Iro's One Movie a Day Thread

#174 - John Wick
Chad Stahelski, 2014



When a retired hitman is brutally attacked by the unwitting son of his former boss, he swears revenge.

In a world where revenge-based action thrillers are a dime a dozen and Liam Neeson has as much gold as he can eat, one film promises to change things up ever so slightly. John Wick takes a while to get going by setting up the titular character (Keanu Reeves) with the kind of tragic and horrific circumstances that would lead him to go on a roaring rampage of revenge against the entire Russian mob. Given how Wick is a legendary killer, it gets to the point where regular mob enforcers are not enough and soon enough a massive contract is put out on him, and hilarity ensues.

John Wick is not supposed to be a particularly good movie, but it's a solid enough action thriller that manages to make just enough of a variation on its familiar premise to be entertaining. There is some interesting world-building going on here as well, such as the introduction of a hotel that serves as a neutral zone for assassins or the fact that criminal figures don't use cash so much as unique golden coins in order to pay for things. It helps to make up for how much it does lift from a lot of older (if not always better) assassin movies - the whole sub-plot involving Willem Dafoe is straight out of The Killer, for instance. I also like how the whole thing is shot in a hyper-realistic manner filled with bold colours and surprisingly smooth camerawork that can keep up with the frequent and frantic scenes of fighting and shooting (though I could question some of the musical choices - Marilyn Manson, anyone?). Given the director's background in stuntwork, it makes sense how the film puts some serious emphasis on the physicality of the characters to the benefit of the action, though of course the film still falls prey to some glaring plot contrivances that undercut the film's attempts to set up Wick as a highly efficient killing machine. The most glaring example:



Of course, if you take too much issue with such a contrivance then watching this kind of movie probably isn't your thing. Depending on the movie's general quality, it might not even be my thing, but fortunately John Wick has enough quality to keep it on the good end of my rating scale. Though it does end rather anti-climatically and doesn't quite make as much use of its fantastic "secret world of assassin rules" setting as I'd hoped, it's still a fairly welcome piece of straight-up action that doesn't get bogged down in self-awareness or unnecessary plot elements. There's already talk of a sequel or two, which I do approve of because if any recent action film deserves to become a trilogy, it's definitely John Wick

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

#175 - Maps to the Stars
David Cronenberg, 2014



A film about a handful of people living and working in Hollywood whose lives intertwine.

A surreal arthouse movie about the dark underbelly of Hollywood directed by a white-haired guy called David? How surprising. But seriously, Maps to the Stars is much like every other Cronenberg films in that I'm not altogether sure how to translate what I've seen into any kind of rating. Granted, this is still following the relatively conventional bent that his films have taken over the past decade, and for all intents and purposes this is a Cronenberg going Hollywood. Julianne Moore leads the cast as a fading starlet who wants nothing more than to appear in a remake of a film that originally starred her mother, but she is tormented by uncooperative executives and hallucinations of her mother (a once-famous star trying to mount a comeback while being tormented by a hallucination? What does that remind me of?). John Cusack plays her therapist, who also happens to be the father of a self-absorbed child star (Evan Bird) who has his own set of mental issues. Also thrown into the mix are a mysterious young drifter (Mia Wasikowska) and the limo driver (Robert Pattinson) she befriends upon entering Hollywood. To say much more about the characters and the various ways in which they inter-connect risks spoiling the film, but suffice to say that this becomes one of those "everything is connected" kind of films before too long.

Cronenberg has always been a rather cold and clinical director and that same attitude permeates this film as well. There are unnerving drones all over the soundtrack and the cinematography is crystal clear and carefully framed. The members of the main cast are all solid and manage to make the most of some fairly familiar storylines, though some get more to do than others. Though Moore's "comeback" narrative has been done better before, she still gives a warts-and-all kind of performance that has a bit more complexity than you'd expect. It's almost overshadowed by Bird's narrative as a child star who is also getting chewed up by both the Hollywood system and his own psychological issues (especially his being haunted by the ghost of a terminally ill child he visited), to say nothing of Wasikowska as the sweet-natured drifter who still proceeds to shake things up for everyone else in the main cast. Even Cusack manages to bring quite some menace to his supporting role as a highly motivated therapist with a dark side, as does Olivia Williams as his stage-mother wife. It's rather distracting how Pattinson is one of the biggest stars in the film yet he doesn't get all that much to work with in terms of either character or direction. A person with a boring job who wants to get into acting and writing is yet another Hollywood stereotype to go with all the others, but he's not awful.

Maps to the Stars may not have the most original premise and you can pick apart its attempt at dark Hollywood satire, but there's still enough talent on display to make it work. The film really does come together a bit better as it heads into its third act and all the various plot threads start to connect and resolve in all manner of disturbing ways, though it does take a while for the film to truly get going in the first place. I have extremely mixed feelings about Cronenberg's filmography in general and haven't been too impressed by what I've seen in his recent realistic films, but this film in particular is a solid enough example of how he's still capable of messing with audiences in a good way.

#176 - Moulin Rouge!
Baz Luhrmann, 2001



In turn-of-the-century France, a poor writer falls in love with a courtesan whose affections are intended for a wealthy noble.

I have somehow never managed to watch a Baz Luhrmann film in full before, and Moulin Rouge! seemed as good a film to pick as any. While the film is definitely full of visual zest, it does cover up one incredibly weak story that isn't even structured well. The framing story is supposed to allow our writer protagonist (Ewan MacGregor) an excuse to narrate, though it does spoil the ending of the movie for no good reason in the process. The story mixes farce with melodrama without much in the way of consistency or even evoking decent emotional responses. The comedy either trades on the vibrant weirdness of the setting or resorts to some tiresome comedies of errors that naturally tie into the love triangle between MacGregor's writer, his showgirl/courtesan love interest (Nicole Kidman) and the wealthy cad (Richard Roxburgh) whose presence causes even more complications than just that of the romantic plot. Even the dramatic elements are handled pretty poorly, with complications being provided by incredibly out-of-nowhere character development, extremely irrational decisions and, of course, the fact that the plot of the show-within-a-show reflects the film's actual events. On a musical level, the decision to use old-timey renditions of modern pop songs either comes across as inspired or obnoxious (more often the latter), and the actors' singing ability isn't strong enough to carry the bulk of the songs anyway. Fortunately, the film isn't totally terrible. The bright colour palette feels like it's straight out of old-school melodrama and looks great as a result (as does the cinematography in general), while the production design is also very exquisite. Of course, singling out the technical elements as the best part of a film often speaks to weaknesses in terms of writing and performing. Moulin Rouge! definitely has plenty of weakness in those areas and not even the zaniness or heartstring-tugging of its musical numbers can adequately compensate for that.

I didn't know Willem Dafoe was in John Wick. I want to see it.

X-Men: The Last Stand was Spider-Man 3 before Spider-Man 3. Since you're curious about the Wolverine films, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is even worse than The Last Stand and only good for mocking, in my opinion, whereas The Wolverine is surprisingly solid.

McLintock! looks like another ridiculously harsh Iroquois rating, but I haven't seen the film, so I can't cry foul. Not surprised it stuck in your craw. You seem fairly sensitive to political incorrectness in films, at least judging by earlier comments you've made. Out of curiosity, I read your spoilers and I don't see the big deal. If there's one thing we need more of in society, it's communal spankings.

The Vanishing didn't quite live up to its reputation, but I thought it was a very good film. I don't recall the first two acts feeling dull.

I've never liked Kevin Smith, but Red State was a welcome change of direction. I still wouldn't call it a good film, but I certainly liked it more than anything else he's made. One of my friends recently watched Tusk and said it made him never want to watch another Kevin Smith movie, and he's someone who ranks Clerks as an all-time favorite. The premise sounds laughably bizarre and I'm curious to see how it all plays out. Hearing that Haley Joel Osment is in it already makes me laugh. I didn't know he was even acting anymore. (Does he lay in bed at some point and whisper, "I see dead walruses"?) Unfortunately, I already know about the "incognito A-lister." He's my favorite actor, so his involvement makes me more likely to watch the film, but I wish his appearance had remained a surprise for me.

Really looking forward to John Wick and, to a much lesser extent, Maps to the Stars.

__________________

It's a decent enough supporting role, and from what I can tell it looks like your kind of movie and you'll probably enjoy it more than I did.

I got that impression about Origins, alright, but as you can probably tell I'm not averse to watching bad films if I think they can be entertaining in other ways.

What can I say? It's weird to notice stuff like that, especially when it's being played for laughs. I understand that given both the setting and the time the film was made, it probably passes as "fair for its day" but that was then and this is now, so of course I'm likely to just look at scenes like that and go, "Really? That's how you're going to end this movie?" Also can't tell if you're being serious about the needing more communal spankings or not.

Dull is a relative term here because the crux of the film rests on the second half of the film, so of course the first half just feels like something you've got to wait through.

Morbid curiosity is basically the only thing Tusk has going for it, which is definitely not enough to make for a good film. To answer your question, no, he does not.

I'm always serious.

And this thread was going so well.

I'm in the Pro-John Wick club.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

#177 - 3 Idiots
Rajkumar Hirani, 2009



Two friends start searching for a third friend that went missing ten years ago, while one of them recalls their days studying at an engineering college.

You'd think after the scorn I'd given Moulin Rouge! in my last review that I'd probably end up hating 3 Idiots, which also promised a mix of light-hearted comedy, heavy-handed drama and musical numbers all shot through with colourful vibrancy - and it goes for almost an hour longer than Moulin Rouge!, too. Fortunately, 3 Idiots has just enough substance behind it to reasonably justify having a three-hour running time. It's anchored by some great performances from its three leads, each of whom makes the most of their very familiar roles. Farhan is the narrator who wishes he could be a photographer but is forced to become an engineer by his domineering father, while his friend Raju wants to become an engineer because it's the only way he can adequately provide for his impoverished family. The third lead is Rancho, an extremely talented student whose carefree attitude towards learning puts him at odds with the college's extremely strict dean and another student who becomes an incredibly insufferable rival. The film is a comedy first and foremost, mainly as a result of Rancho's tendency to pull pranks on others or espouse free-spirited wisdom to others. HIs rebellious nature only serves to underline the incredibly damaging attitude to learning that the college takes, which serves to underline a very dark and dramatic side of the story - one incredibly upbeat musical number ends in discovering a student's suicide, for instance. The film finds plenty of plot strands to weave together as part of both its storylines, and though at worst it makes the film come across as contrived and padded, everything ends up paying off in one way or another.

The musical numbers, well, they cover a lot of the bases. Happy number, sad number, falling-in-love number, etc. They might be my least favourite thing about the film (apart from one scene during the film's third act that does come across as a bit too ridiculously sentimental even for this film, though given the circumstances it is somewhat acceptable), but that's a minor complaint. I'm not sure if I'll ever get around to watching 3 Idiots again - it doesn't strike me as a film that would reward repeat viewings all that well, especially given its considerable running time - but it's still a very charming film with a strong emotional base that allows it to bounce between the broadest of comedy and the saddest of drama with surprising ease, to say nothing of its very quirky and colourful characters. Definitely worth at least one viewing.

#178 - The Game
David Fincher, 1997



A highly successful businessman is given a gift certificate that enters him into a "game" that turns out to be a lot more dangerous than he expected.

The Game is often regarding as one of David Fincher's lesser works, which probably isn't helped the fact that it's sandwiched between two of his most acclaimed films. It starts off intriguingly as Michael Douglas's disaffected millionaire receives an invitation to a supposedly life-changing "game" by his screw-up brother (Sean Penn) and, after visiting the company's office and undergoing a series of tests, is gradually eased into the game. It starts off innocently enough with him following a series of clues but soon things start to mess with his perceptions of what is real and what isn't, especially considering how much power this mysterious company apparently has over the world. Douglas's presence almost seems like a bit of stunt-casting as he plays the same kind of troubled white-collar character that made him a big name in the '80s, but he plays things with a believable sense of vulnerability. Other characters do a solid enough job of conveying enough ambiguity to their emotions and actions that they all feel like they could be part of the game but naturally nothing is confirmed.

Fincher captures the whole film with his usual eye for the dark and sickly in any environment even in a room bathed in ultraviolet light, even though it is very noticeable that he's working with a different cinematographer. The film does do a good job of ratcheting up the paranoia with each new scene, but it occasionally struggles under the weight of such an admittedly implausible concept, especially when you take the ending into account. Fortunately, the bulk of the film is a compelling enough ride for the most part that's full of little surprises and has a distinctly unnerving edge to it, though I doubt it would hold up over the course of repeat viewings. It may be lesser Fincher, but that doesn't automatically make it a much lesser film.

#179 - Snowtown
Justin Kurzel, 2011



Based on the true story of three serial killers who operated in the town of Snowtown, South Australia during the 1990s.

As far as Australian true crime biopics go, this is a completely different beast to Chopper. While that film was a darkly comical piece of embellishment carried by an incredibly charismatic lead character, Snowtown is a grim portrait of the titular small town where the murderous leads are not offered much in the way of a sympathetic portrayal. The only one who gets such a treatment is Jamie (Lucas Pittaway), a teenage boy who is a frequent victim of sexual abuse and is convinced by John (Daniel Henshall) to start taking vengeance against his abusers. Before too long, John forces Jamie into being an accomplice to a series of sickening torture-based murders. Throughout it all, Jamie is just as horrified by what he's witnessing as the audience is, but he is manipulated into co-operating with the incredibly volatile and intimidating John.

The problem with a film that purports to be as much of a realistic and frank depiction of an actual murderer's crimes and the environment in which they occurred is that it's hard to tell just what kind of reaction to have to it. Snowtown doesn't often showcase the main trio's actual crimes, with the most disturbingly graphic and prolonged example happening about halfway through. Instead, much of the running time consists of depicting the small-town boredom that informs the lower-class characters' lives. Unfortunately, the thing about trying to accurately convey that kind of boredom is that you run the risk of boring the audience - when they're not being disturbed by the actual acts of physical violence, of course. As a result, most of the film's two-hour running time tends to be hindered by a lack of narrative momentum - this isn't helped by the film occasionally being hard to follow thanks to the erratic nature of the film's focus.

On the acting front, Henshall dominates every frame he's in as John, who can switch between charming affability while he's around most of the town's residents and manipulative menace once he's alone with Jamie. Though he definitely commits to the role, it ultimately suffers from the same lack of tension that permeates the rest of the film. Pittaway is alright as Jamie, though he generally comes across as a blank space when he's not actually involved in John's crimes. Given how much of the cast is made up of amateurs, there aren't a lot of strong performances on display anyway. It gets some points for the pallid cinematography and the atonal, drum-heavy background score, but neither of those can adequately compensate for Snowtown's most fundamental flaws. It's a raw and uncompromising dramatisation featuring some genuinely unsettling subject matter, but that doesn't automatically make it a good film.

#180 - The Adjustment Bureau
George Nolfi, 2011



When a politician meets a strange woman and falls for her, he soon ends up being pursued by mysterious agents with unexplained powers.

The Adjustment Bureau has a somewhat promising sci-fi premise - that of a supernatural agency that controls the world by making subtle manipulations to people and objects - but it's unfortunately used in the service of a fairly trite romantic plot. Matt Damon and Emily Blunt provide the leads - while Damon ultimately isn't good enough to carry out his duties as a protagonist (though maybe that's because of how thinly defined said protagonist is), Blunt does surprisingly well considering her rather limited role as the love interest who only seems to appear sporadically. The members of the titular bureau are supposed to be emotionless non-humans and their actors act accordingly, though some credit has to go to Anthony Mackie playing the one agent who starts to question his station and Terence Stamp as the true believer who serves as an extremely efficient major antagonist.

In theory, the combination of science-fiction and romance sounds like it should yield an interesting result, especially considering how the film does tangentially address issues of free will and the overall nature of humanity. There are also parts of the film's world-building that are interesting, such as the bureau's agents being able to teleport using doorways (which does involve some decent effects work) or the moments where the agents delve into the reason for their existence, but of course this ends up being extremely secondary to Damon's drive to reunite with Blunt by any means necessary. It starts off with a couple of meet-cutes and, though later revelations do sort of justify how these near-total strangers keep together no matter how the bureau interferes, the leads don't have enough chemistry to make their union charming or watchable. The attempts to graft sci-fi elements onto a standard romance films stretches all the way through to a fantastic variation on a clichéd romantic ending or two and the ramifications of the film's mythos seem to be ignored in the face of this. The Adjustment Bureau is a tolerable enough film, but there's no getting around how it sacrifices its most intriguing qualities for the sake of being a weak (though not that badly-acted) romance.

#181 - 21 Jump Street
Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, 2012



A pair of screw-up police officers are assigned to go undercover as high school students in order to break up an organisation of drug dealers.

There's a moment early on in 21 Jump Street where the film tries to endear itself to an audience jaded by reboots by having a no-nonsense police chief dryly complain to the leads that the reason the powers that be are recycling the concept of cops going undercover in a high school is because they lack imagination. Fortunately, this film has just enough creativity to make up for the supposed lack of inspiration that a comedic reboot of a popular drama would imply. There are a variety of recognisable faces on display here, most of whom are decent enough given their roles but never truly excel. Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill play the mismatched yet friendly leads - Hill is surprisingly tolerable as the awkward nerdy type who ends up becoming more popular than he originally was in high school, while Tatum is a meathead who starts off as a typical jerk jock but remains likeable throughout the film. Ice Cube almost steals the show as the pair's supervisor, an angry black captain who knows just how much of a stereotype he's playing into. Other characters aren't given all that much to do, such as Brie Larson as Hill's love interest or Dave Franco as the socially conscious and very friendly student who also happens to be the school's resident drug dealer.

Despite demonstrating an apparent self-awareness about its premise early on in the film, the film does follow a buddy comedy's fairly predictable three-act structure without additional comment. The attempts to mix action and comedy don't always work, especially when they do run through a series of familiar set-ups to varying degrees of comedic success - the car chases being the most obvious examples of how the balance doesn't deliver as much as it should. In fairness, there are some tantalising glimpses of anarchy throughout the film - of particular note are the sequence where they end up tripping off the very drug they're trying to destroy and also one especially unforgettable dick joke during the finale. It's an enjoyable enough comedy that I do recommend to people who like the current crop of R-rated Hollywood comedies and the kind of action movies that deserve parodies, but it feels like it could have been quite a bit better. At the very least, I liked it enough to want to see 22 Jump Street.

#182 - Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
Sidney J. Furie, 1987



Superman decides to get rid of all the nuclear weapons on Earth, which prompts Lex Luthor to create an evil clone of Superman.

Wow, what a trainwreck. Produced by the infamous Cannon Films studio (my main inspiration for watching this movie was seeing the bashing this film took in the documentary Electric Boogaloo), Superman IV marks an incredible downgrade in quality from its solid predecessor. So many factors collide in order to make this film a complete mess during its surprisingly short running time (how often do you see a superhero movie that only barely makes it to 90 minutes?). Firstly, there's the incredibly ludicrous premise where the looming threat of nuclear annihilation prompts a small boy to write a letter to Superman, who then vows to completely destroy all nuclear weapons to the near-unanimous agreement of all the world's leaders. This is then followed by a newly freed Lex Luthor working with his painfully annoying nephew to create their own version of Superman with "Nuclear Man" (pronounced new-kew-lar) by attaching Superman's DNA to a nuke getting thrown into the sun. Yes, really. There's also a sub-plot involving the Daily Planet being taken over by a corrupt newspaper tycoon, but that doesn't go anywhere interesting (and also results in one dire scene where Superman has to keep changing between being himself and Clark Kent in the presence of both Lois and the tycoon's daughter). Though Christopher Reeve believes in the film's anti-nuclear message and communicates that level of seriousness to his performance, everyone else is either terrible or having too much fun to care.

Then there's the effects - the effects in this film are simply stunning based on how totally and utterly bad they are. Green-screen effects look incredibly shoddy, the same footage of Superman flying is reused against multiple different backgrounds, his powers are extremely unconvincing (take a scene where he uses ice breath to put out a fire and it is clearly footage of the fire being run in reverse), the fact that Nuclear Man apparently develops like an embryo yet still emerges fully clothed, and so on and so forth. Even the opening credits look awful. Not even a triumphant score by veteran composer Alexander Courage does anything to distract from how this film is borderline-MST3K material and somehow manages to feel padded out despite being exactly 90 minutes in length. Still, at least it's the amusing kind of terrible (when it's not actively trying to be comedic, of course) rather than the kind that inspires genuine vitriol, and for that I suppose I should be grateful.

#183 - Man of Steel
Zack Snyder, 2013



A reboot of the Superman franchise.

I know that's considerably shorter than my usual loglines tend to be but considering how well-known Superman and his origin story are, I figured it merited it. At least Man of Steel shakes things up a bit by having it be told in flashbacks rather than the entire origin story happen all at once (though of course there are some minor tweaks here and there, often to inconsequential effect but also in ways that are occasionally frustrating to watch). The acting isn't anything too remarkable - I don't expect a character like Superman to be especially difficult to play and Henry Cavill does a decent enough job with the role, though it's rather disappointing how Michael Shannon's turn as General Zod feels rather feeble (then again, trying to distance yourself from Terence Stamp's iconic turn as the original cinematic Zod will do that). Amy Adams feels rather wasted as Lois Lane, though Kevin Costner does make the most of the very familiar role of Jonathan Kent. Russell Crowe as Jor-El could have been a disaster, but he delivers an unexpected level of soft-spoken grace (though his prolonged presence beyond the prologue does come across as awfully convenient for the characters).

Zack Snyder has always been a director that has prioritised style over substance and Man of Steel is no exception in that regard. At least he substitutes the stiffness and slow-motion of his other comic book movies for a much more kinetic and down-to-earth approach (even if the shakiness of the camerawork and occasional crash-zooms during fight scenes can't help but remind me of Chronicle). Though it takes an awfully long time for the film to really get to any interesting action (most of the action takes place during the last hour of the film, which doesn't help when it's almost two-and-a-half hours long), the stuff that we do get at least involves a lot of high-powered destruction, even if they are just superpowered fistfights moreso than all-out powered-up battles. I'll also cop to the fact that the effects work on display is really good (though of course this was always going to be an effects film, but it's nice to see good effects straight after seeing Superman IV). Man of Steel is a bit too dull for too much of its running time to be a truly good film (without even nit-picking various gaps in logic, of course), but it makes up for it somewhat by managing to make a fairly decent blockbuster in the process. Given Snyder's tendency to favour amazing visuals over solid writing, that just makes the fact that so much of the film is based around setting up scenes and character development seem like that much more of a misfire. At least it's set an alright precedent for a forthcoming Superman film.

Surprised that you liked 3 Idiots. When I saw the title I thought at the bottom of the post you would give it a or something. The third act does have a ton of sentimental elements and is a bit ridiculous but it's the charm of the film for me.

I agree with pretty much all you say about 21 Jump Street, I thought it was okay but didn't understand the fuss at all, I'll probably watch the second one eventually. I thought that Man of Steel was bad, just the whole look of it was terrible for me and I didn't like the acting much either.

__________________

Sadly not anything like enough.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Yeah, the film can definitely back up its inherent charm with some quality performances and writing. I'm sure if there was an English-language version I'd probably dislike it.

21 Jump Street was somehow not as bad as I'd expected or as good as I'd expected - like, on one hand I thought it'd be another annoying R-rated American comedy but on the other hand I felt like buying into the hype. I was also expecting Man of Steel to be bad, but I at least liked the look of it for the most part (seriously, how did the makers think that those Kryptonian cryo-sleep pods that looked like dongs were worth keeping in a finished film?)

It'd be interesting if that became the next big trend in superhero movies, but sadly everyone likes their blockbusters to be at least 135 minutes long these days.