Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      In 1993 ‘Super Mario Bros.’ Bombed; in 2023, It’s a Hit With a New Generation

      by

      A critical and commercial disaster in its day, the video-game adaptation was trashed even by its star, Bob Hoskins. But a reappraisal is underway.The new animated film “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” recreates the sunny spirit, effervescent action and confectionary aesthetic of the namesake video games, with the voices of Chris Pratt as Mario, Charlie Day as Luigi, Jack Black as Bowser, and Anya Taylor-Joy as Princess Peach. Expect periwinkle skies, green warp pipes and squeaky-voiced, mushroom-headed characters.The mustachioed Nintendo mascot has been on the big screen before — even though some of the people involved would prefer to forget about it.Way back in 1993, the popularity of Super Mario led to Hollywood’s first big-budget video game adaptation. The live-action “Super Mario Bros.” starred Bob Hoskins as Mario and John Leguizamo as Luigi, two down-on-their-luck plumber brothers picking up odd jobs in Brooklyn. Largely shot in an abandoned cement factory in North Carolina, the movie was mostly set not in the hyper-colored Mushroom Kingdom, but in a grody, dystopian alternate version of New York called Dinohattan, ruled over by the maniacal dictator King Koopa (Dennis Hopper). Sticky, elastic fungus plays a key role in the plot. It looked and felt nothing like the video games.To Rocky Morton, who directed the movie with Annabel Jankel, that was the point. Morton and Jankel were British music video filmmakers who also had been behind the creation of the pseudo-computer-generated TV show host Max Headroom. Morton and Jankel’s agent had sent them a Mario Bros. movie script by the “Rain Man” co-writer Barry Morrow. Dismissing that screenplay as too cute, Morton pitched another idea: a darker, grittier Mario Bros. origin story.“It felt like such a great opportunity,” Morton said in a recent phone interview, of turning the video game phenomenon into a movie. “It seemed like the obvious thing to do. And it would have a built-in audience. It was made in heaven.”The result was a critical and commercial disaster. Roger Ebert declared it “a complete waste of time and money.” (Though Gene Siskel allowed, “I like the Goombas,” referring to Koopa’s oversized henchmen.) Several of the actors spoke disparagingly about the production, with Hoskins calling the shoot a “nightmare.” It was game over for any sequel, and for the Hollywood careers of its directors too.In more recent years, millennial Nintendophiles who were put off by the movie in 1993 — or, like me, simply avoided it — have given it another chance.Today, “Super Mario Bros.” has been the subject of something of a reappraisal, achieving a surprising cult status in the process. Its listing on the cinephile movie rating site Letterboxd is accompanied by a host of passionate, discerning reviews. “Super Mario Bros.” is “film-literate, daring, political, and unapologetically insane,” wrote the user Zeke Knott. While awaiting the coming fan-made documentary, “Trust the Fungus: Bob-Omb to Cult Classic,” fans can listen to a podcast dedicated to a minute-by-minute dissection of the movie, or visit the National Videogame Museum in Frisco, Texas, which is holding an exhibition on it. This month, Nitehawk Cinemas in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, will screen “Super Mario Bros.” as part of Re-Consider This!, a series showcasing misunderstood masterpieces.The excessive artistic license taken with the adaptation is part of the fun of it, said Desmond Thorne, a film programmer at Nitehawk. “In an age when we’re inundated with video game and comic book adaptations that take a more literal approach, it’s refreshing to look back at ‘Super Mario Bros.’ 30 years later,” he said. “You have to admire the huge swings that it took.” For “huge swings,” see, for example, the scene in which Dennis Hopper takes a mud bath with Fiona Shaw.But even the most ardent fans will admit that “Super Mario Bros.” is kind of a mess. Morton said the problems began after Disney purchased the distribution rights, demanding an extensive rewrite of the screenplay — less effects-heavy, more family-friendly — that arrived 10 days before principal photography began. (Disney was unable to locate anyone involved in the production for comment.)But it’s a fantastic and inspired mess with densely artificial sets concocted by the “Blade Runner” production designer David L. Snyder; cartoonish costumes by Joseph Porro (who most recently worked on “The Mandalorian”); and a lunatic score by the composer Alan Silvestri. Elsewhere, Patrick Tatopoulos’s creature designs anticipate his work on “Independence Day.”“The film is such a kitchen sink in terms of inspiration and execution,” the superfan Ryan Hoss said. “Practical sets, makeup, costumes, pyrotechnics, prosthetics, animatronics and puppets. It has tone issues, and too many cooks in the kitchen, but you can point to any part of the story of ‘Super Mario Bros.’ and it’s fascinating to someone on some level.”In 2007, when Hoss was in college, he created the website Super Mario Bros. The Movie Archive. “I felt that the conversation around the film just wasn’t what it deserved,” he said. The site was “a place to get as much of the background and history of the film out in the open.”Since then, Hoss, along with the site’s editor in chief, Steven Applebaum, has tracked down alternate versions of the script, set photos, and props, and published numerous interviews with crew members. Most recently, they uncovered and restored an early work print of the film, creating an extended edition available to watch online.They’ve also held screenings and other events for like-minded fans. “It’s one of the most enthusiastic and positive fandoms I’ve ever seen,” Hoss said.He added, “The biggest surprise has been getting to know so many of the talented cast and crew that worked on the film. They’ve all said that ‘Super Mario Bros.’ was one of the most memorable films of their career.”Leguizamo has said he’s proud to have been involved in the film. “I’m O.G.,” he told IndieWire recently, also praising Jankel and Morton for their commitment to diverse casting. They “fought really hard for me to be the lead because I was a Latin man,” he said. “It was such a breakthrough.”Today, Morton looks back at the whole experience as one of utter humiliation. “It was horrible, just a really horrible experience.” (Jankel did not respond to an interview request and apparently has not participated in any stories about the making of the movie. “It really did affect her,” said Morton.)The re-evaluation of “Super Mario Bros.” is “heartening,” said Morton. And yet, the fact that the once-reviled movie is being celebrated and enjoyed — without irony — doesn’t seem to have sunk in for its director. The day after our interview, he agreed to attend a Hollywood screening of the movie, his first time seeing it in about 20 years. “They wanted me to introduce it but I can’t think of anything positive to say.”As for the new film, if all goes well, it might signal the launch of yet another movie franchise, the Nintendo Cinematic Universe. Which, Morton admitted, is probably what audiences expected 30 years ago. “That’s the film that everybody wanted,” he said. “And they’ve got it now.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Showing Up’ Review: Making Art in All Its Everyday Glory

      by

      In their latest movie together, Michelle Williams and Kelly Reichardt paint a portrait of an artist who’s a real and wonderful piece of work.The stubbornly independent filmmaker Kelly Reichardt makes small-scale movies rooted in specific worlds, both inner and outer; nearly all take place in Oregon, where she’s long lived and worked. She traveled back in time for her last movie, “First Cow,” a moving chronicle of love, land and capitalism set in the Oregon Territory in the 19th century. Reichardt is back on more familiar ground in her latest, “Showing Up,” a wonderful slice of life that’s set in present-day Portland and is about something that she knows intimately: making art.The movies love tortured artists, inflamed geniuses who thunder against the establishment, aesthetic conventions, their historical epochs, God or just the nearest warm body. No one rages or slashes a canvas in “Showing Up,” though a few characters do raise their voices. At one point, its stubbornly independent hero, Lizzy — a sculptor played by a revelatory, notably de-glammed Michelle Williams — leaves an angry message on a colleague’s voice mail, an expletive-laced tirade that she ends with a comical bleat: “Have a great night.”It’s a gently funny and true moment in a gently funny and true movie that perfectly captures Lizzy’s complicated interiority. By the time she makes that call, you know a great deal about her. You know that she makes sculptures in her home studio and works at an art school, though what she does there remains unclear. What’s more crucial is that over the course of this delicate, detailed movie you become familiar with the petulantly downward slope of Lizzy’s mouth, the welcoming disorder of her apartment, the tender care that she takes with her art. You also know that she rarely smiles and scarcely ever says please or thank you.Written by Reichardt and Jon Raymond, “Showing Up” is a portrait of an individual but the film is universal in the sense that it’s about a woman living in the concrete here and now. Reichardt is interested in abstract ideas and everyday intangibles, but her filmmaking is precisely grounded in the material world, and so is Lizzy. If she has aesthetic principles, for instance, she doesn’t voice them. Reichardt, though, speaks volumes about art and the artistic process in this movie, which focuses on Lizzy as she prepares for a fast-approaching exhibit — a quietly fraught few days filled with painstaking creative labor as well as testy and comic interactions.When “Showing Up” opens, Lizzy is putting the finishing touches on the textured, small-scaled figurative sculptures that she molds from clay and then paints before having them fired in a kiln at the school. (The kiln operator is played by André Benjamin, making the charming most out of a modest role.) The figures are of women captured in well-defined poses, with some mounted with rods on wood bases. Several of these little women are erect, and others are recumbent; one stands on her head while a few look like they’ve been captured in mid-leap. A figurine with downcast eyes and a tiny, private smile looks a bit like Reichardt.As Lizzy works on her sculptures, their shape, details and distinct personalities emerge as do she and this wispy story. Things happen in Reichardt’s movies — minor, fleeting and profound things, just like in life. Story can seem both too grand and too impoverished a word to describe the personal, richly inhabited and realistic worlds she creates from faces and bodies, poses and gestures, rituals and habits, and her very specific grasp on time and place. But of course there’s always a story in how human beings navigate one another and sometimes try to bridge — and hide out in — that bristling, ineffable space between us.That space swells and contracts, by turns narrowing and expanding until it seems as vast and impassable as the Grand Canyon. Lizzy doesn’t make it easy to bridge; it’s instructive that she’s more openly affectionate with her cat than with her mother (Maryann Plunkett), who’s her boss at the school, or with her gruff father (a lovely Judd Hirsch). Yet while Lizzy works on her art in solitude (the cat comes and goes), she’s rarely alone for long, and the movie is filled with people, a vivid, eccentric and amusing collection that includes Jo (an essential Hong Chau), a vivacious artist who’s Lizzy’s landlord and the recipient of her angry phone call.Lizzy has reason to be irritated at Jo, who’s taking her time with fixing her broken water heater. But Jo is more than carelessly inattentive. A jolt of energy with a pickup truck and long, sweeping hair, Jo is sexy and popular, the very picture of the hip, hot artist and the apparent polar opposite of Lizzy, with her bob and frumpy look. Jo too is readying a new exhibit, but her gallery is bigger than Lizzy’s and her show more prestigious: It will have a catalog! The women get under each other’s skin, but like everyone else in Lizzy’s life — her family, her colleagues, the art students, her cat and a pigeon who swoops in and stays awhile — Jo sustains her.For Lizzy, making art is an act of self-creation, but it is also and always an act of communion, a way of being in the world and with other people. That makes “Showing Up” a somewhat reflexive self-portrait, one that owes much to Reichardt and Williams’s beautifully synced collaboration. This is the fourth movie that they’ve done together (their first was “Wendy and Lucy”), and it’s a joy to witness how perfectly aligned their work has become. Together, Reichardt and Williams — with little dialogue and boundless generosity — lucidly articulate everything that Lizzy will never say and need not say, opening a window on the world and turning this wondrous, determined, gloriously grumpy woman into a sublime work of art.Showing UpRated R for language. Running time: 1 hour 48 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      ‘On a Wing and a Prayer’ Review: Faith as Flight Insurance

      by

      A family receives impromptu flight lessons when their pilot dies in the middle of a chartered flight in this spiritually insincere action film.Doug White (Dennis Quaid) is a person whose happiness has grown from deep roots. He possesses a steady Christian faith. He has a warm and loving partnership with his wife, Terri (Heather Graham), and together, they are the proud parents of two teenage daughters. But when Doug’s beloved brother suddenly dies, Doug’s faith in a higher power is shaken. And his spiritual crisis is amplified when Doug charters a small plane to return from his brother’s funeral.The action-driven drama “On a Wing and a Prayer” is based on a true story of the ordeal that the White family faced when they entered the air in 2009. Their pilot suddenly died of a heart attack in the cockpit, leaving the severely inexperienced Doug to guide the plane to a safe landing. The movie follows Doug and his family as they work and pray to defy the odds stacked against their survival, with remote assistance from air traffic controller‌s and flight instructors.The director Sean McNamara includes plenty of computer-generated action, with the plane darting through storm clouds, and narrowly swerving away from the ground. The images portray a weightless crisis, and the film’s emotional narrative feels similarly insincere, with the balance of fate seeming to sway on the placement of a well-timed prayer. Doug and his family call upon their faith as a kind of invisible parachute, a deus ex machina that can always save them from harm. It’s a cynical view of faith, one which removes the mystery and terror from life’s unforeseen calamities, and instead frames survival as a matter of calling into the correct belief system.On a Wing and a PrayerRated PG. Running time: 1 hour 42 minutes. Watch on Amazon Prime Video. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Movies

      ‘What If? Ehud Barak on War and Peace’ Review: An Israeli Leader’s History

      by

      Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak discusses his career in power in this lifeless, often confusing documentary.In “What If? Ehud Barak on War and Peace,” the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak comments on the key military and diplomatic events that took place from his early years as an army commander through his tenure as head of state, from 1999 to 2001. Directed by Ran Tal, this lifeless documentary plays like a cable-TV special slapped together from one long interview with Barak, then fattened up with archival footage and bottom-shelf explanatory graphics.Those unfamiliar with the general beats of the Israel-Palestine conflict beware: This doc assumes you are, and it skips back and forth in time with little explanation. Barak is the film’s only talking head, so his insights into specific events, often presented with minimal context, are the movie’s primary focus. For instance, the war that broke out around Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948 is explained in terms of military strategy, with Barak recollecting conversations he had with leaders at the front lines during that time.Early on, Barak discusses his childhood years living in a kibbutz; his Zionist upbringing; and, toward the end, the 2000 Camp David Summit, where he tried and failed to negotiate a peace plan with Palestine.Barak is a divisive figure, tough on matters of national security and ultimately forced to resign from office after the Camp David talks led to the breakdown of his government. (Since then, Barak has held multiple government positions and has challenged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he has long criticized.)The latter part of the movie’s title is a reference to Tolstoy, who rejected the idea that exceptional individuals determine the outcomes of history and empathized with leaders who took action when confronted with impossible decisions. Sure. Though even if Barak’s scattered play-by-play reminds us of this truism, it fails to demystify the man and his legacy.What If? Ehud Barak on War and PeaceNot rated. In Hebrew, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 25 minutes. Rent or buy on most major platforms. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Ride On’ Review: Jackie Chan, Back on the Horse

      by

      Chan, playing a former stuntman, has a few good trademark fight scenes, but the film is too busy stuffing sentimental elements into its lowbrow comedy premise.One doesn’t necessarily expect much going into a slapstick stunt animal comedy, and yet even by these softened standards, the director Larry Yang’s “Ride On” cooks up an egregiously, almost comically bad movie. Starring Jackie Chan as Luo, a washed-up former stuntman who trains his horse, Red Hare, to become his partner, this film from China is a consistently awkward, over-the-top mess, attempting to infuse a cheaply written, sentimental father-daughter (and father-horse) story into its lowbrow laughs.After being out of work for years, Luo catches a lucky break that leads him back into the movie business, with Red Hare by his side. Yet, amid his newfound success, Luo finds himself in a legal battle over ownership of Red Hare, forcing him to go to his estranged daughter for help.As the two slowly reconcile their strained relationship, seemingly every other scene is populated by a new tear-jerker back story or moment of triumph, signaled by a maudlin score that relentlessly hammers away at the viewer. The film is so graceless and bizarre in its attempts at tugging at the viewer’s emotions that it often feels like a work of parody.Chan has a few trademark fight scenes, as a gang keeps chasing him down for money owed, though it’s clear that the 68-year-old actor naturally doesn’t bear the same kind of comic physicality he once did. In a way, one could see the film as both a potential tribute to his remarkable and decades-long career doing real, often dangerous stunt work and a consideration of his sunset years as a performer. But that hope is quickly buried underneath a cynical film that has nothing to offer by way of charisma, comedy or the like, outside of Chan’s name itself.Ride OnNot rated. In Chinese, with subtitles. Running time: 2 hours 6 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Paint’ Review: Watch It Dry

      by

      Owen Wilson plays a Bob Ross-inspired painter in this dated, mildly amusing parody of male privilege.In “Paint,” an aging TV star with punchline hair and a storied libido lords it over his superfans, so wrapped in the cocoon of celebrity that he fails to recognize his rapidly waning significance.If that outline sounds uncomfortably familiar, then rest easy: “Paint” is not a political satire. What it is, exactly, is more difficult to pin down: A bland romantic comedy that feels strangely contemptuous of female desire; a portrait of a landscape artist that infrequently ventures outdoors; a dispiriting merger of small-town mind-set and giant-sized delusion.“They all fall for Carl,” one woman marvels, though why they do is one of this movie’s enduring mysteries. She’s referring to Carl Nargle (a perpetually mellow Owen Wilson), Vermont’s premier public-television painter. Even leaving aside his embroidered-denim outfits and a ’do that looks like an explosion in a couch-stuffing factory, Carl is no prize. His personality has all the depth of a blank canvas, his voice is an A.S.M.R. purr and his paintings — endless variations on a local peak and its environs — garage-sale relics.Yet Carl, from flooffy head to bell-bottom hems, is the epitome of soft power and hardened ego. When his show is on the air, his audience — revealed in a repeated sequence of lazily uninspired shots — is invariably agog. A roomful of rapt retirees; two mesmerized men at a bar; a line of breathless female colleagues in cottage-core knitwear. So sexually starved are these women that they will do almost anything for a bounce on the sofa bed in the back of Carl’s customized van. One, a professed vegan, even allows Carl to feed her lamb larded in cheese fondue, with predictably unpalatable results.Written and directed by Brit McAdams, “Paint” is a comedically inert parody of male privilege that’s all sight gags and very little substance. Wrapped in a fuzzy blanket of easy-listening oldies — John Denver, Kris Kristofferson, Gordon Lightfoot — the screenplay asks us to believe that Carl is so out of touch he has no idea what an Uber is or how to use his cellphone. And that the warm, talented woman he loved and left (Michaela Watkins) has hung around for two decades hoping for a second chance to rinse his brushes.As a result, “Paint” feels not just dated, but oddly sad. Inspired by the popular public-television host Bob Ross (who died in 1995), the movie seems caught in a time warp, its attitudes as antiquated as Carl’s wardrobe. Only the estimable Stephen Root, playing Carl’s station chief, and the vivacious Broadway performer Ciara Renée as Ambrosia, Carl’s younger, more talented rival, manage to nudge scenes from a saunter to a brisk walk. When Ambrosia, with her cheeky paintings of hovering spaceships and bleeding rocks, makes moves on Carl’s time slot and even his true love, I lamented his — and the movie’s — lack of a sharper edge and more lacerating tongue. He should have been furious; yet, like the film’s unconvincing flashbacks to his much younger self, he looks essentially unchanged.PaintRated PG-13 for a bit of toking and dirty joking. Running time: 1 hour 36 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Praise This’ Review: An Unlikely Savior

      by

      The R&B singer-songwriter Chloe Bailey stars in this musical comedy about an aspiring pop singer who lands in a scrappy competitive gospel group.For an aspiring pop star from L.A., heading to the South to sing about Jesus might feel like a detour. But that’s where Sam, played by the R&B singer Chloe Bailey, finds herself to at the start of the musical comedy “Praise This.” After the death of her mother and a struggle to set herself straight, Sam is sent to Atlanta to stay with her aunt, her uncle and her peppy, God-loving cousin, Jess (Anjelika Washington).Jess introduces Sam to her praise team, a scrappy competitive gospel group run out of a local, ramshackle church. When Sam and Jess are caught at a party, Sam is forced to join the group, a punishment that, no great surprise, allows her to open herself up to a new life, and to God’s grace. As Sam reluctantly leads her team through a national gospel singing competition, the film, directed by Tina Gordon, takes the “Pitch Perfect” template — an underdog singing group beating the odds — and gives it a modern Black gospel twist.Some of this can be lightly charming and funny — particularly the chemistry Bailey has with Washington, the funniest and most charismatic star of this show. But things get cringe-worthy as the movie leans on the narrative gimmick that Sam has a God-given ability to turn any trap banger into a gospel tune, eventually leading her to the recording booth of Ty (Quavo), a famous rapper she partners with.From this point on, the film reads like a faux-hip youth pastor in movie form, only instead of an acoustic guitar, it’s an 808 drum machine luring the kids toward God.Praise ThisNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 51 minutes. Watch on Peacock. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Chupa’ Review: A Terrifying Myth Made Cuddly

      by

      On a trip to his grandfather’s ranch in Mexico, a boy makes an astonishing discovery that turns into a family adventure.Alex is an outcast at his school in Kansas City — for the picadillo he brings for lunch (“It’s just hamburger meat,” he tells one bully), for the video games he plays, and for apparently being the only Mexican kid in the lunchroom.At home, Alex (Evan Whitten) reacts by rejecting Mexican cuisine and refusing to learn Spanish. When his mother reminds him that he is heading to Mexico to visit his grandfather over spring break, he groans. But the trip surprises him, in no small part because of the adorable mythical creature, a baby chupacabra, he encounters in his grandfather’s barn.Inspired by the Latin American legend of the bloodsucking creature, “Chupa,” directed by Jonás Cuarón, makes a family adventure out of a traditionally horrifying subject. Set in the late 1990s, the film follows Alex, his grandfather Chava (Demián Bichir), a former lucha libre champion, and his cousins Memo (Nickolas Verdugo) and Luna (Ashley Ciarra) as they try to protect Chupa from capture by an American scientist, Richard Quinn (Christian Slater). All the while, Alex learns to accept and embrace his roots.Though the characters are charming and well-defined, it’s hard to become invested in their story lines because their relationships are not given enough time to develop. The stakes do not feel high enough, with Quinn seeming more like a cartoon villain than a true menace (it’s not clear what exactly he plans to do with Chupa). And though the concept is promising, and some moments are tender, one wishes the film had delved deeper into the chupacabra myth and the characters’ stories to make for a more satisfying watch.ChupaRated PG. Running time: 1 hour 35 minutes. Watch on Netflix. More