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