A Night at the Opera.

Review #2497: A Night at the Opera.

Cast: 

Groucho Marx (Otis B. Driftwood), Chico Marx (Fiorello), Harpo Marx (Tomasso), Kitty Carlisle (Rosa Castaldi), Allan Jones (Ricardo Baroni), Margaret Dumont (Mrs. Claypool), Sig Ruman (Herman Gottlieb), Walter Woolf King (Rodolfo Lassparri), and Robert Emmet O'Connor (Sergeant Henderson) Directed by Sam Wood.

Review: 

In fairness, Sam Wood does sound like a name I've covered before. But so it goes. Wood actually was a real estate broker in his young years in California before the growing industry of film for the 1900s eventually became something worth investing time into, starting as a movie assistant and eventually assistant director, most notably with Paramount Pictures for a number of years. He became a director by the turn of the 1910s with Wallace Reid. His efficient nature in getting films done landed him several opportunities to direct for a variety of places over the next two decades, although his longest tenure ended up being with MGM, where he worked in both silent and sound productions starting in 1927. In the middle of his tenure there, Wood ended up as the one directing a key assignment with the Marx Brothers because Irving Thalberg needed a dependable guy to direct the group (now consisting of Groucho, Harpo, and Chico), who had recently departed Paramount Pictures after five features because of contractual disputes that boiled over with Duck Soup (1933). The resulting success led to Wood directing the next Marx movie with A Day at the Races (released in 1937 months after Thalberg's death). For the Marx Brothers, they worked with MGM further on with At the Circus (1939), Go West (1940), and The Big Store (1941). Wood moved on to a wavering list of noted work, most notably with Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939) before he became a freelance director for the remainder of his career and life, which led to films such as Our Town (1940), Kitty Foyle (1940), and Kings Row (1942). During production of Ambush (1950), Wood died from a heart attack at the age of 66 in 1949. Incidentally, both of Wood's Marx movies served as loose inspiration for the 1992 movie Brain Donors.

With this film, certain parts of the routines were basically workshopped with live stage performances that the brothers did on the road that was performed around the country prior to filming, with Wood traveling with the group from city to city to watch the audience reaction to the gags. The writing credits went to James Kevin McGuinness for the story, George S. Kaufman & Morrie Ryskind for the screenplay while gagman Al Boasberg contributed uncredited dialogue. If Thalberg's idea that the brothers would be best served by having a solid framework to hold up a grab-bag of jokes, well, he probably had a point. Basically, you get a good chunk of Marx mayhem with a handful of gags that come and go with solid efficiency depending on just how much you love seeing a group of oddballs casually loop in and out of affairs that either come off as trivial or just about the right sort of absurd. Obviously, the stateroom sequence is a key highlight of the film in that high-desired quality of rhythm and setup, although I would say the scene with the group trying to evade trouble involving furniture-moving is a nice favorite. Admittedly, the aspects involving Carlisle and Jones is the weakest part of the film, particularly since Dumont is such a solid straight presence anyway. But Groucho is Groucho in terms of just slinging lines full of zip with efficient nature that manages to evoke the charm within conman routines. And of course, there is the usual bumbling from Chico and the not-exactly silent Harpo. As a whole, it isn't hard to see why the Marx Brothers thought A Night at the Opera was one of their favorite films, as it manages to zing on a consistent level with its humor and execution to where one is immediately chuckling with its trio of stars with warm familiarity regardless of how many Marx movies you've seen. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Badlands.

Review #2496: Badlands.

Cast: 

Martin Sheen (Kit), Sissy Spacek (Holly), Warren Oates (Father), Ramon Bieri (Cato), Alan Vint (Deputy Tom), Gary Littlejohn (Sheriff), John Carter (Rich Man), Bryan Montgomery (Boy), Gail Threlkeld (Girl), and Charley Fitzpatrick (Clerk) Written, Produced, and Directed by Terrence Malick.

Review: 

"I tried to keep the 1950s to a bare minimum. Nostalgia is a powerful feeling; it can drown out anything. I wanted the picture to set up like a fairy tale, outside time, like Treasure Island. I hoped this would, among other things, take a little of the sharpness out of the violence but still keep its dreamy quality. Children's books are full of violence. Long John Silver slits the throats of the faithful crew. Kit and Holly even think of themselves as living in a fairy tale. Holly says, "Sometimes I wished I could fall asleep and be taken off to some magical land, but this never happened." But she enough believes there is such a place that she must confess to you she never got there." - Terrence Malick

I suppose there's no better way to start with a director as curious as Terence Malick than to just go with their debut. Born in Illinois but raised in the South, Malick studied at Harvard for philosophy and graduated with a bachelor's degree before electing to study further at Oxford University's Magdalen College. However, he left without a degree due to a disagreement over his thesis, which soon saw him travel back to the States to teach philosophy at MIT and do freelance journalism. However, he apparently felt that he wasn't a good teacher when it came to "the sort of edge one should have on the students", so he decided to focus on studying at AFI because of his liking of movies "in a kind of naive way". He made his first short film with Lanton Mills in 1969. Malick's agent got him freelance work revising scripts, which saw him do uncredited drafts for Dirty Harry (1971) and Pocket Money (1972). Malick raised half of the money by approaching people outside of the film industry (alongside using $25,000 of his own savings) while the other half was raised by Edward R. Pressman. Malick described in an interview prior to the release of the film that books such as The Hardy Boys and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, had influence on the script (at least one that he realized influenced him after doing the script). The movie was more a critical darling than an audience hit at the time, but so it goes. Malick continued his career with Days of Heaven (1978) before curiosity reigned over exactly what he was doing before his next film with The Thin Red Line years later in 1998; at any rate, he has directed nine features and one experimental documentary in over five decades as a filmmaker. 

The real events were curious in themselves: Starkweather murdered eleven people in Nebraska and Wyoming in 1958 at the age of 19 that saw him accompanied by his 14-year-old girlfriend in Caril Ann Fugate (with Badlands, Sheen was 32 and Spacek was 22). Fugate claimed she was a hostage, not knowing until later that her mother, stepfather and sister had already been killed by Starkweather. Sentenced to life, she served 18 years in prison* while Starkweather (once quoted as saying dead people were all on the same level) got the electric chair. Those events have inspired a few other movies such as The Sadist (1963) and Natural Born Killers (1994)*. With Badlands, you get a pretty curious film because it isn't so much just a violent film as it is one that has a strange nature to looking out of time within what actually is seen and heard, mainly because it is more Spacek's film than anything. How else would one understand the type to string along with Sheen unless you hear the underlying journey told by Spacek? There is a haunting nature to the way she navigates the film in terms of passivity that isn't merely just naivety but instead is something that seems removed from, well, you or me. With Sheen, it's much easier to look at him and understand how he could corral certain things to go his way with his magnetism of nonchalance (incidentally, he believed it was the best script he had ever read). They are two empty souls that think the gun as a magic wand (okay that came from Malick) that traverse through the landscape with the same kind of weary nature that we can only hope we don't see in ourselves. They end up as doomed figures hurtling through oblivion that can only be understood by actually viewing the film rather than just seeing images of it and its landscapes. The drama isn't in the chase or in the conflict between these people, nope, instead it is a movie of people who are just in their own element of actions and impulses, which for some might be spookier than a straight-crime movie. But so it goes. As a whole, Badlands is a curious film to see unfold in all of its interesting elements that come from what you see and hear in a spree of morbid curiosity. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Fugate is still alive, as evidenced by a not-too-distant documentary about her: ‘It’s about more than just a crime’: what if a teen killer was actually a victim? | Documentary | The Guardian

*And even a Springsteen song.

Inu-Oh.

Review #2495: Inu-Oh.

Cast: 

Avu-chan (Inu-Oh), Mirai Moriyama (Tomona), Tasuku Emoto (Ashikaga Yoshimitsu), Kenjiro Tsuda (Inu-Oh's father), and Yutaka Matsushige (Tomona's father)

Directed by Masaaki Yuasa.

Review: 

"I get inspired with a lot of things I see, hear, smell, and touch in everyday life... I often derive inspiration even from really modest visuals; a commercial, a cut from a movie, a movement from an anime as well as nameless flowers and grasses blooming on the road, clouds, stars, and moons in the sky. I’m also inspired with what I’m currently interested in and feeling. My humble wish for creating anime is to have common images, conversations, and scenes sublimed into art works."

It really can all be about timing. Masaaki Yuasa loved animation from a young age and liked to entertain his kindergarten friends with drawings...and yet he thought his teenage years would change his interests. But he happened to be a teen in the midst of an animation boom in Japan (specifically films such as Space Battleship Yamato) that made it sounded like Japanese animation would be great for adults too that maybe Yuasa could aspire to be in that industry. He thought about pursuing a job as an artist in anime or manga but eventually felt that being an animator might be the way to go. He majored in fine art at Kyushu Sangyo University in oil painting. He stated that he was more of a line drawer/sketcher more than one who could "draw manga-like stuff". At any rate, his first job was with Ajia-do as an in-between animator. Despite having doubts that he should stay on at one point due to his doubts about his abilities within pressure, he kept going and eventually did various work at the studio from key animations to storyboarding on programs such as Chibi Maruko-chan (1990) and Crayon Shin-chan (1992). He became a director on an OVA series with Anime Rakugo Kan that same year and spent the next few years as a freelance animator before being asked to work on an adaptation of the manga Mind Game, which became his first feature film in 2004 that has a cult following. Among his various works in television, he also co-created the studio Science SARU that combines hand-drawn animation and Flash animation. Inu-Oh (which premiered on the festival circuit in 2021 before general release in May 2022) is his fifth theatrical film, following the wave of films he directed with Night Is Short, Walk On Girl (2017), Lu Over the Wall (2017), and Ride Your Wave (2019). 

Inu-Oh just happened to be one of those films I glanced on a Walmart shelf a few months ago and decided, sure, save it for sometime in the future to view. Once upon a time, The Tale of the Heike told of the clans that lived and died in the ultimate battle for power in Japan that saw the Heike fall to the Genji. In 2017, Hideo Furukawa wrote a novel called Tales of the Heike: Inu-Oh. Incidentally, not much is really known of the actual Inu-Oh as a performer besides being noted as having performed for the shogun that has no surviving works.* Yuasa stated the film was one that "portrays weak people", one where the great things will just be dust before the wind, where love and power will be remembered and so on. It has been noted that while it isn't a historical movie about the Muromachi period (roughly belonging to 1336 to 1573), Yuasa wanted to get a glimpse of it with the habits that arose from those times to surround the friendship he wanted to show. You'll see and hear plenty with this film, one that sees at attempt at unity through the demands of order alongside the introduction of its musical talents before the film is half-way through its 98-minute runtime. The story (no, don't think about the sword that blinds somebody) is not exactly as important as it sounds when it comes to setting up its songs and vivid animation. In the beige (or gray) skies, a flourish for performances does stick out, although the design of Inu-Oh (one that sees him shift his limbs gradually throughout the film). Yuasa wanted to make a movie where you could see moves like Michael Jackson to go along with the grooves of acid rock that could astonish in its exaggerated matter because why not? The shows seen in terms of their execution is pretty entertaining. The flights of fantasy go hand in hand with that bond of kinship that is actually pretty interesting. It isn't so much a movie packed with high-tension acting from Avu-chan (lead vocalist/songwriter for Queen Bee) or Moriyama but what they do contribute is in the framing of the music as a team. There is just something about how they interact and how they play with the music that is engaging to remind one that history can be elevated (or taken away) by the way it is presented. Naturally, there is an inevitability within authority and conformity that only makes its resolution all the more interesting in saying that even though all (icon or martyr) will be washed away by the shores of time, at least there was a chance for one to try and reach an audience, and for some that might just be enough. As a whole, it is a visual and audio treat in terms of its experience more than anything, but Yuasa and company made a pretty good film here that is worth giving some time to.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars. 

Welcome to Movie Night: Season XVI and the fifth edition of New Directors Month for January. Yes, even with over 1,300 directors featured in fifteen years, it always seems like a good idea to branch out for different experiences, so let's see what we find in January. Previous starters of the tradition include 2022 (Blind Husbands), 2023 (Hell or High Water), 2024 (Metropolis [2001]), 2025 (Alice in the Cities).

*Incidentally, months before Inu-Oh was released in theaters, Science SARU was behind a net animation adaptation of Furukawa's 2016 translation of The Tale of the Heike for streaming/TV.

Strange Days.

Review #2494: Strange Days.

Cast: 

Ralph Fiennes (Lenny Nero), Angela Bassett (Lornette "Mace" Mason), Juliette Lewis (Faith Justin), Tom Sizemore (Max Peltier), Michael Wincott (Philo Gant), Vincent D'Onofrio (Burton Steckler), Glenn Plummer (Jeriko One), Brigitte Bako (Iris), Richard Edson (Tick), William Fichtner (Dwayne Engelman), and Josef Sommer (Palmer Strickland) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark, #2361 - Blue Steel)

Review: 

"Well, I don’t see Strange Days as a pure action genre piece. I think of it as a character-driven piece. It’s got a tremendous amount of dialogue and story—at one point we thought of it as science fiction as if written by David Mamet. The pauses in Strange Days are motivated more by story and character than by the need to linger on the mise-en-scène. That’s not to say we don’t fill every frame; your eye wanders outward to this complex environment that the principal characters don’t bother to acknowledge. They take it for granted that there’s an ad hoc revolution taking place, a civil war."

Inadvertently, I stumbled onto this movie when looking around for further movies involving Kathryn Bigelow. This was her fifth film as a director that just happened to be in between Point Break (1991) and The Weight of Water (2000). It came around after years of script development from James Cameron, who first envisioned it in 1985 and apparently wrote it mind for Bigelow (incidentally, they were once married) to direct it. They then collaborated on working the elements that interested them into the film, with Bigelow striving for grit while Cameron strove for the romance that resulted in a treatment. The treatment was then worked by Jay Cocks into a script that happened to get developed around the time of the Rodney King beating and the L.A. riots (incidentally, Bigelow was involved with the city cleanup). Cameron was more involved with the effects than being on set as a producer (he noted he visited the set just twice as a co-producer), particularly with wondering how the opening scene would look like in showing someone being part of a robbery that sees them swarmed by cops to see one run up a staircase and then have a jump from a ledge that had special cameras and rigs for it. This film and True Lies (1994) were part of a deal between 20th Century Fox. Set in the then future year of 1999 on December 30 and December 31, the movie was released in October of 1995 and somehow flopped with audiences, making less than half of its $42 million budget*, but there is a slight cult audience for the film.

  

Okay, so here's one: an electronic device (SQUID: Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) that lets you experience recorded memories and physical sensations of other people that happens to have little discs for storage (older film lovers might remember that interfacing oneself to record their sensations on tape for others to experience came a bit earlier with Brainstorm [1983], although that dealt with the military trying to get their hands on it). Memories were meant to fade, particularly when doomsday or redemption is on the line. This is a fascinating film that is hard to really piece down as belonging to any one genre, mainly because it makes the mark for sci-fi thriller just as much as it does belong to the noir genre, complete with plenty to astound the audience with beyond its violence. Sure, maybe we aren't all looking upon the world with VR headsets, but our fascination with technology is a strange one when you consider where "parasocial" has evolved to in the last couple of years with how now we can see any type of "living" to stream on a phone you can hold in your hand. People probably are isolated now more than ever, particularly in what we "see" and "feel", and there is something amusing in parts for what the film shows in how people use and don't use SQUID, specifically with the lead two characters. Fiennes (cast in the wake of being nominated for an Academy Award for Schindler's List instead of Andy Garcia) makes for a fascinating conman, one who is particularly vulnerable and fascinating because of how he eventually lands up in the quest to do the hardest thing one might think of: learning to let the past go and actually move forward. There's more to life than being a two-bit pathetic person, and he makes it a curious one to actually emphasize with. Of course, it is Bassett who provides the key moral center of the film, one who is just as handy in asserting herself (such as with a fist) as she is someone clearly desiring to see someone actually make a leap forward with her (as one does with arguably the biggest hero of the film). Sizemore and Lewis might seem outmatched within the confines of basically being in a noir (right down to the latter singing like a femme fatale might do), but I liked both of them in what they provide in their odd duck qualities that think people can be used up just like a beverage to eventually see go by the wayside. The 145-minute runtime leads to plenty of buildup for what type of world would have such a device go around even if someone might use it on a person dying of sexual assault, for example (also disturbing is a scene showing someone going brain dead from amplified signals). Sure, it might hit a ray of hope for its climax that may only work best as if one was watching a fable close itself down, but there is something to be had about a movie that seems to want to remind us to actually get real beyond being looped in playback. As a whole, Strange Days is a curious film in its desire to show the weird world of voyeurism within the confines of a dystopian future that may very well seem a bit familiar to those viewing the world with their eyes and ears nowadays. It deserved better than where it landed in 1995 and should be looked at by all the curious ones out there for its dazzling execution.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

See you in 2026.

*In comparison, in its first full week (it was limited on the first week) of release, the movie was beaten out by newcomers such as Jade and the Scarlet Letter to go along with the popular movie of the week again with Seven. And yeah, Get Shorty was the week after that.

Samurai II: Duel at Ichijoji Temple.

Review #2493: Samurai II: Duel at Ichijoji Temple.

Cast: 

Toshiro Mifune (Miyamoto Musashi), Kōji Tsuruta (Sasaki Kojirō), Mariko Okada (Akemi), Kaoru Yachigusa (Otsu), Michiyo Kogure (Dayū Yoshino), Mitsuko Mito (Okō, Akemi's mother), Akihiko Hirata (Seijūrō Yoshioka), Daisuke Katō (Tōji Gion), Kurōemon Onoe (priest Takuan (Takuan Sōhō), Sachio Sakai (Matahachi Honiden), Yū Fujiki (Denshichirō Yoshioka), Machiko Kitagawa (Kogure), Eiko Miyoshi (Osugi, Matahachi's mother), and Eijirō Tōno (Shishido Baiken) Directed by Hiroshi Inagaki (#2173 - Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto)

Review: 

Sure, let's do another samurai movie. You might remember Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto (1954) utilized the epic novel Musashi by Eiji Yoshikawa (about the life and deeds of swordsman Miyamoto Musashi) for a worthwhile film that obviously had to keep going. A variety of people returned to do this film ranging from its director in Hiroshi Inagaki and its writer Tokuhei Wakao (who co-wrote the last one with Inagaki as based on a play by Hideji Hojo), its assistant director in Jun Fukuda and select members of its cast. You get some action pretty quickly in the film with the opening that sees the kusarigama (a chain-sickle) get used up before one sees the lead engage himself in self-development while also trying to take on a school of swordsmanship. One year later saw the release of Samurai III: Duel at Ganryu Island, which I take it will surely have an involving duel between Musashi and Sasaki Kojirō, who apparently was described as the toughest opponent he ever faced (of course all of this happens before Musashi even turned 30, because the actual man ended up dying in 1645 in his sixties, in a cave, from what might have been lung cancer).

Sure, you might wonder where the path of enlightenment comes from for a movie that involves a good deal of slashing. Well, there is meant to be a path for the pilgrims who wish to learn the ways of what a samurai are besides thinking it means to turn people into dead slabs (it doesn't involve blood, but in fairness, it was the 1950s). Mifune is now going through the road of stoicism that basically reveals that the road of honor and respect can be a very tenuous one when nobody plays exactly to the rules. There are no easy solutions to growing up as a person beyond actually doing it. Everyone has their own murky intentions because no one is defined by just being someone in somewhere. It just so happens that committing to fight one man ends up being a confrontation with a school because of other people's waylaid views. Mifune is about as good in stoic conviction, mainly because you get the idea pretty quickly that his destiny is going to go down to his choices of seeing himself beyond who he thinks he is and to actually realize it. One respects things in nature and life without becoming reliant on them, I suppose. Tsuruta makes for a solidly addition to the proceedings, curious in his maneuvering at least when compared to the drama played out by returners such as Yachigusa (okay there's also another going after him and a whole thing about other returners, but I think you get the idea). The opening battle sequence is there to show that the journey isn't getting better at swordplay, because anybody can go with swords when they are young. The ambushes that are shown in the film are pretty interesting for the time period, and in general you get a movie that allows its final sequences to breathe on their own in what is past and what is to come. As a whole, Samurai II continues the journey of its one curious samurai with plenty of energy and interest in making a journey of fulfillment come around with enough fun beyond looking at things as just moving through the next blade movement. It sets the stage for what is to come in the next film in setting how the journey has gone in learning and seeing beyond the trappings of period and action dramas for a pretty good time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines.

Review #2492: Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 Hours and 11 Minutes.

Cast: 

Stuart Whitman (Orvil Newton), Sarah Miles (Patricia Rawnsley), James Fox (Richard Mays), Alberto Sordi (Count Emilio Ponticelli), Robert Morley (Lord Rawnsley), Gert Fröbe (Colonel Manfred von Holstein), Jean-Pierre Cassel (Pierre Dubois), Irina Demick (Brigitte, Ingrid, Marlene, Françoise, Yvette, Betty), Red Skelton (Neanderthal Man, Roman Birdman, Middle Ages Inventor, Victorian-era Pilot, Rocket Pack Inventor, Modern Airline Passenger), Terry-Thomas (Sir Percy Ware-Armitage), Eric Sykes (Courtney), Benny Hill (Fire Chief Perkins), Yūjirō Ishihara (Yamamoto; voice dubbed by James Villiers), Flora Robson (Mother Superior), Karl Michael Vogler (Captain Rumpelstrosse), Sam Wanamaker (George Gruber), and Tony Hancock (Harry Popperwell)

Directed by Ken Annakin.

Review:

Sure, let's talk about another vehicle-heavy movie from 1965. The impetus for making the film came from Ken Annakin's interest in aviation from a young age, as he apparently was taken up by Sir Alan Cobham in a biplane once. Born in Beverly, East Riding of Yorkshire in England, he decided to forgo being an income tax inspector (like his dad wanted) to travel around the world doing a variety of jobs, whether that was stage manager of a travelling roadshow or working as a firefighter in the outbreak of World War II. He was a member of the Royal Air Force as a flight mechanic before an injury during the Blitz saw him join their Film Unit to work as a camera operator. He worked for directors such as Carol Reed on documentaries for several years. After the war ended, he made some documentaries with Sydney Box before being assigned to his first feature with Holiday Camp (1947), which started his career off handily well. He made a variety of features on a regular basis, whether that involved stuff such as segments for the W. Somerset Maugham anthology movies Quartet (1948) and Trio (1950), a handful of movies for Disney such as The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men (1952) or his personal favorite film, Across the Bridge (1957) or exteriors for epics such as The Longest Day (1962). As was the case with Longest Day, Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines was a 20th Century Fox production. Released in June of 1965, the movie was a general success. Annakin wrote the film with Jack Davies, and they received the film's only Academy Award nomination for its screenplay (the first and only time either man was up said award). A follow-up of sorts to Flying Machines came with Monte Carlo or Bust (1969) for Paramount, which shares a few cast members from this film*. all the way to his seventies with The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking (1988) and did work on a Genghis Khan film that never got off the ground in the 1990s. He died in 2009 at the age of 94.

One thing is for sure: it is handily better than that other epic of the year that involved a big cast and intriguing visuals trying to be funny with The Great Race (right down to the ending being less of a copout). Of course, this is the kind of movie I suppose you really would like better in seeing planes go up rather than the overall humor of the movie, which is only a few notches higher than "hit or miss" for a movie set in 1910 that aims to be a farce involving the quirks of early flight for British currency (hey 10,000 of their "pounds" in 1910 is equal to about 100 times that nowadays) and actual period-accurate life-sized working aero planes. They are surely a sight to see, and the general view one gets from the film when it comes to the flying is actually quite nice to look at. It might seem bloated at around 138 minutes, which doesn't account for the intermission (that lasts around six minutes) or the introduction to the film involving the history of flying+credits (also six minutes). But its a movie with slapstick and shenanigans when studios wanted to give people something to really go to the theater to see rather than staying home for TV, so there it goes. There isn't one really great performance in the film, but there are a few handy little moments from the folks, such as a folksy Whitman (chosen because Dick Van Dyke never got the offer from his agent) providing a few chuckles as one might do in American spirit or the blustery confidence that arises from Frobe and the obvious cad nature from Terry-Thomas. Morley dominates the British stuffy spirit probably a bit more than Fox, but I think you get what they are going for. You get a sense that the drive to fly was a noble one for those who really had the drive to do so while also realizing that one has to be a bit of a nut to really go out there and fly across any sort of environment for any sort of time (I can count the amount of times I've been on a plane on exactly one hand, and none in the last 14 years)*. Of course, dwelling on the race itself isn't really the point when you've got people engaging in a duel with balloons to go with everyone getting in their stereotypes (when you've got the British involved, that almost goes without saying), complete with one scene having a plane get fixed by a bunch of nuns all in the name of making sure a Catholic wins. The title song is, well, a charmer too. As a whole, it is clear that this was a worthwhile passion project for Annakin and company to show a few interesting visuals with planes and the countryside that makes for a leisurely good time for those in the spirit of what ends up in the air. It just might fly right for you too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Specifically, Terry-Thomas, Gert Fröbe and Eric Sykes returned for the movie, which in America was known as "Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies". Annakin and Davies wrote the film together. Incidentally, the theme from Flying Machines apparently was played during the funeral of Terry-Thomas in 1990.

*Even recognizing the history of flight can be full of nuts. Annakin wanted a Wright Flyer in the film and therefore got a Bristol that happened to have a common layout with the plane. The Smithsonian Institution actually had a long running dispute with the Wright brothers about putting the original Flyer (there were three Flyers) on display because they wanted to honor one of their former secretaries that had his own tests with flying in Samuel Pierpont Langely's Aerodrome before the Flyer finally was put in the Smithsonian in 1948, 45 years after the historic flight on December 17, 1903. Incidentally, that plane flew a total of four times in its lifetime, with the longest flight being over 800 feet in just under a minute. 

Heat (1995).

Review #2491: Heat.

Cast: 

Al Pacino (LAPD Robbery Homicide Lieutenant Vincent Hanna), Robert De Niro (Neil McCauley), Val Kilmer (Chris Shiherlis), Jon Voight (Nate), Tom Sizemore (Michael Cheritto), Diane Venora (Justine Hanna), Amy Brenneman (Eady), Ashley Judd (Charlene Shiherlis), Mykelti Williamson (Sergeant Bobby Drucker), Wes Studi (Detective Sammy Casals), Ted Levine (Detective Mike Bosko), Dennis Haysbert (Don Breedan), William Fichtner (Roger Van Zant), Natalie Portman (Lauren Gustafson), Tom Noonan (Kelso), Niki Haris (Marcia Drucker), Kevin Gage (Waingro), Hank Azaria (Alan Marciano), Danny Trejo (Gilbert Trejo), Susan Traylor (Elaine Cheritto), Kim Staunton (Lillian), Henry Rollins (Hugh Benny), and Jerry Trimble (Detective Danny Schwartz) 

Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, #1713 - Manhunter, #2091 - Miami Vice, #2325 - Collateral)

Review: 

"I charted the film out like a 2 hr 45 min piece of music, so I'd know where to be smooth, where not to be smooth, where to be staccato, where to use a pulse like a heartbeat."

It helps to know the story a bit, admittedly. Once upon a time, a Chicago detective named Chuck Adamson kept tabs on the crew of one Neil McCauley, an ex-inmate of Alcatraz that one time saw the two end up meeting for a cup of coffee. Adamson later became a producer and screenwriter himself (where he co-created Crime Story, a show Mann was the executive producer on from 1986-1988). What interested him was the professionalism that Adamson respected in McCauley even with the recognized fact that one of them probably would kill the other. Mann had first written a draft in 1978 but he trimmed it down when NBC approached him to do a TV show. The result (filmed in less than a month) was L.A. Takedown (starring Scott Plank), a TV film that aired in 1989 that the network rejected because they didn't like the lead actor. But a few years later, with a few more moves under his belt, Mann set out to do the movie he wanted to do at last, complete with having Al Pacino and Robert De Niro being in the same movie (a relatively big deal for the time for a film that, well, has them meet twice) and one that was shot in Los Angeles that used nearly a hundred locations around the city for 100+ days of filming. Released on December 15, 1995, the film was a relative success with audiences (particularly abroad). Apparently, actual robbers took inspiration from the movie in later years to go along with video games such as Grand Theft Auto and directors such as Christopher Nolan.* In 2022, Heat 2, a novel written by Mann and Meg Gardiner was released that was both a prequel and sequel to the movie. A feature film adaptation is currently under development that may start filming in 2026.

What we have here is a movie full of intensity in the great game of choices, personal codes and the consequences that can have an effect on a wide range of people. It's a wonderful epic in the sprawling confines of a frontier that is intimidating as it is lonely. It's as much a neo-noir as it arguably is also a Western in its own respect, one that looks upon the nature of obsession and the sacrifices one makes to burnish that fire and live on the edge. A good chunk of the characters that we see throughout the near-three hour run time all have illusions about who they are vs. what really lies beneath the surface of their work, one in which it isn't so easy to just turn it off just because it's time to go home now, whether that involves cops that can't exactly tell their spouses about recently murdered people or men who believe themselves to be alone in their process or even those trying to dig their way out besides being an "ex-con". Simply put, the juice comes and goes but the work will be playing everywhere until the Earth is nothing but dust. Apparently, there was a scene that showed Pacino's character chip a bit of cocaine before it was cut out of the film. At any rate, high-strung user or not, I don't see anything wrong with where Pacino is going with such a fascinating role because, well, volatile is volatile (besides, "overacting" is only a bad thing when one wants to pick at things - the scene interrogating Azaria is delightful more than just "ham"). He handles it with such gusto that you understand pretty quickly how one can hate the sight of a horrible crime (dead hookers, robberies, you get it) and yet have the juice to want to crack it. Regardless of if one had a person like Venora or Portman in their orbit, there are just some people that need the chase because the pursuit of justice is just as addicting as the pursuit of a good score. De Niro matches that with his own type of worthwhile energy, a brooding man who values success at his craft because there is nothing better in his worldview even if he is confined by a code that might as well be a prison (such as how he lives or the ever-changing cars). One can only try to fool themselves with thoughts of being with Brenneman but really what matters to him is fulfilling his obligation to this mythic code of no excuses (and no second chances for violators) and trust for certain folks only. Pacino and De Niro basically are yin and yang in the knowing sense of "whatever it takes". It is just as well to see Kilmer and others fill the tapestry of obsession that wants to believe they are in control of their own lives in responsibility, whether that involves the disciplined (and still fallible as a character) Kilmer or the cut-rate Sizemore or even tragic side figures such as Haysbert that remind you that nothing is easy to escape. The robbery sequence obviously is the highlight of the film in its slam-bang execution of loud devastation that works to clockwork in seeing where one will go in realizing the full process of the job, right down to the eventual climax in wordless (but impactful for what is seen) resolution*. As a whole, Heat is a long burn not so much about a heist but about the people that toil in the work of people at a variety of angles that crisscross with each other in sacrifice and foibles to worthwhile staccato execution. It's a hell of a movie to see turn 30 years old.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently, the way that Kilmer reloads his weapon during the famous shootout scene is apparently a thing that professionals tell others to aspire to do in real life.

*Honestly, it is a bit weird but not a dealbreaker at what happens to (the Kilmer character in how he just...escapes). 

French Connection II.

Review #2490: French Connection II.

Cast: 

Gene Hackman (NYPD Detective Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle), Fernando Rey (Alain "Frog One" Charnier), Bernard Fresson (Inspector Henri Barthélémy), Philippe Léotard (Jacques), Ed Lauter (General William Brian), Charles Millot (Miletto), Jean-Pierre Castaldi (Raoul Diron), Cathleen Nesbitt (Old Lady), and André Penvern (André) Directed by John Frankenheimer (#559 - Grand Prix, #985 - The Manchurian Candidate)

Review:

"I like the script, I like the characters, I like the Hackman character in France and not speaking a word of French. It's a very difficult film because we want in no way to rip off the first one, which is one of the best films I've ever seen. I want to make a movie that stands on its own as a movie"

Sure, why not do a sequel to The French Connection (1971)? To reiterate, the film took influence in atmosphere and style from films such as Le Samouraï (1967) and Z (1969). You probably remember that the film had a handful of characters based on real-life people in terms of distribution of heroin, which was turned into books such, as, well, The French Connection in 1969 (as written by Robin Moore) that detailed Eddie Egan and Sonny Grosso trying to figure out the drug ring (oddly enough, there was another film based on the exploits of Egan in Badge 373 [1973], with Robert Duvall as the star). One of those people was based on Jean Jehan, who really never did get extradited from France and apparently did die peacefully in old age. But hey, screw reality, right? Sometimes you really want to make some money and sometimes audiences will want to watch a sequel that gives you more of what you think you want, so screw it, French Connection II, complete with only Hackman and Rey returning from the first film. Friedkin had no interest in doing the second film and apparently never watched it. The story was written by Robert and Laurie Dillon, who worked on the screenplay with Alexander Jacobs (in his penultimate film credit as a writer), although apparently Pete Hamill provided an uncredited remake for nearly all of the dialogue shortly before production started (apparently Hackman had "nothing to act" with the lack of Roy Scheider in the cast*). John Frankenheimer signed on to direct the movie because he wanted to do a movie that audiences would see. Made on a budget of over $4 million, the movie made nearly three times its budget back (for comparison, the first film made over $70 million).

Admittedly, a movie that features the lead character getting addicted to heroin - he gets kidnapped about 40 minutes into the film, gets injected with heroin not long after, gets dumped back to the cops and eventually gets through the cold turkey treatment by about the 80-minute mark so he can torch a place (and call the cops and no I'm not joking about any of that). It surely is a curious one. Doyle isn't nearly as abrasive as he was in the first film because this time around, he spends more time trying to understand (miserably) the French people around him in one of those "fish out of water" scenarios. Hackman was appreciative for the role of Doyle but he also went on record for stating he never actually re-watched the first film after 1971. He is still pretty offbeat and still pretty entertaining in that certain type of gritty rage that could only come from someone like Hackman. He just has the knack in making a guy like Doyle seem more than just a blowhard or one that could vanish into thin air in the action. Fresson makes for a quality counterpart in capturing the restrained nature of authority that probably fares best in the sequences when having to confront Hackman trying to go cold turkey. Rey is the same type of elusive presence as before, mainly because he doesn't really have to do much besides slide in and slide out of the background that is mostly convincing in nebulous drug dealing*. Regardless of its fictional nature in following up such a hard-nosed first film, there is a worthy sense of danger and entertainment that comes through for engagement that at least makes you care about most of the 119-minute runtime, even with the amusement that arises in straight up fading to black right after the pivotal moment of the whole thing. You get a nice foot chase and even a burning building sequence to see havoc, some sequels don't even try to give you that even when they aspire to top the original. As a whole, French Connection II doesn't do anything particularly great when compared to the long shadow cast by the first film, but it is a solid enough film in its general execution of thrills to go along with enough from Hackman and company to make the trip at least seem like one worth going through once. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Hackman and Rey had interesting paths to being cast in the first film, by the way. Rey was cast because Friedkin had wanted the small performance of a Spanish actor that had been in Belle de Jour (1967)...which was Francisco Rabal. Hackman on the other hand came about because they couldn't get the people Hackman or the studio envisioned for Doyle: Paul Newman, Jackie Gleason, Peter Boyle, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, Lee Marvin, James Caan, Robert Mitchum, Rod Taylor, and...Jimmy Breslin!

*Hey, fuck drugs. Sure, you can try weed, but in general, well, fuck heroin. Hell, cigarettes give you cancer, fuck them too. Don't even get me started on alcohol or vaping.

T-Men.

Review #2489: T-Men.

Cast: 

Dennis O'Keefe (Dennis O'Brien, a.k.a. Vannie Harrigan), Mary Meade (Evangeline), Alfred Ryder (Tony Genaro – aka Tony Galvani), Wallace Ford (The Schemer), June Lockhart (Mary Genaro), Charles McGraw (Moxie), Jane Randolph (Diana Simpson), Anton Kosta (Vantucci), Art Smith (Gregg), with Reed Hadley (Narrator), and Herbert Heyes (Chief Carson) Directed by Anthony Mann (#1048 - He Walked by Night, #1408 - El Cid, #2010 - Winchester '73)

Review: 

"Violence is always pictorially shocking. You can achieve fantastic effects of violence just by implication and design. And it is one of the good parts of our medium - it tends to shock and tends to excite the imagination and to rouse feelings in the audience that they’ve seen something and experienced something."

Sure, here's another movie involving a government department. Okay, we're not actually talking a paragraph about the U.S. Department of the Treasury, but they are the ones who oversee the U.S. Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, so yes, it is important that fake currency is investigated and taken out as quickly as possible. The film even features an introduction by Elmer Lincoln Irey, who served as an official for the department before serving as the first Chief of the IRS Intelligence Unit, which prosecuted thousands of people for tax evasion (so yes, the guys who busted Al Capone). Ironically, the movie actually had partial financing from organized crime with John Roselli, a member of the Chicago mob that happened to like movies and formed a silent partnership with Joseph Breen (head of the Production Code Office)*. T-Men was the first film Mann stated as "the first big one" as his previous works were basically ones that were thrust upon him (Mann stated that his days at Republic were fairly grim). Mann worked on the script from scratch and had involvement from William Eirie from the Treasury Department to bring files and create a story with John C. Higgins (of course, Virginia Kellogg was credited with the story while Higgins was credited with the screenplay - however, it has been speculated Henry Blackfort may have been involved somewhere); the research they did there led to them discovering the story of what later became Border Incident (1949). The key producer was Edward Small, who produced one other film with Eagle-Lion and Mann with Raw Deal (released in 1948 that also had O'Keefe as the star) but didn't get fully involved with the company due to feeling like they minimized his contributions. 

Released in late December 1947 on a budget of roughly over $400,000, the movie made over two million dollars, and it was the first of five collaborations between Mann and cinematographer John Alton. I'm sure you can figure out why it matters to have money that isn't fake going around in the general public (hell, how many places do you know that don't have one of those markers around that marks fake money?). What we have here is a lean affair that is definitely entertaining in showing tight work and the people that surround it. Even with the film telling you of its inspiration from an actual case (nicknamed "Shanghai Paper Chase"), you get a worthy semi-documentary feel early on with how it treats the material with efficiency and respect. It's a noir that has respect for its audience and builds its house of excitement for 92 minutes of generally involving fare, which mostly comes at the hands of O'Keefe, who apparently wanted to break into dramas (it helps to have Small as an agent). He proves pretty first rate for what the movie needs in crafty charm that has to play undercover with sincerity that rolls along like a typewriter in rattling consistency. Ford (a vaudevillian in earlier days) makes for a quality gangster presence in usefully odd disposition that gets a particularly brutal end (a steam room). The machinations that arise in trying to seep into the underbelly, even at the cost of being recognized on the street or seeing the death of those who can't cut it, is executed with swift interest by Mann and company (Alton was a pro after all) that makes one invested with the chase from the get-go. As a whole, T-Men is a solid effort for involved, having clear interest for its subject matter with useful energy in its foundation to make a worthy crime noir to recommend.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Roselli apparently was later involved in recruitment by the CIA in an attempt to kill dictator Fidel Castro. And then I guess he might be implicated in the boring and worthless conspiracy web of the Kennedy assassination (here's the only take: Kennedy was killed by one and only one loser. The end.). A decade later, he was found dead in a 55-gallon drum in Florida because yes, even 71-year-olds have to get whacked.

The Man Who Would Be King.

Review #2488: The Man Who Would Be King.

Cast: 

Sean Connery (Daniel Dravot), Michael Caine (Peachy Carnehan), Christopher Plummer (Rudyard Kipling), Saeed Jaffrey (Machendra Bahadur Gurung aka "Billy Fish"), Shakira Caine (Roxanne), Doghmi Larbi (Ootah), Jack May (District Commissioner), Karroom Ben Bouih (Kafu Selim), Mohammad Shamsi (Babu), and lbert Moses (Ghulam) Directed by John Huston (#081 - The Maltese Falcon [1941], #094 - The Misfits, #224 - Casino Royale [1967], #419 - Key Largo, #1379 - The African Queen, #1622 - Beat the Devil)

Review: 

Once ago, there was a short story by Rudyard Kipling about kings of Kafiristan, a historical region in what is now Afghanistan. It was called "The Man Who Would Be King" and it was first published as part of the anthology The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Tales in 1888 that may or may not have been inspired by a handful of real adventurers ranging from Alexander Gardner to Frederick "Pahari" Wilson to Adolf Schlagintweit. John Huston was probably the ideal person to want to make a film based in adventure because of his already busy life. He dabbled in boxing, training for opera singing, serving as a member in the Mexican cavalry before actually dabbling in screenwriting and directing. Intrigued by the story from childhood, was fascinated by the idea of doing a feature film based on the story, initially targeting Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart for the lead roles in the late 1950s that saw both actors die before it could get off the ground. Further years saw other names floated around from Richard Burton to even American actors (Paul Newman advised keeping it a British affair) before it finally came around to Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Huston co-adapted the story with Gladys Hill (a longtime assistant to Huston who had previously co-written Reflections in a Golden Eye [1967] and The Kremlin Letter [1970]. The movie was shot in locations around France, Morocco and at Pinewood Studios. Premiering in November 1975 before a general release on the week before Christmas, the film was a decent hit with audiences at the time while both Connery and Caine described it as one of their favorite film experiences. The fifth of John Huston's six films directed in the 1970s, he returned four years later with Wise Blood (1979). The next film to take loose inspiration from the Kipling story was The Road to El Dorado (2000).

 

The big thing about the movie is the fact that it manages to be such a fun adventure within the bounds of the thing that binds them most of all: greed. Sure, there is some brotherhood and charm within the characters played by Connery and Caine, but really it all boils down to wanting to matter as people beyond wearing some garb and getting called a god or a king of something. All fall at the end with their titles or classifications laid bare, some do it faster than others and some don't even have their story told to actually tell anyone. The inevitable peril that comes in trying to become a name among men in a world one is ravaging with their own imperial desire is still a fun one, of course, because who can resist scoundrels in adventure? Undeniably, Connery gets the better of the two roles in terms of the most curious in plundering adventure: self-mythologizing within the foundation of one who actually is quite pathetic when you get down to it. Actually, both actors are being sly in playing pathetic types because of how well we engage with them even with how we come to view them, and they are dynamite together. Plummer still makes his mark in making his role dignified even with most of it being opposite Caine. They never really become men of the people, merely just ones who believe they have them right where they want them as tools, which really could play today with how we still underestimate the spirit and belief of "the other". Jaffrey accompanies Caine and Connery with devoted energy that makes for a quality tragic figure. The 129-minute runtime rolls along with little to get in the way of its charm within the harrowing inevitability of when men try to become more than plundering conquerors. Apparently, Huston once said that he read so much of Kipling that it was in his unconscious, one that he understood in terms of a world that was different from the one we know now in terms of how we perceive places apart from us, the honor, and so on and so forth. The Man Who Would Be King is a good time for all in terms of its entertainment and its execution of adventure and tension.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

1,826 days later, it's the 15th anniversary of Movie Night originally being a thing. Sure, it started as ramblings on an online game before it became an actual blog, but the last couple of years (one that has seen at least ten reviews a month for over six years) have arguably seen it hit its stride for actual productiveness that I hope you've enjoyed. More to come in December.

The Rookie (1990).

Review #2487: The Rookie (1990).

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Sergeant Nick Pulovski), Charlie Sheen (Detective David Ackerman), Raul Julia (Ulrich Sigmund Strom), Sônia Braga (Liesl Strom), Tom Skerritt (Eugene Ackerman), Lara Flynn Boyle (Sarah Ackerman), Pepe Serna (Lieutenant Raymond Garcia), Donna Mitchell (Laura Ackerman), Coleby Lombardo (Joey Ackerman), Marco Rodriguez ("Loco" Martinez), Xander Berkeley (Ken Blackwell), Roberta Vasquez (Officer Heather Torres), Hal Williams (Detective Powell), Paul Ben-Victor (Felix "Little Felix"), and Tony Plana (Morales)

Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, #1638 - Bird, #1757 - Sudden Impact, #1831 - High Plains Drifter)

Review: 

I'm sure you've heard this before: buddy cop movie pairing two distinct folks up for strange hijinks and action to go around. The script to the film is credited to Boaz Yakin (in his second credit after The Punisher [1989]) and Scott Spiegel (the co-writer of Evil Dead II [1987]). This was the second Clint Eastwood film released in 1990 after White Hunter Black Heart, a film that Eastwood apparently had a personal interest in (so, yes, "one for them and one for me"). While that movie wasn't exactly an audience favorite, The Rookie didn't fare too much better at the time because of its release in December 1990 that got overshadowed by Home Alone, released three weeks earlier (did you know that movie was the highest grossing comedy of all time for decades?). The highlight of the film for those at the time may have been the stunt work, with major scenes involving no miniatures or blue screens, which were filmed at night. Of course, this is also the movie where Eastwood gets sexually assaulted by a woman and it is also the same movie where Raul Julia and Sônia Braga were cast to play a couple of Germans. So there's that.

It is a silly and loud affair that almost seems tailor-made for those who enjoyed stuff such as Lethal Weapon, Tango & Cash, you get the idea. But I can't help but wonder if the problems with the film come from the fact that Sheen and Eastwood just don't mesh that well together. Even Tango handled that better. One sometimes wonders who exactly was thought of for the role besides him, as if even Emilio Estevez would've been better off playing the toils of someone trying to be by-the-book in a weary world (this is where I try to not just wish for a different movie in the middle of talking about this movie*). But Eastwood doesn't exactly come off that great either, as if he himself is tired of playing a Dirty Harry pastiche (ironically, The Dead Pool from two years earlier was a better movie). The movie just seems flat-footed for a good chunk of its two-hour runtime, never really getting into full gear with its energy beyond neat stunts (again, mostly at night). It just feels like an obligation film, one that goes through the motions that almost sounds like it was supposed to be a parody of the action thriller, right down to the assault scene which is there because, uh, because. But instead the parts that are meant to be funny aren't as funny and the parts that sound like they want to be serious (such as the flashback trauma) sound like a riff. Even the moments where Julia says racial epithets (get it, he's playing a rough German?) sounds like it was dug up for a joke for the parody rather than an actual serious/fun thriller. Boyle was on Twin Peaks in the same year this premiered and it can easily be said that she has more to actually do on that show than here*, which is kind of sad, and the less said about Skerritt's lack of presence, the better. Julia and Braga technically are the best part of the film, but they can't save the film from meandering as much as it does. As a whole, I wish I could appreciate the movie more, but there is a clear air of lethargic nature to the whole proceedings that you don't get from the usual Eastwood fare. Even when the Dirty Harry movies got a bit long in the tooth, you could still see some zip to them. Here it just doesn't sound like anyone but the stuntmen is having fun, but it doesn't seem quite enough to make for a well-rounded film to actually recommend.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

*For whatever reason, I thought of Tom Hanks. Or hey, what if it was Emilio Estevez matched up with his father Martin Sheen? Or even Eastwood playing the beleaguered lieutenant for a whole film would probably be ideal. 

*As a person who's seen the first six Twin Peaks episodes, anyway.

The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle.

Review #2486: The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle.

Cast: 

June Foray (the voice of Rocky / animated Natasha Fatale / Narrator's Mother), Keith Scott (the voice of Bullwinkle / the Narrator, animated Fearless Leader / animated Boris Badenov / RBTV Announcer), Robert De Niro (Fearless Leader), Rene Russo (Natasha Fatale), Jason Alexander (Boris Badenov), Piper Perabo (Karen Sympathy; Julia McAnuff as young Karen), Randy Quaid (Cappy "Frank" von Trapment), Kel Mitchell (Martin), Kenan Thompson (Lewis), with David Alan Grier (Measures), Jon Polito (Schoentell), James Rebhorn (President Signoff), Carl Reiner (P.G. Biggershot), Jonathan Winters (Whoppa Chopper Pilot, Ohio Cop with Bullhorn, Old Jeb), Rod Biermann (Ole; Adam Miller as young Ole), Paget Brewster (Jenny Spy), and Janeane Garofalo (Minnie Mogul) Directed by Des McAnuff.

Review: 

Hey, ever hear of a modern adaptation of an old TV show? You might know from your parents (or grandparents, anyway) about aa show called The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends, which originally aired from 1959 to 1964 on ABC and later NBC. It was originally devised by Jay Ward and Alex Anderson, who previously collaborated on a program called Crusader Rabbit; Bill Scott was head writer and also part of the voices that made up the show that featured June Foray, Paul Frees and others. It was actually a variety show that consisted of such segments as, well, the serialized adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle and other segments such as "Dudley Do-Right" (which was adapted by Universal Pictures into its own film in 1999) "Peabody's Improbable History" (later adapted into an animated film in 2014), and "Fractured Fairy Tales". The film was made after many years of development that originally saw Danny DeVito and Meryl Streep for the roles of Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale; the sciept for the film was written by Kenneth Lonergan. He had been involved in the theater since the 1980s but had done a few film scripts, with his next one being, well, work on Gangs of New York (2002). As for its director in Des McAnuff, he has mostly done work for the stage beyond directing just this film and Cousin Bette (1998), although he co-produced The Iron Giant [1999] (go figure). Released in June of 2000 on a budget of $76 million, the film (produced in the wake of Universal's apparent attempts at trying to tap the old TV market such as Flipper [1996], McHale’s Navy [1997], Leave It to Beaver [1997], Dudley Do-Right) was a considerable financial failure for what either was a flop because it didn't hit for young audiences or didn't hit for "Baby boomer nostalgia" or something.

As someone who wasn't too familiar with the show, I actually kind of like this movie. Sure, it is pretty goofy, and sure, it probably is the ultimate hit-or-miss movie with its gags. But damn it, I like goofy stuff like this. Silly narrators, odd hijinks, a deluge of celebrity cameos for the sake of having them, some strange plot involving animated characters in the real world to go along with a totally-not prescient idea of mass-marketed slop.* The effects for our heroes were done by Industrial Light & Magic that had plenty of involved people trying to accomplish McAnuff's wish to have the characters interact with the space and people that looked simple enough (so, yes, having to deal with problems such as selective motion blurring - you can read more here). Foray and Scott make a quality duo to accompany the film in goofy and sly charm, mostly because they just happen to come off as, well, a worthwhile pair to listen to. Of course, a movie like this needs a human counterpart, which is where Perabo (cast after Monica Potter stepped out) comes in. She does relatively fine here, having a few good moments of actual timing (along with an accompanying joke about her "inner child", heh, get it?) mixed in with plenty of okay ones, mostly because even a mild-energy Quaid is still curious to view*.  It should be noted that De Niro was a co-producer on this film. He seems to have a bit more fun than Russo or Alexander in hammy nature that seems ripe for a goofy adventure, and I would say that is more than enough for a film that relies on ham-handed puns and zippy things. There are an array of bit appearances and one-joke cameos that is mostly highlighted by Winters being three one-bit parts that I'm sure will please a few people for 92 minutes, or perhaps it will make you wonder if would've been better as just an animated movie. But at any rate, the movie could be a decent experience for those who like silly jokes and goofy enthusiasm that may hit just enough to make one have enough chuckles to make one believe it was worth the curious trip.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*I did have this movie on DVD when I was younger but I was the kind of idiot kid that liked to scratch DVDs on the front side and never actually saw the movie until now. Also: This 2000 article namedrops the wave of the past decade and can you imagine how weirder it got?: The Fugitive, Dennis the Menace, The Beverly Hillbillies, The Flintstones, The Mod Squad, The Avengers, Maverick, Casper, The Brady Bunch, Mission: Impossible, Wild Wild West, Charlie's Angels...

*Call me delusional, but the whole idea of having bad television put on screen sounds a bit like the current day debate over "slop". Sure, people in the film don't try and justify slop like people do try to justify the disgusting use of generative AI, but food for thought.

*Just don't ask him about elections or legal issues.

A Double Life (1947).

Review #2485: A Double Life (1947).

Cast: 

Ronald Colman (Anthony "Tony" John), Signe Hasso (Brita), Edmond O'Brien (Bill Friend), Shelley Winters (Pat Kroll), Ray Collins (Victor Donlan), Philip Loeb (Max Lasker), Millard Mitchell (Al Cooley), Joe Sawyer (Pete Bonner), Charles La Torre (Stellini), and Whit Bissell (Dr. Roland Stauffer) Directed by George Cukor (#479 - Travels with My Aunt, #974 - A Star is Born, #1355 - The Philadelphia Story, #1416 - My Fair Lady)

Review: 

Hey, you like movies about actors? You like movies that are basically noirs? You like a movie that basically ended up being a showcase for its lead star? Well, here's a movie for you. A Double Life, originally titled Imagination, was actually meant for Laurence Olivier but when he proved unavailable, it fell to asking Ronald Colman. You might recognize Colman (who moved over from England to America in the 1920s) from a wide variety of features such as Lost Horizon (1937) and Random Harvest (1942); Colman was coached by Walter Hampden in the Othello sequences. Apparently, George Cukor told a reluctant Colman (not exactly experienced in acting the works of Shakespeare) it would be the movie that might get him an Academy Award. The movie was written by Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin as the first of six collaborations with Cukor as director, which included such films as Adam's Rib (1949) and Born Yesterday (1950). The film was a family affair in production, as it was produced by Michael Kanin (who in himself was known for script-writing such as Woman of the Year). First released in the holiday season of 1947 (in limited form first just to get it ready for the awards circuit), the film was a decent hit with audiences and garnered Academy Award wins for its music score and yes, an award for Colman as well. Colman spent the remaining years of his career doing a few appearances for radio & television alongside appearances in three feature films; Colman died in 1958 at the age of 67.

It is nice to have a film that can be both a showcase for a solid actor who had the voice and the timing to make a film basically work where a lesser actor could just make it feel like a strange joke (an actor getting too involved their craft does sound like it could be comedy). Sure, maybe it isn't as dark as it may wish to be to really stick its landing, and sure, it maybe has a bit of a struggle in making all of its 104-minute runtime work in making it really spooky in actual terror of losing oneself, but it is pretty neat to see anyway. Colman slips further and further into the muck of madness in a way that just seems so fascinating because of how unnerving it is to see the lines blur, and it helps that he sells the Shakespeare sequences (which are in the film quite a bit, as one expects) in the way one would hope to see in worthwhile devastation. The others in the cast are eccentric in parts when the pop in and out, most notably with Winters (eight years earlier, it was Cukor, hearing auditions for Gone with the Wind*, that told an auditioning teenaged Winters to go to acting school). She just has a certain type of spitfire charm that you could clearly see had potential to be more than just an object of curiosity, particularly since Hasso is merely just fine. O'Brien is at least dependable wherever he lurks, although again, you would think he would have a bit more to really play for tension when it comes to a movie that hangs onto a play involving a trio of tragedy, but so it goes. The film has a fascinating execution in the sights (editing, the lighting, pick one) and sounds one experiences at times involving Colman and the growing drumbeat in one's viewpoint. As a whole, A Double Life is a solid enough movie for those who like a film with a murky enough atmosphere and a solid lead to make the entire affair compelling for those who like to check out noirs every now and then.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Cukor was the original director in mind for the film before being replaced. By sheer coincidence, today is the 86th anniversary of its premiere in Atlanta.

Pardon Us.

Review #2484: Pardon Us.

Cast: 

Stan Laurel (Stan), Oliver Hardy (Ollie), Wilfred Lucas (Warden), June Marlowe (Warden's Daughter), James Finlayson (Schoolteacher), Walter Long (The Tiger), Tiny Sandford (Shields, Prison Guard), Otto Fries (Dentist), and Charlie Hall (Dentist's Assistant) Directed by James Parrott.

Review: 

Admittedly, I plain forgot to really check out the comedy duo of Laurel and Hardy. So, why not start with their first feature-length film?  British-born Stan Laurel had started on the stage at 16 and did work in music halls (Fred Karno was a particular influence on Laurel and the one he was an understudy to in Charlie Chaplin) and eventually ended up at the Roach studio as director/writer by the 1920s. As for Georgia-born Oliver Hardy, he was a stage singer-turned comedian that had thrived in Florida productions (such as playing second banana to Billy West [a Charlie Chaplin impersonator] shorts) before going to Hollywood to seek new chances. Officially, they became a team in 1927 with Putting Pants on Phillip; Leo McCarey is stated to have aided the duo in helping develop their format. Most of the work they did until 1950 on film was in shorts (totaling over 70, sound and silent), but they did do 23 feature films, mostly with Roach (who when he had a dispute with Laurel, he tried to pair Hardy with Harry Langdon with Zenobia) that went right down to their last in Atoll K (1951). The two even had time to appear on television before Hardy's health started to decline that saw him die in 1957 at the age of 65; Laurel did not appear on film or stage again. He was awarded an Honorary Academy Award in 1961, four years prior to his death at the age of 74.* There exist various versions of the film: a British cut (Jailbirds) lasts 41 minutes while the original release and reissue was 55 minutes, an extended cut lasted 64 minutes and the current DVD edition runs at 70. The funny thing is that there were also foreign-language editions of the film made with the same sets for Spanish, Italian, German, and French, although only the Spanish version survives (apparently, Boris Karloff appeared in the French version). 

Apparently, the 1930 film The Big House was a big enough hit that Roach wanted to a short film making fun of the prison drama and even wanted to use the same sets. MGM was fine with it...if the duo would do a feature for them. Roach decided instead to make a replica of the prison sets. The result was a film that went from a short to having enough material to just be a full-length film. Sure, it might be a bit dated, as evidenced by it being made when one could be arrested for selling beer (or the blackface bit, which happens midway through*). It's a pretty episodic (it was directed by James Parrott, one mostly versed in shorts, which included the future Academy Award-winning short The Music Box [1932]) and disjointed affair, but it can be enjoyable in parts for those in the mood for a bit of goofy fun. There's plenty to mine with a goofy tooth and a few silly scenarios involving the duo wandering through jail life. The duo basically glide through the film in setting up whatever gag is necessary that can be charming in its execution for mischief that basically comes and goes with timing you just don't see everyday. The jail sequences mostly come and go with a bit of chuckles, mostly with Long and his demeanor (Finlayson comes close, but there isn't anything that really just zings too highly or lowly for too long. In general, you have a movie that is fairly watchable and fairly on the level of having some goofs in a time where you could just roll with the gags and have a mostly pleasant experience seeing how it comes together with a game duo there to do it all.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently, at the funeral, Buster Keaton stated that the funniest among them was not him or Chaplin but Laurel. Dick Van Dyke (December 13 will see him turn 100) even delivered a rendition of The Clown's Prayer.

*No, I did not intend to watch back-to-back movies where someone is in blackface. What the fuck?