Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)

Director: John McTiernan

Cast: Bruce Willis, Jeremy Irons, Samuel L. Jackson, Graham Greene

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure. I wonder sometimes what was the last movie I saw before starting these reviews in 2018. There’s a better than even chance that it was this during my last march through the sequels to Die Hard (1988).

Did I Like It: In my head, I’ve always viewed this as not just the best sequel in the series, but the only one even remotely worth a damn. I wondered, though, after my recent re-watch of Die Hard 2 (1990) if I would start thinking differently. Ultimately, though, I still think this is the strongest aside from the original, even if I finally found the charms in Die Harder.

It might be a fairly run of the mill 90s actioner. Indeed, it started out life as a completely unrelated original film intended as a vehicle for Brandon Lee. Abandoned after he died during the filming of The Crow (1994), it was then dusted off as a potential sequel for Lethal Weapon (1987) before eventually becoming what we have now.

One presumes that Simon (Irons) was not Hans Gruber’s brother the entire time, but that would certainly have been a choice. Come to think of it, the film seems so quintessentially New York-based (I don’t dare say that the city is like another character, so relax) it feels like it would have lost something had it followed Riggs and Murtaugh in LA, although I have no trouble imagining that the opening sequence with the sandwich board was written for Mel Gibson first.

It allows John McClane (Willis) to no longer be a fish out of water. Shedding the trappings of the first movie, it feels like this series can go pretty much anywhere.

Let’s just ignore where the series did go, shall we?

The Piano Lesson (2024)

Director: Malcolm Washington

Cast: Samuel L. Jackson, John David Washington, Ray Fisher, Danielle Deadwyler

Have I Seen It Before: No. This was the first film I saw for the Santa Fe International Film Festival this year. A full-week pass to a film festival is a strange thing. You look at a list, see a quick description of a film (or a series of films, if it’s an exhibition of short subjects), see if tickets are still available (they often aren’t, I missed a few things over the week to this struggle), see if it conflicts with anything else that you’re wanting to see or support, and then see if you’re interested in the film.

Did I Like It: A stage play adapted to film is always a tricky thing. Something like Dracula (1931)--which has far more to do with the play by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston than it did Stoker’s novel—came so early in the era of the talking picture that the camera just sort of sits there while the play is performed in front of it. The big musicals of the turn of the centuries knew they had to embrace the trappings of the big screen and delivered their spectacle. I can’t help but watch this film and feel as if the act of adaptation was not fully fulfilled. Pointedly cinematic scenes are added that I can’t imagine existed in the original August Wilson play—mainly depicting the creation and heist of the titular piano—but these feel somewhat tacked on.

The cast is terrific, but the majority of them are transplants from a recent Broadway revival of the play.

The themes are well constructed, and I’ve been thinking about them for most of the week since screening it. Are the ghosts real, or is the metaphor of being haunted by your past more potent? The film manages to not conclusively answer the question, while at the same time not feeling as if the story is cheating in the ambiguity.

And yet, would I have been better off watching a staging of the play? I wonder.

Kong: Skull Island (2017)

Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts

Cast: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, Brie Larson

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. It was just one of those movies during a year where I was eyeball deep in the first season of The Fourth Wall. Never got back around to it, and when I found Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) kind of underwhelming, I didn’t get in much of a hurry.

But now, as there is a better than even chance that my first movie back in the theater will be Godzilla vs. Kong (2021), felt like I should at least try to get acclimated.

Did I Like It: Tragically, I’ve been down on fiction films as a general rule lately, so it felt as I started this one that I was going to continue my resolute ambivalence. But, ultimately, I found myself kind of enjoying the proceedings in a low-impact, lazy weekend afternoon sort of way. Everyone involved has done better work elsewhere, but that’s hardly a complaint. Many films can feature John Goodman, but not every film can be Matinee (1993).

The time the film is set in—the 1970s, just as the Vietnam War is ending and the Watergate scandal is heating up—give it an undercurrent of political commentary that consistently threatens to either weigh down the proceedings or become trite, and it is surely to the film’s credit that it never fully surrenders to the temptation. The film’s secret weapon, however is John C. Reilly. His performance as Hank Marlow gives the film a rationale for an enlightened sensibility, and provides its comic relief. One might think that the film is a bit too measured in the pleasures it offers, but it’s hard to knock a film that gets the mixture right. It may want to be a bit of Apocalypse Now (1979), but it knows that people are really here for the giant ape getting into fights.

I just hope the man lived to see 2016. Go Cubbies.

I don’t know if the latest entry in the Monsterverse canon will be my first trip back to the theater post-vaccination, but if I do, I’m reasonably sure I’m Team Kong all the way, if only because I enjoyed their most recent film far more than the other. That’s a reasonable basis to pick sides in a fight, right?

Unbreakable (2000)

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

Cast: Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Robin Wright-Penn, Spencer Treat Clark

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, man. It’s one of those key movie watching experiences of my life. It is the late fall of 2000. Florida is doing its very best to tear apart western civilization. I am sixteen and the notion that I can just go to the movies without having to concoct some kind of labyrinthine plan to physically get there* is a novel experience. Sure, the eventual twist ending (the first sign that Shyamalan would never be able to shake the need to include them) but at that moment, the film played me like a harp.

I spent the next several weeks insisting to anyone who would talk to me for longer than thirty seconds that they must go and see it. Many did; few liked it as much as I did, with the possible exception of Bill Fisher. We then spent the next two years trying to tap into the films vein in our own way.

Did I Like It: I may have tipped my hand a bitIt is, without a doubt, Shyamalan’s best film. Sure The Sixth Sense (1999) has its charms, Signs (2002) shows an unusual level of restraint, and Split (2017) is quite good (although it benefits highly from its connection to this film). But this is the purest, most direct version of what Shyamalan has to offer the movies.

It’s attempt at depicting a world where superheroes could be real dominated my imagination for a very long time. It’s story of a man coming to embrace the best parts of himself, which he had spent a lifetime trying to ignore is something that still sticks in my craw every time I watch it now. I would not be me without this movie.

I’d say something more about the film, but there’s very little chance any additional words would be equal to my feeling and esteem for it.

Jackie Brown (1997)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Forster, Robert De Niro

Have I Seen it Before: Yes.

Did I Like It: But that’s the interesting thing. I don’t think it would be a terribly controversial opinion to call this Tarantino’s least memorable film. It’s certainly a different type of film from Tarantino’s other projects. It’s more linear than anything else from him, with the plot unfolding form A to B to C in such a coherent order (until the third act, a little bit) that if it weren’t for the close up of ladies feet, one would be forgiven for not realizing Tarantino is directing at all. It’s the only adaptation Tarantino has done—from a novel by Elmore Leonard—but I’m still a little bit surprised that the story of Jackie (Grier) didn’t get thrown into the Tarantino narrative blender.

But, that’s not a bad thing, the lack of memorability and relative anonymity of it all. I’ve watched Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood (2019) about a half a dozen times in the year since its release. It’s terrific, naturally, but the little moments and touches of the film that make Tarantino have become quite familiar over such a short amount of time. The same can be said about Pulp Fiction (1994) and either of the Kill Bill films. So, it’s an extra treat to rediscover this movie every once in a while. It’s almost like getting a new Tarantino movie every once in a while when you really weren’t expecting one. It may not meet some of the delirious highs of some of his other films, but even with its minor status, I can’t readily think of a better film from 1997.

Plus, Michael Keaton is in the movie, and frequent readers of this space know I’m prepared to give any movie a pass if Michael Keaton is in it.

Incredibles 2 (2018)

Director: Brad Bird

Cast: Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Sarah Vowell, Samuel L. Jackson

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. Not sure why I went a whole year missing the film, but it a year that also included Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018), I can see how things might have gotten a little crowded.

Did I Like It: Sure. Here’s the thing, the film is absolutely well-made and Brad Bird continues to cement his reputation as a first among equals in the Pixar pantheon. The 60s-tinged timelessness has not lost an ounce of its luster from the original film, the voice acting is—as always—spectacular, and the story follows that sacred rule of sequeldom: don’t let up on the pace.

But as I’m watching it, I wonder if I am less enveloped by this film as I was the original—or Bird’s other Pixar entry Ratatouille (2007)—as I become consumed by such an obtuse line of thinking about what is being presented to me, that I may be forcing myself outside of the film for much of the runtime

So, what’s that obtuse thought? I’m so glad you asked.

The film is the most succinct repudiation of Ayn Randianism and Objectivism that we are likely to find. 

Let me finish.

In years past, there has been some thinking that Bird was at least marginally sympathetic to Rand’s views. He has dismissed the idea as lazy criticism, and while I agree, that non-denial doesn’t exactly negate the interpretation. Especially in the original The Incredibles (2004), Bird’s stories are peppered with characters who have exceptional talents, but are put upon by a society less special than them. If that’s not a template for a Randian hero, then I don’t know what is.

Here, though the Parr family is still yearning to live in a world that will let them be who they were born to be, but things are quite a bit different. It is only when the villain of the piece, the Screenslaver (Catherine Keener, although I suppose that is something of a spoiler) puts Mr. Incredible (Nelson, who with John Ratzenberger might be the only people in this process who would be sympathetic to Rand), Elastigirl (Hunter), and Frozone (Jackson) under mind control that they declare their exceptionalism has made the world treat them unfairly, and that their revenge will be the removal of that specialness.

Furthermore, once things are back the way they should be, Elastigirl—the true hero of the piece—saves the villain regardless of her contempt for Supers. This film makes the point that exceptionalism should be nurtured in people, but the exceptional should use their abilities in service of society, even when that society doesn’t appreciate them.

Something tells me Rand would probably have a problem with that last thought.

The Incredibles (2004)

Director: Brad Bird

Cast: Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Jason Lee, Samuel L. Jackson

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure.

Did I Like It: What’s not to like?

Criticism of a Pixar film (certainly in the era pre-Cars (2006) feels like sort of a moot point. While the computer technology used to make their films were in their adolescence, if not infancy, the films were such undertaking that it was impossible not to churn out a finished product without having fully considered it from every angle. 

The writing is impeccable, because they took the time to iron out any difficulties they may have had in the early goings. 

The production design is flawless because they had to take the time to make every inch of their worlds from nothing. 

And every voice performance ad infinitum well in advance, so any false moment or out of context reaction could be ironed out before the movie hit cinemas.

So, what else is left to talk about in a film that so effectively zeroes in on exactly what it wants to be in every aspect of it’s being? The choices that got Pixar to this point.

I suppose I most marvel at the disparate choices made in this film specifically. In a dream team of filmmaking talent, Brad Bird was and is first among greats. A lesser filmmaker would have been content with the story he had concocted, but Bird makes the film an eclectic celebration of the Silver Age of comics he clearly loved the most. Not content to simply mimic the style, say, of the Adam West Batman TV series (which would have been a totally understandable and enjoyable choice in and of itself), Bird makes the world of his characters a celebration of the 60s (and leaning most heavily into the pre-Roger Moore James Bond pictures of the era), throws in just a bit of manic Andy Warhold energy, and at the same time makes the world feel as modern as it felt in the early 2000s, but timeless enough to feel fresh nearly fifteen years later.

The film is an aesthetic wonder living among a catalogue of aesthetic wonders. As I type this, I’m suddenly thinking that it might be Pixar’s greatest achievement stylistically to date. Other films like the Toy Story sequels or Inside Out may more effectively tap into the heart of the moviegoer, but every frame—every pixel—of this film is a symphony of deeply considered animated art.

Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)

Director: Jon Watts

Cast: Tom Holland, Zendaya, Jake Gyllenhaal, Jon Favreau

Have I Seen it Before: No. Even that middle-credit scene was still a breath of fresh air.

Did I Like It: Yes.

I do wonder if some of this review is actually fueled by the theater-going experience. We tried the new Cinergy facility here in Tulsa. They’re Chuck-E-Cheese for grownups milieu might work for some people, and it is encouraging that they cannibalized the auditoriums of the late, great Village 8 for their screening purposes. However, their attempts to provide the same amenity-rich experience as the Warren falls flat with a limited menu and an awkward ordering process. Also, apparently they haven’t mastered the air conditioning of these facilities. To their credit, they were aware of the climate control issue and took it upon themselves to hand out gift cards like they were after dinner mints. If I had previously known I could make fifty bucks in fifteen minutes just by staring at Samuel L. Jackson while sweating most of my body mass away, I might have made different career choices. It was a perplexingly unique movie-going experience. They have pinball machines there, so I imagine I will be back if for that reason alone.

And the immediately difficult task ahead of me is to start comparing it to other films. Is it the greatest Spider-Man movie of all time? No. Is it even the greatest Spider-Man movie released in the last twelve months? No.

This movie is really running up against some rough competition coming so soon after the awe-inspiring, adrenaline-goosing Spider-Man: Enter the Spider-Verse (2018). It even tries to dabble in some multi-verse shenanigans, but mostly as a fake out for the true plot in play*. I can’t even say that this is the greatest movie featuring the character as assayed by Tom Holland. Spider-Man Homecoming (2017) is jauntier. It’s blending of teen movie and big budget spectacle is more seamless. 

And, of course, Homecoming had Michael Keaton in it. There were reports that he would appear in this film as well. I’d like to say I don’t dock any points away from a movie for not featuring the once and future Batman, but I think that I even remotely like a film that could have featured Michael Keaton and opted not to is something of a testament to the film’s resiliency.

And that’s where it becomes clear that the comparison to other Spider-men is unfair. Should we be griping that this film isn’t quite as good as some of the greatest recent entries, or should we marvel (I see what I did there, and I’m not all that thrilled with it) that it is arguably true that the three greatest films (in no particular order) in the series are the most recent ones.

Because there is quite a lot to love here. Tom Holland is never not believable as a teen who’s in just a little bit over his head. Jake Gyllenhaal brings a manic charm to his role as Beck/Mysterio and so thoroughly plays on Peter’s unspoken need to fill the void in his life left by certain other characters, that you can’t help but hate him even more in the third act when his petulant villainy is brought to bear. On that note, it’s fairly effective as the more life-affirming wake for Tony Stark, where Avengers: Endgame (2019) felt like a gut-punch of a funeral. Zendaya accomplishes a startling task, keeping all of the brittle fun of her MJ, while still rising to the romantic comedy around her and showing vulnerability when the scenes demand. Jon Favreau shifts from the grumpy put-upon schlub of Homecoming to be the understanding grown up Peter eventually finds. Apparently the love of Marisa Tomei is the magical fuel of this series.

It’s a very sweet movie, and absolutely worth watching. I just hope they keep this up. And Gods of Asgard, please keep Venom (as played by anyone) as far away from this series as possible.

Huh.

I’m just now wondering how long Talos has been covering for Fury… Huh. That makes me re-think a lot of things.

*Or is it? Are we 100% that the J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons, you read that right) who runs the the Info Wars-esque dailybugle.net isn’t the same J. Jonah Jameson that gave Tobey Maguire such grief? Mysterio’s cover story of coming form an alternate universe is just a bit too specific to not have any truth to it. Wouldn’t Mysterio be far more interested in injecting just a little bit of truth into the large lie. Is anyone wondering how Jameson got an exclusive on Spider-Man’s identity? One wonders.

Captain Marvel (2019)

Directors: Anne Boden, Ryan Fleck

Cast: Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Mendelsohn, Lashana Lynch

Have I Seen it Before: Tempting to say yes, as the superhero genre has consistently risked reverting to a very bland mean, but I’m pleased to say this film has enough of a unique feel to bring me straight to the answer to my next question.

Did I Like It: Yes, yes I did.

Is it kind of gross to immediately compare this to Wonder Woman (2017)? Reductive, possibly, but impossible to completely avoid while the road to more representation is paved with MRA’s who are insistent on burning everything to the ground. Is it apostasy to say that I prefer Captain Marvel? Wonder Woman is a fine film—and in fact the only film of the struggling DCEU to not be overwhelmed by any particularly glaring flaws—but is ultimately at it is core Thor meets Captain America but with a lady.

Marvel, however feels different. For one thing, there is no interest in any degree of a romantic subplot anywhere in the film. Admittedly, that could be in some small part because the first forty-five minutes are a little weighed down by expositioning a heavy science-fantasy framework of which general audiences likely have no awareness. No time for love here, Dr. Jones. And yet, omitting that part of the story feels refreshing.

Carol Danvers (Brie) isn’t closed off or inhuman in the pursuit of this greater ideal, either. She has tremendous affection for her friends (even in cases where she’s spent over half a decade not remembering them), is the funniest character in the film that isn’t a cat, and She’s a welcome addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and only serves to increase my anticipation of the upcoming Avengers Endgame. What’s more? I think the true measure of a superhero film featuring a character that might not be in the cultural zeitgeist is that I want to read more of the world the moment the movie is over. And in the day since I’ve seen the film, I keep eyeing the comixology collection of Captain Marvel stories. So, well done, movie. Well done.

One more note: the work to make Samuel L. Jackson and to a lesser extent, Clark Gregg, twenty-five years younger has finally come of age. Or, at the very least, it’s evolved by quantum leaps beyond the lurching, halting, unfathomable creations that first stepped out of a car in X-Men: The Last Stand (2006). With that being said, my common refrain about the future of superhero films may need a slight revision. I’ve been saying for years that the best idea no one is working on is a Batman Beyond film featuring Michael Keaton as old Bruce Wayne. Now that we have the technology to rebuild him, let’s skip the compromise and just make the Batman 3 that we always deserved and give us prime 90s Keaton. We have the means; we need only find the will now.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Cast: John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis

Have I Seen it Before: I’m a pop culture junkie who grew up in the 90s. Had I not seen the film, it’d be sort of like a Catholic not know the catechism.

Did I Like It: Let’s put it this way: I made the fewest notes for this film of all of the reviews I have written. 

Could anyone—and I do mean anyone—construct a screenplay like Tarantino did for this movie, and not have it be immediately dismissed as confusing pile of racist, self-referential garbage? I think one need only look at some of the other films that cropped up in the grunge-adjacent independent scene around it—Kevin Smith’s Clerks (1994) comes chiefly to mind—or the other fragmented crime movies that launched in its wake—Suicide Kings (1997), a film I only have the faintest memories of loathing, comes to mind in that category—to realize that no, you cannot simply reverse engineer the deft touch that Tarantino has brought to each of his films.

Pulp Fiction is a film that beggars belief. It shouldn’t be, and yet it is. Even those who might detract from it in the past (it has certainly aged better than some of the above mentioned contemporaries), complaining that it is too lurid, or too violent for its own good seem to miss the point. Yes, there might not be a film in all of creation that shows drug use so lovingly as this does, but it also, with the OD of Mia (Thurman) brings it all back down to Earth. Drugs are bad, mmmkay? So, too, is it with the violence. When people are killed, yes the carnage is vivid, but the violence is either integral to the plot or given its proper weight under the circumstances. Mr. Wolf’s appearance in the film if Marvin (Phil LaMarr) didn’t have his little accident? I’m also often struck by the awful, real toll of the gunplay between Marsellus (Ving Rhames) and Butch (Willis) before they run afoul of Zed (Peter Greene) and company. Anyone who accuses Tarantino of glibness is focusing too much on the cheeseburgers and the foot rubs, if you ask me.

As I said above, my thoughts on the film are ultimately rather few. It is the superlative entry of its time and place, and if you haven’t watched it, well then you’re just… Where’s Uma Thurman when you need her to draw a square for you?

Glass (2019)

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

Cast: James McAvoy, Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Anya Taylor-Joy

Have I Seen it Before: Oddly enough, there are parts of this movie I’ve absolutely seen before.

Did I Like It: I really want to. Desperately, even, and for the most part I think I’m right there. It might have helped if I had walked out about twenty minutes before the end.

A sequel to Shyamalan’s Unbreakable (2000) is one of those unattainable dreams in movies. Like a Star Wars sequel trilogy, or Patrick Stewart’s return to Star Trek, or a fourth Indiana Jones film…

Oh, wait.

They haven’t announced a Batman Beyond film starring Michael Keaton yet, have they?

Actually, the tale of how Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull (2008) came to be is what I think of most when I think of Shyamalan’s latest, Glass. For years, the first question the Indy team had to answer whenever they showed their faces was “When is the fourth movie going to come out?” Usually, the answer was a shrug. Then, after getting the question for 19 years, they finally “made good” on the “promise.” Say what you will, no one’s been asking for an Indiana Jones 5 after that.

So, to will it be with any future Unbreakable movies, and our lack of demand for more sequels, sadly, has little to do with the fact that most of the main characters are “dead” by the time the end credits roll around.

For 3/4ths of the movie, everything is grand. I’m eating a hot ham and cheese on a pretzel roll, drinking a glass* of beer, my wife is by my side, and Bruce Willis is protecting the streets of Philadelphia. All is well with the world.

Even when Willis’ Dunn, the Hoard (McAvoy), and Elijah “Mr. Glass” Price, are all stuck inside a mental asylum, the movie is filled with the mix of pulp philosophy and mind games that I would expect from such a movie.

And then our super powered comic characters break out of their respective prisons, and the roller coaster flies right off of its rails. The notion of a secret organization sworn to suppress super-normal activity, nor Glass’ mission to reveal the truth to the rest of the world is all well and fine. Unfortunately, the execution of that endgame is what leave me wanting. I’m sorry, Night. I wanted to believe you could stick the landing. Maybe its the natural tendency for the part three of a trilogy to be a letdown, but this isn’t working for me. 

There’s no catharsis. We are told to believe that superheroes are real and they could be anywhere, but anyone who might be a superhero is dead by the end of the film.

The ending also finds time to beggar all logic when it isn’t underwhelming. Why does this secret organization committed to snuffing out potential superheroes just kill their targets the moment they captured them? With only a few videos posted to youtube serving as the evidence of the extraordinary people, aren’t the Brothers of the Clover (my name for them, I guess, they’re jammed into the end of this movie all of a sudden) going to be able to spin their way out of this problem with a few well placed Fake News hashtags? And, not for nothing, it’s only about 85-90% clear that Dunn and Crumb are actually dead at the end. There’s no real indication they are alive either, just questions.

And maybe the questions are the point? Maybe the ambiguities will make the film age better on repeat viewings.

Maybe we’ll live to see David Dunn again.

So, when’s the fourth movie coming?

*Hey! That’s the name of the movie!

The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

Director: David Yates

Cast: Alexander Skarsgård, Samuel L. Jackson, Margot Robbie, Djimon Hounsou

Have I Seen it Before: At the time of this writing, it was a new release. If it counts for anything, I certainly haven’t seen it since.

Did I Like It: I’ll let the review speak for itself.

The following review has been adapted from a blog post entitled “Movie Theaters of Days Past: Eton Square (51st and Memorial),” previously published on August 6th, 2016. 

So, I saw The Legend of Tarzan. Honestly, there’s not a whole lot more to say about the film than that, but here we go.

Shot with the certain misty production-designed panache that Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) made fashionable and Avatar (2009) made de rigueur, the film is an inoffensive action piece that nearly completely disappears from memory the moment you exit the theater. 

Of note, I completely didn’t notice that Margot Robbie played Jane until I collected my thoughts just now and did a quick IMDB search. Not for nothing, that’s a fair indication that she may have a longer career ahead of her if I don’t automatically think “Oh, Margot Robbie is in this movie” the moment she comes on screen. Here she has managed to not be dragged down by the mediocre film around her, while she is also managing to close out the summer by being a scarce bright spot in a train wreck like Suicide Squad. 

Also, I was more than a little surprised to learn that both the character and actions of Samuel L. Jackson’s character were taken from history in a baffling move somewhat akin to the title card at the end of Bloodsport (1988), that claimed the film was based on a true story. 

Otherwise, the film will probably be forgotten pretty quickly. If you look at the box office returns, then there’s something to the notion that people largely forgot the film before its release date.