. Ewan McGregor might have grown the most as an actor. He sells the hell out of his role of Obi-Wan Kenobi here, and he is clearly really trying. Obi-Wan and Anakin actually have some real chemistry in this one. I bought them as close friends. Too bad this couldn’t have been developed in previous films, would have made that final fight with them both that much more emotional. Natalie Portman is relegated to wait on the sidelines and be pregnant (feminism?).

The CGI here isn’t bad, it’s biggest flaw being that it still looks like video game CGI. The action scenes are mostly good (R2 even gets to roast some motherfuckers. Brutal af), though the final fight is a little too big and epic ( definitely trying too hard). 

This last installment gives fans some things they’ve always wanted to see ( some of Order 66, and Anakin’s death and re-birth into Darth Vader). Sith is still silly, over-the-top, exaggerated, and overly operatic at times (the script isn’t as bad as previous installments, but there are still some meme-able moments here), but this concluding chapter mostly delivers a very fun, very entertaining time.

3 STARS

HERE WE GO AGAIN: STAR WARS: ATTACK OF THE CLONES

Going just by my memories from seeing Phantom Menace 10 years ago, I'd say that Phantom Menace is a worse film than this. I was never angered or bored to the point of sleep in this one. There's not as much focus on racist stereotypes in this outing. The ones from Phantom Menace (Jar-Jar, The Trade Federation, etc) still exist, and do make appearances, but their screen times are drastically reduced and they don’t receive as much focus or importance. That said, Attack of The Clones is still awful. A lot happens here, but not much really feels of importance.

This sequel explores more of Anakin's character. Anakin is fully aware of how gifted he is, and he is resentful of Obi-Wan’s keeping him from completing the Jedi tasks. Anakin is shown to be a brazen, reckless thrill seeker who gets off on his own bravado and heroics. He has a serious ego and an issue with pridefulness. He has very poor control over his emotions and impulses, and often acts like a whiny, entitled brat. He hates being told what to do, having to answer to Obi-Wan, and that he isn’t allowed to “love”. He dreams of being able to enforce his will on others. Long story short: He isn't likable.

There are two plots at play here: Obi-Wan investigates an assassination attempt on Padme's life, and Anakin is assigned to bodyguard duty for Padme and attempts to woo her (Anakin's lecherous smirk is just gross). The Obi-Wan plot is the more interesting of the two. The relationship/friendship between Obi-Wan and Anakin is pretty weak. The actors share zero chemistry and don't act well together, and in the film they are shown to have a good deal of animosity towards each other. Obi-Wan resents Anakin’s effortless skill, and Obi’s pride and ego hinder his ability to effectively train Anakin. Obi also fails due to a general lack of experience and training on his part. The bickering and arguing Obi-Wan and Anakin get into in Clones gets tiring fast. Just shut up and make out already!

Anakin is portrayed here by Hayden Christensen. Jake Lloyd in Phantom Menace was bad, but Christensen might actually be worse. He is asked to convincingly portray young love, but the best he can muster is lust (that lecherous grin he wears is just gross). It’s hard to buy Padme and Anakin as lovers, and it doesn’t help that she tells him early on the way he stares at her makes her uncomfortable, and his response is to intensify and double down on his efforts. 

Attack of The Clones portrays the Jedi in an interesting way. They are shown to not be all they’ve been built up as. They are religious fanatics who follow a strict and unrealistic set of guidelines/rules. They can sense something is up, but are unable to figure out Palpatine is the cause. While painted as heroes, they are in reality well-meaning but flawed people who’s actions and inactions only end up almost dooming the entire galaxy. 

Disappointingly, Phantom Menace might haver the better action scenes when compared to Clones. There is little action here (much like in Phantom Menace), and when there is any it's weak. The first act chase fails to thrill, and the final 45 minutes of non-stop action is a jumbled, chaotic mess. You'd hope seeing numerous Jedi fighting would be exciting and cool, but no. The decision to focus on CGI technology only hurts the film as well, as the character designs and overall CGI work is painful and distractingly bad.

In the end, Clones falls prey to an abysmal script (the script for Clones is worse than Phantom Menace), poor acting, and bad directing . Clones leans heavily into the space soap opera aspect of Star Wars and is all the worse for it. While Attack of The Clones doesn't feel like as much of a waste of time as Phantom Menace did, it's still mostly a waste of time. Enjoyable and watchable, but only in a "Bad Movie" way.

1 STAR

X: THIS FILM IS A LOT

 This review was originally posted to Letterboxd on March 17, 2022.

Mia Goth stars as Maxine, an exotic dancer convinced she has the "X" factor. Wayne (Martin Henderson, from ‘The Ring’ remake), her sleazy boyfriend and owner of the club she works at, agrees and is financing a low budget adult film starring her. With aspiring filmmaker RJ (Owen Campbell) directing, RJ’s gf Lorraine (Jenna Ortega) doing sound, and enthusiastic actors Bobby-Lynne (Brittany Snow) and Jackson (Kid Cudi) cast in the remaining roles, everything is go for filming.

The proprietors of the farmhouse where the gang is filming (Pearl, also played by Mia Goth, and Howard, played by Stephen Ure) are an ancient, creepy couple. Howard greets the gang with a shotgun and a general hostility. Pearl hovers around the periphery, goggling Maxine. Unfortunately for everyone, it seems Maxine really does have that "X" factor as her youth and vitality sparks something horrific in Pearl, and a bloodbath ensues.

X is a film that has A LOT to say. There are different perspectives/commentaries/reactions  on/to porn and the porno industry that are presented, as well as an affecting look at beauty aged well past it's prime and how that beauty reacts to a more youthful one not unlike that which Pearl used to possess. X does fall prey to Gerontophobia (fear of the elderly) and the exploitation of such, though it does its best to paint Pearl in a sympathetic, sad light before she goes bananas (an effort that does not go unnoticed).

Ti West directs and this is likely his best film yet. He successfully juggles a mountain of material as well as a run time that clocks in at under 105 minutes. Some moments and jokes are a little too on the nose (a character, completely alone, turns on the radio only for it to start playing Blue Oyster Cult's 'Don't Fear The Reaper'. Gee, I wonder what's going to happen next), but West manages to balance a mostly silly tone with moments of genuine horror and tension.

X, like most A24 horror films, is consistently visually appealing. The cinematography by Eliot Rockett is simply stellar, and perfectly recaptures the look and feel of a 70s flick (Aesthetically, X is most clearly influenced by The Texas Chain Saw Massacre). For example: The opening shot appears to be in an older/smaller aspect ratio similar to films of the 70s. As the camera slowly zooms in, it's revealed that the shot was framed within two barn doors, mimicking a different aspect ratio. 

The cast gathered this time is pretty solid ( despite most of them falling prey to Stupid White Person Syndrome, even Kid Cudi). It's nice to see Jenna Ortega in another horror film, even if she doesn't get much focus or screen time. Mia Goth is the sun everything orbits around in this flick, though. Her dual performances as Pearl and Maxine are superb (She is unrecognizable as Pearl). 

The characters of Pearl and Maxine are mirrors of each other, and it's through Pearl that a religious perspective is explored. Maxine, on the other hand, is fierce and free-willed. It’s not hard to see her being a positive role model for women as she has taken control of her own body, knows what she wants, goes for it, and won’t settle for anything less. As for supporting roles, James Gaylyn manages to make his three brief scenes count as the befuddled Sheriff who’s trying to make sense of the aftermath. 

X is a film that knows what it is (as can be evidenced by it's final, perfect line), and it's not afraid to be a little self-aware/meta. It’s often pretty clever, smart, and funny. There is little carnage during the first act or so, but when Pearl gets the bloodlust there is A LOT of the red, gooey stuff.  This is a movie about the filming of a porno, so you can expect a good deal of nudity and sex (the ladies get the silhouette of Kid Cudi’s dick), but smut this is not. 

In the end, X makes for a very fun, very gory horror flick that has a lot to say about porn, the reactions to it, as well as the reactions to youth and beauty. It will likely take several viewings to fully process it’s numerous themes, making X yet another A24 horror flick that is worth a watch (or several).

4 STARS

THE LEGEND TAKES FLIGHT ONCE AGAIN: THE BATMAN

 This review was originally posted to Letterboxd on March 16, 2022

A different kind of movie for a different kind of Batman. This doesn’t feel like a superhero film, or like any other Batman flick we’ve gotten thus far. The Batman is an ultra-dark, gritty neo-noir detective thriller. That’s right, this latest version chooses to play up “The World’s Greatest Detective” aspect of Batman, which is nice since that part of Batman is usually less focused on. The Batman is superbly cast and directed, just about everyone fits their roles perfectly ( the best imo being Paul Dano, Robert Pattinson, Colin Farrell, and Jon Tuturro) and the score by Michael Giaccino is guaranteed to stick with you. 

Robert Pattinson’s take on Batman/ Bruce Wayne makes his version of the character feel like a kid. This is a Batman who has been at this for a bit, but is still  getting a feel for his Batman persona as well as field testing some gadgets. There is no real distinction between his Bruce and his Bat (which might piss some fans off, although you could argue that the point is that Batman is the true persona and Bruce Wayne is the secret identity), and we only really get one scene of Pattinson as “Bruce”. Pattinson’s Bruce Wayne/Batman is very intelligent, broody, depressed, and angry. Pattinson makes for a Bruce/Batman that you enjoy watching and want to learn more about. 

Colin Farrell is a stand-out as Oswald Cobblepot/ The Penguin. He is unrecognizable thanks to heavy prosthetics that he disappears into and a thick New York accent. The Penguin is a supporting player, but Farrell makes every one of his scenes count. This easily ranks as one of Farrell’s best performances, you can tell he is enjoying the hell out of his role. 

Andy Serkis isn’t in the film much as Alfred, but he makes for a welcome addition and his take on the character feels familiar yet different. Jon Tuturro also shines as Carmine Falcone, an evil and powerful mob boss. Tuturro brings an effortless sense of cool and style to the iconic villain that helps his portrayal stand out.  

A problem with The Batman is that it doesn’t feel like it has a central villain. Dano’s Riddler is terrifying, but is more on the sidelines for the first 2/3rds of the film (he does get much more focus in the last act), making most of The Batman actually about rooting out a large criminal conspiracy in Gotham. 

The Batman is a thrilling new interpretation of The Batman mythos that more than impresses on a casting and technical level ( and this version of The Batmobile might be my favorite, even if it’s only in around one scene. The sound design is also superb). This latest Bat-flick feels new and offers more than enough different. There’s always an odd thrill at getting to see a new Batman film in theaters, The Batman delivers that thrill and then some.

4.5 STARS

IS MY BLUE HEAVEN THE SEQUEL TO GOODFELLAS WE'VE ALL WAITED FOR?

 A bizzaro-world comedic quasi-sequel to Goodfellas, based VERY loosely on real life events. Written by Nora Ephron (married to Nicholas Pileggi, writer of Wiseguys, which Goodfellas is based on. She wrote the screenplays for When Harry Met Sally..., Michael, Sleepless in Seattle, and You've Got Mail among others), My Blue Heaven really is connected to Goodfellas in odd ways. 

The film follows Vinnie Antonelli (A stand-in for the real life Henry Hill, played by Steve Martin), a mobster turned rat now under Witness Protection. Vinnie has been relocated to the suburbs as he awaits his testimony. CIA underling Barney Coopersmith (Rick Moranis) is assigned the unenviable job of watching over Vinnie. Barney fumbles with his task as Vinnie seems dedicated to breaking laws, causing trouble, and reverting to his criminal ways common sense be damned.

Steve Martin is playing a complete caricature with a grating, painfully fake New York accent. He's meant to be a lovable trickster, but comes across as more of an asshole most of the time. Rick Moranis does well in the straight-man role. Both actors work well off each other, and they make for an ok pair (The few dance scenes they have are highlights).

The big problems with My Blue Heaven are: It isn't structured particularly well, there isn't a solid plot, and the comedy isn't strong. Vinnie testifies before we reach the hour mark, leaving the last 40 minutes or so to fumble around and try and find a proper ending. It feels like Ephron had a concept for a movie that sounded funny, but didn't have all the specifics planned out. It seems like we should be building to Vinnie testifying, but that's not the case (To say what we ARE building to would be a spoiler, but I will say it's disappointing) . It feels like the big threat should be the mobsters out for Vinnie's head, but it's actually Vinnie's stubborn ways.

My Blue Heaven is a fundamentally flawed film. It's also fairly harmless, and entertaining enough at moments. If you're looking for an odd, different film...I suppose My Blue Heaven fits the bill.

2 STARS

SMALLS GETS TRAPPED IN SEAHAVEN AND LOVES IT WITH THE TRUMAN SHOW

 “Good morning! And in case I don’t see you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!”

Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) lives a ho-hum but fulfilling and moderately successful life with his wife Meryl (Laura Linney) and best friend Marlon (Noah Emmerich) on the beautiful, small island community of Seahaven. He has almost everything he could want, but unbeknownst to Truman, this is by design.

Truman Burbank is the star of his very own television show, the longest continually running one in history (broadcasting for 30 years).  All of his friends and family are paid actors, and the entire town is a set. Truman’s false, curated life is certainly an idyllic one, but it can only keep him happy and for so long. A falling stage light sets Truman on a path of discovery, which upsets Christof (Ed Harris, a great villain) the creator of the program who harbors a serious God complex. 

Jim Carrey is absolutely perfect as the boy-ish and endlessly optimistic Truman. He perfectly embodies the role. This is one of Carey’s more naturalistic performances. He keeps things light (but not too light). It’s not hard to see why the entire cast of The Truman Show ( that is, the show Truman stars in) as well as the entire world, has fallen in love with Truman Burbank.

Truman is immensely easy to root for and incredibly likable. It’s thrilling to watch his quest (and Carrey’s reactions can be funny at times, deeply affecting at others), and the realizations he comes to along the way are heart-breaking but also oddly liberating. 

The Truman Show (the movie) is directed by Peter Weir (who also directed Dead Poets Society) and written by Andrew Nicchols (this is the best thing he’s done). Weir’s direction is on point. The film is funny when it needs to be, and heavy when moments calls for it. The performances are pretty great all around (Paul Giamatti also pops up as one of the control room operators for the show) with Carrey carrying most of the entire weight of the proceedings with ease. The script is pretty sharp and witty as well (it definitely impresses). 

Shot mostly in and around the town of Seaside, Florida, the locations found in The Truman Show are beautiful. It’s tempting to be a little envious of Truman, the area he lives in is truly gorgeous. You’d be surprised to find how much of the “set”, isn’t actually a set (like the street Truman lives on, for example).

The Truman Show scratches at themes concerning capitalism, corporations, consumerism/mass consumerism, choice/free will, control, how the life of the average American has become “for sale”, the relationship between God and man,  and much much more. It’s much deeper than it let’s on, and it’s smart enough not to hold your hand or guide you.

In the end, the only real complaint I have with The Truman Show is it feels like it should be longer. The final 20 minutes or so come at you fast, and it feels like we could have used a few more scenes of Truman putting the pieces together before the climax. In a way, this could be counted as a good thing. Always leave them wanting more, so they say.

When all is said and done, The Truman Show comes pretty damned close to being a perfect film. The setting is gorgeous, the actors are all well-cast and put on solid performances, the themes and story are rich and engaging (and who hasn’t ever wondered if they are starring in their own movie?), and we get a classic, lovable hero to tie it all together. The Truman Show still resonates with viewers to this day, and for good reason.

5 STARS

CAN THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2022) REV UP THE FRANCHISE?

This review was originally posted to Letterboxd on February 18, 2022

More bad than good, unfortunately. That said, there still is some good here. The cinematography by Ricardo Diaz is consistently nice, there are some small moments with Leatherface that work, and the cast is solid, but wasted (They got Elsie Fisher from Eighth Grade to be the final girl) .

The film is definitely trying (such as giving our "final girl" a school shooter survivor backstory. Some might find it tasteless, I thought it mostly worked), but most of the kills aren't great (The first kill sequence in the van was the best one imo, there's also one with a sledgehammer that is certainly brutal. The Party Bus Massacre had so much potential, but is undone due to poor staging, shooting, and choreography).

Sally returns, and the attempt to pick up her story is appreciated but the OG actress died several years back, Sally's ultimate fate is a let down, and it really does feel like they included Sally just to piggy-back off of Halloween 2018 (Sally is in the film a bit, but doesn't really come into play until the final 25 minutes).

Another issue is that Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2022 doesn't really get Leatherface. Some moments with him work, most don't (Sorry movie, Leatherface doesn't do tricks/traps. He is SEVERELY mentally handicapped. He literally doesn't have the mental capacity for it). I like that it's the death of his caretaker (caused by our main group of dumb, socially-conscious kids) that sets him off.

I also like that our main group are kind of villains in a way (Harlowe, Leatherface's home, has become a ghost town thanks to "late stage Capitalism". Our group swoops in and buys the entire town, planning to remake/rebuild it in their own image. The film makes it a point to show that almost everyone doesn't like our group).

Despite my many, many qualms with this film I still had a lot of fun with it. There were plenty of moments so bad or so stupid, I found myself laughing. It's definitely enjoyable in a "bad movie" or "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way. Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2022 is not a good film, it does not successfully breathe life back into Leatherface. It is absolutely better than Leatherface (2017) and Texas Chainsaw 3D, though. So I guess that's something.

2.5 STARS

SMALLS GETS SACRIFICED TO THE RUINS

 In The Ruins, four dumb college-aged American tourists in Mexico accompany a friendly German to an "off-the-map" archeological dig at a Mayan temple. Once they arrive, they are forced up the temple by upset locals, and quarantined. Why are they being held there? What is the secret of the temple? Rest assured, blood will flow and not all will live to see the safety of home by the time the end credits roll.

Fun fact: This was likely the first R rated film I saw alone in theaters. I remember TRL (Total Request Live) heavily promoting it during their spring break coverage, and that was what ultimately compelled me to see it. This most recent viewing was of the theatrical cut, which I haven't seen since back in that theater all those years ago. So, how does it hold up?

Having just completed reading the novel this film was based on, I walked in with a different perspective this time around. I imagine those that read the novel and those that didn't had a vastly different experience watching this adaptation.

In short, as an adaptation, the movie sucks (which really shouldn't be the case, seeing as the sole screenwriting credit on IMDB goes to Scott Smith, who also wrote the novel). A lot of the events remain the same, but most of them happen to different characters in the film than they do in the novel (for example, in the novel it's Pablo/Demetri who falls down the mine shaft, and in the film it's Mathias. The Mathias character is given much more to do in the novel, and he is the one who imo is the closest to being likable) .

The characters are also softened a bit here, as they are mostly unlikable in the novel, albeit realistically so (ie, Jeff is the worst in the novel. He's competent, but has "main character syndrome" and resents everyone else for not being as adept at survival as he is. He spends most of the novel arguing and yelling at his friends). The novel and film also vary a great deal in how they choose to wrap things up.

A problematic change from novel-film is the decision to make Stacy( a "spacey" blonde white girl) suffer much more in the film. Having read the novel, the change feels icky and wrong (most of her torment in the book is reserved for Eric, her boyfriend). The change feels exploitative, and speaks volumes on what is perceived by screenwriters and studios to be horror audience's wants and desires.

Judging this film as it's own thing, how does it fare? The cast (Jenna Malone as Amy, Jonathan Tucker as Jeff, Laura Ramsey as Stacy, Shawn Ashmore as Eric, and Joe Anderson as Mathias) is mostly game, with Jonathan Tucker being the most memorable part of it. His Jeff makes for a very likable and competent leader, despite some flaws. The carnage that occurs atop the temple ain't anything to shake a stick (or vine) at either. The film shies away from most of the bloodshed, but the little we do see is enough to get most stomachs churning (Remember, the version I'm reviewing here is the R rated cut. I haven't seen the Unrated cut in a while, but I'm pretty sure it's significantly more bloody).

The setting of the temple is one of the most memorable aspects of the film (and it's completely absent from the novel. The Ruins in the novel are a vine-covered hill, with a mine shaft atop). The premise of becoming an unwitting and unwilling part of a sacrifice that goes back hundreds of years (at least) is also pretty horrifying and certainly original/unique enough.

It's appreciated that the Mayan locals aren't just portrayed as villains. They definitely appear antagonistic at first, but as events transpire atop of the temple, it slowly becomes clear what the local's original intent was. You can see it all on the face of the Lead Mayan (portrayed with humanity by Sergio Calderon) near the end of the film: Sympathy, regret, sadness. This is not something the Mayan locals want to do, or something they enjoy watching.

The direction by Carter Smith (and no, as far as I could find, he's not related to Scott Smith) is competent and average. The cinematography by Darius Khondji is pretty good. The settings all look pretty appealing under his touch (even that temple), and he appears to use some oversaturation at moments to simulate the blaring heat. The score by Graham Revell is mostly fine. It can be distracting and generic at times, but at others it's effective.

The Ruins works because it was built on a strong foundation (The novel is arguably far better than the film), it's premise is fairly horrific, and the setting of the temple is a memorable one. The villain/s of the film can definitely come across as silly (a problem the novel suffers from as well), but scares more than not in large part because of the horrors they bring, as well as what they are capable of. The Ruins makes for a tense, enjoyable watch. Bring some sunscreen and herbicide, and get comfy atop that ancient Mayan ruin. Who knows, it just might end up getting under your skin.

3 STARS

SMALLS TAKES A STROLL DOWN NIGHTMARE ALLEY

 This review was originally posted to Letterboxd on February 9, 2022.

In Nightmare Alley, mysterious loner Stan Carlyle (Bradley Cooper) wanders into a traveling carnival/freak show owned by the sinister Clem Hoatley (Willem Dafoe) where he is offered a job as a barker. Stan's dreams of stardom, fame, and wealth sweeps Molly Cahill (Rooney Mara) a young performer, into his orbit.

They run away and start up their own mentalist act, garnering some deal of the fame and attention Stan has yearned for. Unfortunately, Stan's ambition lands him squarely in the crosshairs of the beautiful but dangerous Lillith Ritter (Cate Blanchett), psychologist to some very rich clientele. She's visibly bothered by Stan's lack of morals, but decides to assist him with his act regardless.

The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry, as they do here. Like a mouse, Stan also slowly realizes he might be caught in a trap himself.

The first hour of Nightmare Alley takes place at the carnival/ freak show, while the 2nd hour and 20 minutes takes place 2 years later in the city. Needless to say, the first hour is the strongest, most engaging, and most memorable part. The setting of the carnival/freak show is striking, with numerous memorable sets within (like the fun house, or the Geek pit).

Guillermo Del Toro (Director, he also shares writing duties with Kim Morgan) has always had a knack for imagination and visuals, and these strengths are put to good use throughout Nightmare Alley, in the first act in particular. Del Toro's carnival/freak show is certainly enticing, magical, but also holds a hint of real danger/treat to it. It might be the perfect home for Stan, hence why his decision to leave is upsetting.

The production design by Tamara Deverell is consistently gorgeous, and really shines in the creation and design of the freak show/carnival. The cinematography by Dan Laustsen often succeeds at whisking viewers into Nightmare Alley's visually enticing world.

Toni Collette wows in an unexpected appearance as Zeena, the resident psychic/mentalist whom has an act with her husband, the drunk and washed-up Pete (David Straithairn). Zeena is a friendly (maybe a little too friendly in one scene), helpful presence for Stan. Collette commands the screen whenever she is on.

David Straithairn acts as almost a surrogate father to Stan, teaching him the ropes of Mentalism as well as delivering prophetic warnings about the dangers and temptations of the craft. Cooper and Straithairn definitely have a real chemistry and friendship throughout, though you can sense some resentment seeping off of Cooper's Stan at times. Straithairn takes a supporting role, and makes it one of the most memorable parts of the film.

Cate Blanchette is also quite good as Lillith Ritter, a psychologist who appears to be your classic femme fatale. Naturally, wo don't learn the full truth about her character or motives until the very end. The scenes where her and Cooper go toe-to-toe are always a joy to watch as a literal wrestling match of the wits proceeds. Blanchette's Lillith is the rare femme fatale where I think I might actually be on her side.

Willem Dafoe shines as Clem Hoatley, the machiavellian proprietor of the carnival/freak show who takes Stan under his wing but makes sure he doesn't forget his place. Dafoe makes the most out of every one of his scenes, and his Hoatley is a shadow-y, devious figure unafraid of doing some very devil-ish things in order to make sure his freak show functions. Dafoe only appears in the first act of the film, but he makes a lasting impression (when doesn't he, really?).

Nightmare Alley is a film packed with big names and strong performances, all of which are orbiting around the gravitational pull which is Bradley Cooper's Stan. It's easy to forget this guy started out as a comedic actor. Cooper's Stan is a man dripping with quiet menace and evil potential. He goes most of the first 20 minutes just about completely silent. Cooper's hard stare is enough to send chills down your spine. This man might not be completely bad yet, but he has definitely done bad things in the past and he will undoubtedly be doing more bad things in the near future.

Stan is an interesting, complex character to follow around. You don't root for his success, and it's not hard to eagerly await how exactly he will fall down (and how hard). Cooper's performance is magnetic, charismatic, and even scary or thugg-ish enough to keep viewers totally captivated by this scummy con man.

As stated above, the first hour of Nightmare Alley is the strongest thanks to the carnival/freak show setting as well as all the creepy foreshadowing that occurs there. The second and third acts aren't necessarily weak, but they do drag at times and the film itself definitely feels like it's two hours long. The love story between Rooney Mara's pure-hearted Molly and Bradley Cooper's Stan shows potential, but is not really focused on enough (or, to be more specific, Mara's Molly isn't focused on enough) to leave the mark it wants to.

Nightmare Alley feels like a classic Hollywood noir, even though it's really more of a noir-tinged dramatic character study/tragedy. It definitely reminds one of watching a classic Hollywood movie, but made for the modern day. Lover of classic Hollywood or film in general should find much to love. So, trek into the dark, shadowy depths of Nightmare Alley. You just might find a gem waiting for you at the end.

4.5 STARS