Cruella

Tonight, I checked out the new Disney “Cruella” movie, which was released on Disney+ with a premier access fee, and I will let all of you know if I thought this was worth paying the fee or not.

In recent years, Disney has gone through the huge vaults of classic characters for cinematic remakes of old favorites. Now when thinking of possible villains that could be redone into antiheroes, the last villain on the list would be Cruella De Vil, who after all was completely open about her motives to murder 101 dalmatians. Sean Mulvihill said in his review, “Well, Disney overlooked the objections of ASPCA and has moved forward with Cruella, the origin story of Cruella De Vil starring Emma Stone and directed by Craig Gillespie. Cruella is weird movie. I’m just not sure who the intended audience for this movie is, but I know that I’m not a part of it. As hard as Cruella tries to be something different, it can’t escape the fact that it’s a cookie-cutter corporate product. Finally, they’ve made a family movie for moms who shopped at Hot Topic in their teens.”

The film takes place in London during the ‘70s, and it starts with a flashback at the life of young Estella (Tipper Seifert-Cleveland) with her two-tone hair as she and her mother (Emily Beecham) make their move to London. However, a terrible accident happens and Estella’s mother is murdered, and she blames herself for her mother’s death. The child continues to London where she befriends two orphaned thieves (Ziggy Gardner and Joseph MacDonald). Years later, Estella (Stone) along with Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser) are continuously doing well-planned thefts so they can make a living. However, Estella is getting bored of her simple life of crime and has bigger dreams in the world of fashion. She soon gets a job for London’s reigning champion of fashion The Baroness, played by Emma Thompson.

Mulvihill noted, “At first Estella is intoxicated by the world of haute couture, but the buzz fades as she’s subjected to the casual cruelty of the Baroness. Estella begins working to undermine her boss by appearing at her fashion galas as her newly created persona, Cruella. With a punk-infused aesthetic, Cruella takes over the fashion world with her flashy entrances that dominate the headlines and infuriate the Baroness.” Suddenly, this becomes a complete fight for control of the fashion business, with dark family secrets hiding beneath everything.

Mulvihill admitted, “While I never connected to the story or characters of Cruella, it should be stated that this film is often a marvel to look at. From top to bottom, Cruella features top notch work from costume and design departments. While there are some aspects to the film that are unconvincing, the fashionable elements of Cruella features the glitz and glamour of the fashion world, as well as its main character’s devious twist on the stale classics.”

However, the biggest problem with “Cruella” is it just doesn’t have a nice flow, and that’s made worse by the film’s runtime. It’s not hard to see why so many parts of “Cruella” feel incoherent when the film has five credited screenwriters, and director Craig Gillespie is more focused on the film’s style than making the film focused. Sometimes Gillespie’s focus on style pays off in a really beautiful shot. Mulvihill said, “Sometimes Gillespie’s focus on style pays off in a truly gorgeous shot. Other times, Gillespie’s style becomes a hinderance, swirling around capturing tons of computer generated opulence that doesn’t add a thing to the story. And its genuinely astounding just how seriously Gillespie takes this material. The film just can’t balance its lighter moments with its more serious tone, and it leaves the viewer with a bit of tonal whiplash as the film vacillates between levity and tragedy.”

As much as “Cruella” is a movie that has a lot of flaws, there are no flaws with the film’s great cast. Emma Stone gives everything she has for this version of Cruella, rejoicing in the character’s contrast. As the despicable Baroness, you know what you’re getting out of the two-time Academy Award winner Emma Thompson, who excels as the cruel villain. As Cruella’s partners in thievery, Joel Fry and especially Paul Walter Hauser steal every scene they’re in. For a family film that is rather serious and light on laughs, any scene where Paul Walter Hauser show up to persuade a laugh is welcome.

Like a lot of these live action Disney remakes, “Cruella” is a real mixed bag. It’s a nice film to look at that just can’t hit you on an emotional or intellectual way. Mulvihill ended his review by admitting, “At times Cruella can be a really weird movie – I didn’t expect to ever hear The Stooges’ “I Wanna be Your Dog” in a Disney movie, especially in a movie about a would-be dog killer – but it’s never brazen enough to fully commit to its crazier aspects. Cruella is glossy enough to catch your eye, but there’s nothing under that sheen that sticks with you.”

I know I have stated this before, but the look of London in this film is good, the cast is nice, the performance they give is well done, and the soundtrack is nice, but some of the lines in this film comes off as just cruel. Would someone really say the things The Baroness would say? Also, the motive behind Cruella is just you saying, “Well, of course,” and when the past is revealed, I went, “You really are going to go to that level?” Honestly, this film doesn’t deserve for you to pay Disney+ the premier access fee. Just wait a few months for it to be available for free and watch it there. Please note that this isn’t one of the bad remakes, it’s just alright.

Thank you for joining in on my review tonight. Stay tuned next month to see what I will review next.

Kill Bill Vol 2

To paraphrase the film’s starting recap by the main character, The Bride – a type of recap of the first film: “Kill Bill, Vol 2., released in 2004, is really satisfying.

That is just putting it mildly. Like the first part of Quentin Tarantino’s tribute to kung-fu and other manipulative revenge/action films of the 1970s, “Kill Bill, Vol 2” has scenes of intense, almost vulgar violence.

As you might have guessed, this is not for the nauseous any more than the first one, which you should expect from a Tarantino film.

However, those who enjoyed the first “Kill Bill” will be surprised and entertained by the sequel, which nicely resolves all the loose ends that were left hanging. At least when it’s not hurting your feelings.

“Vol. 2” starts exactly where the first one left off: The Bride is still trying to get revenge on the criminals who are her former colleagues and left her for dead after obliterating her wedding.

First one on her list is Budd, played by Michael Madsen, who manages to overpower her before she can stab him with her samurai sword. He also steals her sword and says he’ll sell it to one-eyed Elle Driver, played by Daryl Hannah. Even if The Bride where to escape and give the two what they deserve, there’s still one more person on her list: her former teacher and lover Bill, played by David Carradine, who’s got some surprises waiting for her.

The sequel – which as filmed at the same time as the first film – is really more character-driven. A lot of back story is given (we even know the main character’s real name.) Desert News said in their review, “All of which helps tie the whole package together, making it more cohesive, if not more coherent. And as assured as Tarantino's work is here, it's hard to deny that this may be the highlight of his filmmaking career so far.”

Desert News continued, “He also gets career-best performances from much of his cast.” Thurman makes a surprisingly considerable action heroine, while the 67-year-old Carradine does a good job keeping up with her. Credit for that is given to action choreographer Yuen-Wo Ping, who avoids his usual attaching strings for more realistic fight scenes.

People might say that the two parts of “Kill Bill” are disjointed because all the action is in the first movie and all the dialogue is in the second part. However, I still like both of them and say that everyone should check them out. They even released one long version of “Kill Bill,” combining the two volumes into one long movie. I only saw the two parts and not the long version, which I don’t think I will need to watch it since it’s just a longer version combining the two volumes. Still, don’t listen to the people and watch the two volumes, giving both of them a chance. Sure, you’ll like the first volume, but the second one I think you’ll like just as much. I know I did, and I think all Tarantino fans will like both volumes too.

Alright, thank you for joining in on “Quentin Tarantino Month.” I had been thinking for a while to review some of his famous movies, and now I have. Hopefully all of you liked it and hopefully you have checked out the movies I have reviewed this month because they are all good movies that I think everyone will enjoy. Check in next month to see what I will review next for all of you.

Kill Bill Vol 1

“Kill Bill, Vol. 1,” released in 2003, is one of the most violent movies ever made.

When you watch the movie, you will see heads fly, limbs hacked off, women beaten viciously and shot in the head, and blood gushing everywhere.

In the end, whether audiences will enjoy “Kill Bill” will depend on how they feel about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. Either you love him or you hate him, and this film doesn’t look like it will change anyone’s mind either way.

Desert News said in their review, “Yet, for those who can stomach "Bill's" peculiar brand of ultraviolence, this revenge yarn is an adrenaline-fueled thrill ride that will satisfy even the most carnage-crazed action fan. (It should be noted that at least one scene was changed from color to black and white to keep the film from getting a rating more harsh than R.)”

Uma Thurman stars as a character just called The Bride. After spending four years in a coma, this former murderer awakes and takes revenge on those who had a hand in nearly killer her, as well as her unborn child and the man she was to marry, played by the late David Carridine.

She has a long list of enemies, including Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox), a housewife who’s now “retired” from her job, and O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu), who has now become the head of the Tokyo underworld.

Desert News noted, “You hate to use the word "subtle" to describe a filmmaker as bombastic as Tarantino, but there is actually some subtlety here, such as a Zenlike pause in the action that may be the most poetic thing he's ever done.” There’s also a great animated segment done in the Japanese anime style, which tells the origin of O-Ren, and which would look like an odd detour. However, it works in the context of what is actually a live-action cartoon.

This film is definitely not for everyone. Desert News noted, “Even the those with strong stomachs may feel a bit queasy after seeing some of the more blood-splattered sequences.”

This was also the best performance Thurman had at the time after years. Her intensity here makes you believe a woman this thin could actually cause all this chaos with the sword, a knife and other weapons. Same goes for Liu, who really looks like she is having fun being a villain again. We also have kung-fu movie veteran Sonny Chiba who owns every scene he’s in (unfortunately, he is not in enough).

The film also has one of the best soundtracks of all time. Desert News noted, “The RZA's score has the lurid tone of music from early chop-socky films at times, alternating with music that may bring to mind "blaxploitation" flicks.” There’s also the famous 5, 6, 7, 8 doing the song that annoyed people when it played during the Vonage commercials.

I saw this film on NetFlix and I had a great time watching this. I heard a lot about the film, but at the time the film was released, I wasn’t old enough to watch R rated movies and my parents made sure that I waited until the right age to watch movies regardless of what it was rated.

However, what can be said about Part 2? Is it better than Part 1 or not? Or could you say that the two parts are polar opposites? There is only one way to find out. Wait until next week for the finale of “Quentin Tarantino” Month to know what I thought about it.

Mortal Kombat (2021)

Today I got a chance to check out the new “Mortal Kombat” movie, which came out in theaters and on HBO Max, last month. Is it any better compared to the adaptations from the 90s?

The film starts off in the past with a serious fight between Bi-Han or Sub-Zero (Joe Taslim) and Hanzo Hasashi or Scorpion (Hiroyuki Sanada). There is a prophecy that says Hanzo’s bloodline will give birth to an offspring who has the ability to win Mortal Kombat and defeat Shang-Tsung’s (Chin Han) opportunity of getting control over Earthrealm.

This prophecy is the main factor for the entire film, and the rivalry between Bi-Han and Hanzo Hasashi brings us to Cole Young, played by Lewis Tan. What he doesn’t know is that he is Hanzo’s decedent, born with a birthmark in the shape of a dragon, and is prophesized to fight in Mortal Kombat.

At that part, the movie introduces every single protagonist. It does the right thing in giving each character a proper introduction, along with carrying their story throughout the almost two-hour runtime. Every protagonist (and some of the villains) are given time to develop their own story arc while the world is fighting around them.

For his part, Cole Young is our look into this universe. He is an original character created for the film, but by the end of the movie, you could think that he could have been included into the video game and fight with any of the popular characters.

We then meet Jax (Mehcad Brooks), whose biceps look like he could really punch a man, and Sonya Blade (Jessica McNamee), who’s even better than the previous actresses who played the role. They make a good team, but each one stands on their own. Karen Rought said in her review, “I was happy to see Sonya have a front seat to the action throughout most of the movie.”

Now we have come to Kano, played with complete brilliant perfection by Josh Lawson. He is a sarcastic, randy, cruel man who will make you laugh one minute and turn against you the next. He’s the definition of a character you love to hate.

He is hands down one of the biggest highlights of the film, and most of the movie’s humor comes from his reactions and one-liners.

Another surprising highlight was Kung Lao, played by Max Huang. Looking at his special ability (known as his arcana) is a flying hat; he could’ve been completely ridiculous. In actuality, he was one of the most well-done characters in the film, and his presence uplifted the entire story.

A lot of this movie really felt like the video game, from the scenes to the fatalities to the careful way they played out interactions with each of the characters.

Rought admitted, “My one major criticism of the film (that we didn’t technically see a Mortal Kombat tournament) was offset by the way they threw two characters together in an arena that felt like it was right out of the game. And then we got to watch them fight to the death.”

At those moments, the film was allowed to party with what has made Mortal Kombat so memorable over the years – the bloody and horrible deaths that, at least one point in the film, probably startled you completely.

Rought is right when she said, “As I said before, video game adaptations are notoriously tricky to get right, but Mortal Kombat (2021) managed to get as close as it could. If nothing else, it’s an improvement over the 1995 film of the same name.”

One part where this “Mortal Kombat” adaptation really highlights is, obviously, the CGI. If you remember what Outworld looked like in the original movie, you’ll be happy to know the new Outworld is greatly improved. Actually, you could say the same about CGI-created characters like Goro (Angus Sampson) and Reptile, who both get their parts.

This “Mortal Kombat” review would be negligent not to mention the many other character who live in this realm and were brought to life with great care for the film.

Mileena (Sisi Stringer) is completely scary, and a real standout amongst Shang-Tsung’s other fighters, which include General Reiko (Nathan Jones), Nitara (Mel Jarnson), and Kabal (Daniel Nelson). Rought admitted, “Though he doesn’t get too much time to shine, Kabal was an instant favorite and his effects and fighting style are truly to be commended.”

With the heroes, we also have Liu Kang (Ludi Lin) and Lord Raiden (Tadanobu Asano), both who are powerful and patient leaders. Rought said, “Even Cole’s family, Allison (Laura Brent) and Emily (Matildo Kimber), pulled their weight in the movie, and while I would love to see more female fighters on the roster moving forward, I’m happy with how they treated the ones we got.”

At the end of the day, “Mortal Kombat” did what it promised of being loyal to the characters we love and gave some bone-breaking fight scenes in the process. Rought said, “I’m excited for this to be a fresh start to a new franchise, led by a diverse Asian cast ready to keep putting their blood, sweat, and tears into making these characters come alive.”

If we’re lucky, there’ll be a lot more where this came from. Joe Taslim told Variety that he’s signed on for four “Mortal Kombat” sequels if the first one is successful.

Even though there is no guarantee that will happen (it depends on fan reactions and profit margins, obviously), the movie has set up a lot of possibilities in the next films. Rought said, “I’d love to see more of Bi-Han and Hanzo Hasahi in the past, as well as some other Mortal Kombat moments prior to the one that’s looming during this movie.”

However, what’s really important is what’s next for the main characters. If you pay attention to background images, you’ll see a couple champions who haven’t been introduced yet. Also, there’s a moment at the end of the film that will really get everyone excited.

Rought said, “Whatever happens next, I’m glad a Mortal Kombat movie adaptation got a second chance at life.” It deserves that and so much more.

Honestly, I had a problem with having Cole as the main character when he was never in any of the games and the casting choice for Mileena. Her character was always masked and we never know what she looked like until she did her Fatality. Also, the story of Sub-Zero and Scorpion is not completely there, and Johnny Cage is not in this movie (spoilers). However, the fight scenes were just perfect. We have all the famous catchphrases, the famous moves, even the Fatalities. Even the updated theme song was actually nice to hear during the credits. The actors casted in these roles are just perfect. This adaptation makes up for the 90s movies by a long run and I think this is “way” better than those. If anyone were to ask if I wanted to see this movie again, I wouldn’t mind because I was satisfied with it, despite it not being a “great” video game adaptation. However, I will say it is one of the best. I think video game adaptations now are being given the right treatment and care that it deserved compared to when they first came out. See this if you have an HBO Max and don’t want to go to the theater.

Thank you for joining in on my review tonight, look out this Friday for the continuation of “Quentin Tarantino Month.”

Pulp Fiction

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “Quentin Tarantino is the Jerry Lee Lewis of cinema, a pounding performer who doesn't care if he tears up the piano, as long as everybody is rocking.” His 1994 movie “Pulp Fiction” is a comedy about blood, guts, violence, strange mating, drugs, fixed fights, dead body disposal, leather lovers, and a wristwatch that makes a dark journey down through the generations.

Ebert said, “Seeing this movie last May at the Cannes Film Festival, I knew it was either one of the year's best films, or one of the worst.”

Ebert continued, “Tarantino is too gifted a filmmaker to make a boring movie, but he could possibly make a bad one: Like Edward D. Wood Jr., proclaimed the Worst Director of All Time, he's in love with every shot - intoxicated with the very act of making a movie. It's that very lack of caution and introspection that makes "Pulp Fiction" crackle like an ozone generator: Here's a director who's been let loose inside the toy store, and wants to play all night.”

Ebert went on, “The screenplay, by Tarantino and Roger Avary, is so well-written in a scruffy, fanzine way that you want to rub noses in it - the noses of those zombie writers who take "screenwriting" classes that teach them the formulas for "hit films." Like "Citizen Kane," "Pulp Fiction" is constructed in such a nonlinear way that you could see it a dozen times and not be able to remember what comes next. It doubles back on itself, telling several interlocking stories about characters who inhabit a world of crime and intrigue, triple-crosses and loud desperation. The title is perfect. Like those old pulp mags named "Thrilling Wonder Stories" and "Official Detective," the movie creates a world where there are no normal people and no ordinary days - where breathless prose clatters down fire escapes and leaps into the dumpster of doom.”

The movie not only brings back an old genre but also a few careers.

John Travolta plays Vincent Vega, a middle-class gangster who does assignments for a mob boss. We first see him with his partner Jules, played by Samuel L. Jackson. Ebert mentioned, “they're on their way to a violent showdown with some wayward Yuppie drug dealers, and are discussing such mysteries as why in Paris they have a French word for Quarter Pounders. They're as innocent in their way as Huck and Jim, floating down the Mississippi and speculating on how foreigners can possibly understand each other.”

Travolta’s career is a number of jobs he can’t quite handle. Not only does he kill people accidentally (“The car hit a bump!”) but he doesn’t know how to clean up after himself. Good thing he knows people like Mr. Wolf, played by Harvey Keitel, who is a master in messes, and has friends like the character played by Eric Stoltz, who owns a big medical encyclopedia, and can look up emergency situations.

Travolta and Uma Thurman have a part that’s funny and strange. She’s the wife of the mob boss, played by Ving Rhames, who tells Travolta to take her out for the night. Ebert said, “He turns up stoned, and addresses an intercom with such grave, stately courtesy Buster Keaton would have been envious.” They go to Jack Rabbit Slim’s, a 1950s theme restaurant where Ed Sullivan is the emcee, Buddy Holly is the waiter, and they end up in a twist contest. That’s before he overdoses and Stoltz, bringing a syringe with adrenaline, shouts at Travolta, “YOU brought her here, YOU stick in the needle! When I bring an O.D. to YOUR house, I’LL stick in the needle!” Bruce Willis and Maria de Medeiros play another couple: He’s a boxer named Butch Coolidge who is supposed to throw a fight, but doesn’t. she’s his sweet, innocent girlfriend, who doesn’t understand why they have to leave town “right away.” But first he needs to make a dangerous drive back to his apartment to pick up a sentimental family gift – a wristwatch. The history of this watch is described in a flashback, as Vietnam veteran Christopher Walken tells young Butch about how the watch was purchased by his great-grandfather, “Private Doughboy Orion Coolidge,” and has moved down through the generations – and through a lot more than generations, which is understandable. Walken’s monologue has the movie’s biggest laugh.

Ebert mentioned, “The method of the movie is to involve its characters in sticky situations, and then let them escape into stickier ones, which is how the boxer and the mob boss end up together as the captives of weird leather freaks in the basement of a gun shop.” Or how the characters who start the movie, a couple of gun thugs played by Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer, go way overboard. Ebert said, “Most of the action in the movie comes under the heading of crisis control.”

If the problems are creative and original, so is the dialogue. Ebert said, “A lot of movies these days use flat, functional speech: The characters say only enough to advance the plot.” However, the writers in “Pulp Fiction” are in love with words for their own enjoyment. The dialogue by Tarantino and Avary is off the wall sometimes, but that’s the fun. It also means that the characters don’t all sound alike: Ebert credited, “Travolta is laconic, Jackson is exact, Plummer and Roth are dopey lovey-doveys, Keitel uses the shorthand of the busy professional, Thurman learned how to be a moll by studying soap operas.”

This is part of Tarantino’s life that he used to work as a clerk in a video stores, and the inspiration for “Pulp Fiction” is old movies, not real life. Ebert said, “The movie is like an excursion through the lurid images that lie wound up and trapped inside all those boxes on the Blockbuster shelves. Tarantino once described the old pulp mags as cheap, disposable entertainment that you could take to work with you, and roll up and stick in your back pocket.” Also, people could not wait until lunch so they could start reading them again.

You could say that it’s like “Reservoir Dogs,” where the story is told interchangeably, but you can piece everything together by the end. If you haven’t seen this movie, what are you doing reading this review? Go out and see it if you’re a Tarantino fan. Also, expect Tarantino to make an appearance in this movie. Like I said, this movie is a must for everyone, whether you like Tarantino or not. I give it a high recommendation.

Look out next week when I look at the first of a two-parter in “Quentin Tarantino Month.”

Reservoir Dogs

For this entire month, I’m going to look at some of the famous movies by one of the famous directors ever, Quentin Tarantino. Let’s look at the very first film he made, that was independent, “Reservoir Dogs,” released in 1992.

If you withdrew at the direct language in “Glengarry Glen Ross” or the violence in “Unforgiven,” keep away from “Reservoir Dogs.”

This movie won’t only offend you; it will probably hurt you mentally.

A rash, brutal crime-caper film, “Reservoir Dogs” has enough of an energy for 10 movies and more than enough tough to traumatize the ones who cannot handle this. Jay Boyer said in his review, “But not only does Dogs have teeth, it has brains.”

In the beginning of the movie, we see a group of jewel thieves as they sit at a coffee restaurant for breakfast. Most of them don’t know each other: Boyer noted, “They've been brought together by a mob kingpin specifically to pull a heist, and they've been kept deliberately ignorant of one another's identities.”

Boyer continued, “Calling each other by made-up names (Mr. White, Mr. Orange, etc.), they shoot the breeze about this and that - the fine points of tipping waitresses, the promotional gimmicks of radio stations, even Madonna.” The movie really gets going after you can easily tell that at least one of the members is a snitch.

But which one?

That’s where the movie’s smart foundation is shown. Writer/director Quentin Tarantino keeps showing us different times from before, during and after the crime. Each scene gives enough information to fill in the gaps.

By the end of the movie, we can figure out everything and lots of people are dead.

Along with the behind-the-scenes work, Tarantino plays a really small role of Mr. Brown. The leader of the group is Harvey Keitel as Mr. White, a gangster who, even though he’s tough, is in some ways too sentimental for this career he picked.

With his long, expressive eyebrows, Michael Madsen comes close to being the highlight as Mr. Blonde, the most crooked member of the group. Steve Buscemi does steal at least a scene or two as the logical, goatee-face Mr. Pink.

Boyer credited, “Cast as the wounded-and-bleeding Mr. Orange, Tim Roth (Vincent & Theo) gives a finely calibrated last-gasp performance.” The rest of the cast – and the gang- are the late Chris Penn, fittingly gangster as Nice Guy Eddie, Lawrence Tierney as Eddie’s kingpin father, and Eddie Bunker as Mr. Blue.

The structure of “Reservoir Dogs” is only one appearance of the irresponsible skill of filmmaker Tarantino, who makes his directorial debut here. He also has a sharp fun that shows up in tough, crafty dialogue (the breakfast discussion of Madonna is funny) and in the use of the thick, uncertain voice of straight-faced comedian Steven Wright as a DJ.

Boyer noted, “Also darkly amusing is the film's ironic use of such musical selections as "Hooked on a Feeling," "Coconut" and "Little Green Bag." A horrifying torture sequence is choreographed to the tune of "Stuck in the Middle With You" - if you can imagine that.”

There’s even something theoretically amusing about the way the gangsters dress for the crime, in anonymous black suits and ties, white shirts and dark glasses. They look like they’re looking for trouble, and it turns out they really don’t have to go far.

Overall, this is a great movie, for an independent film that Quentin Tarantino made. Especially with the famous line, “Are you going to bark all day little doggy, or are you going to bite?” If you’re a Tarantino fan and have not seen this film yet, you should. It’s one of the best films he ever made.

Look out next week when I look at another popular film in “Quentin Tarantino Month.”