Movie Night: Jailhouse Rock.

Review #327: Jailhouse Rock.

Cast
Elvis Presley (Vince Everett), Judy Tyler (Peggy Van Alden), Mickey Shaughnessy (Hunk Houghton), Vaughn Taylor (Mr. Shores), Jennifer Holden (Sherry Wilson), and Dean Jones (Teddy Talbot) Directed by Richard Thorpe.

Review
Sometimes, it's just a weird choice for the end of the year, for December 31, 2011, I reviewed Duck Soup (#085), and a year later, I wonder if this would be as good a choice like last year. In a way, I was kinda right. And who else to end the year, but...Elvis. Yeah, I hadn't mentioned him or even watched a film with him until today (On the eve of some sort of new year), but I had heard about his film roles and...their varying success. Elvis Presley appeared in 31 films (and two concert documentaries) in his lifetime, this being released 55 years ago. Presley does a decent job, not exactly a great persona, but he does have a commanding presence, and his singing (Have I mentioned singing ever before here?) is excellent, including the Jailhouse Rock sequence which is one of the most memorable music sequences in film. The rest of the film isn't as commanding or great, but Tyler does a great job, it's a shame that this was sadly her last performance (she died after production). The film doesn't have much story per say, but it does have entertainment value.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Timecop.

Review #326: Timecop.

Cast
Jean-Claude Van Damme (Max Walker), Mia Sara (Melissa Walker), Ron Silver (Aaron McComb), Bruce McGill (Eugene Matuzak), and Gloria Reuben (Sarah Fielding) Directed by Peter Hyams (#233 - 2010)

Review
Ah yes, I finally get to talk about Mr. Van Damme. If you thought Schwarzenegger was the only one from another country that I would ever review...Actually, I thought wrong. Oops. This is apparently based off a comic book (Let's seem that's like the 25th or...Nope, 26th), and it kinda shows. It feels a bit like Terminator for some odd reason which is nearly forgotten due to the strangely complicated plot and action. So if I understand right it's about a man trying to stop a supposed bad guy in the oh so future of 2004 (and 1994 as well), but...okay. It sometimes is interesting and it sometimes has some sort of decent action, and Van Damme does a decent job, not horrible, even if it feels awkward. It's an odd film, somewhat understandable and somewhat okay.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Predator.

NOW SUPERCEDED BY THIS REVIEW: https://movienightcentral.blogspot.com/2022/06/redux-predator.html

Review #325: Predator.

Cast
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Dutch Schaefer), Carl Weathers (George Dillon), Elpidia Carrillo (Anna), Bill Duke (Mac Eliot), Jesse Ventura (Blain Cooper), Sonny Landham (Billy Sole), Richard Chaves (Poncho Ramirez), Shane Black (Rick Hawkins), R. G. Armstrong (Homer Phillips), and Kevin Peter Hall (The Predator) Directed by John McTiernan (#014 - Die Hard, #018 - Die Hard with a Vengeance, #080 - The Hunt for Red October)

Review
This feels like a mixture of elements from three different genres: Action, Science fiction, and horror, with the three trying to successfully mesh well to make a coherent story. Does it work? Yea, pretty much. Once again, Schwarzenegger is our main hero, and he shows a bit of improvement (All three strangely go in order in years from 1982 to 1985 to 1987), but I know that isn't the main focus, it's the action and the effects (which come around the last half), which are pretty good, keeping the level of interest high. Its story is a bit thin, but it doesn't hurt the movie too much (One of my original questions was why does the predator fight with combat if he has a weapon? Apparently, this is because he uses hand to hand combat at the end in order to prove his Alpha status, while not killing anyone not holding a weapon). There is enough good action and good Predator effects to make for a decent-rounded story.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Commando (1985).

Review #324: Commando.

Cast
Arnold Schwarzenegger (John Matrix), Rae Dawn Chong (Cindy), Alyssa Milano (Jenny), James Olson (General Kirby), Dan Hedaya (Arius), Vernon Wells (Bennett), Bill Duke (Cooke), and David Patrick Kelly (Sully) Directed by Mark L. Lester.

Review
Conan-*Record suddenly changes* What? Oh, right. Commando was an 80s flick (right in the middle of it, no less), and it is easy to tell. But does that make it just a regular "meh" action film? Not entirely. Schwarzenegger does a fine job, it's almost like he is doing a satire version of heroes. The supporting cast is fine, ranging from decent to...odd. It does has a decent length, running only an hour and a half. Surprisingly, there is a good amount of decent humor. Actually the whole film feels like it has some sort of subtlety, with action put in. And of course like most action films, it has...well, action. Is it any good? I kinda like it, it doesn't necessary have much realism (I wonder if the main character is wondering how all those soldiers missed hitting him considering his size and the fact he's nearly right in front of them.), but it isn't something that hurts the film. I do like some of the lines in the film ("Remember when I promised to kill you last?  I lied" "And if you want your kid back, then you gotta co-operate, right?" "Wrong!"), which are a (welcome) fixture for Arnold by this point. In the end, the film is allright, not bad, not great, but...good. Fun stuff. Kind of a guilty pleasure.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Conan the Barbarian (1982).

Review #323: Conan the Barbarian.

Cast
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Conan), James Earl Jones (Thulsa Doom), Sandahl Bergman (Valeria), Gerry Lopez (Subotai), Ben Davidson (Rexor), Mako (The Wizard/Narrator), Max von Sydow (King Osric), Cassandra Gava (The Witch), Valérie Quennessen (The Princess), and William Smith (Conan's Father) Directed by John Milius.

Review
Schwarzenegger has been a small fixture on Movie Night. He was the first actor listed in the first review, and he has been reviewed in six (seven if you count The Expendables) films here. So how about another review with him? (Not much of a question...) Oh right, this is his earliest film reviewed here (Though not his first), with this being released 30 years ago (Ooh, another Anniversary review. I must a stickler for those.), and Schwarzenegger (Try saying that 5 times fast) does an okay job, not being horrible, for the most part. James Earl Jones does a fine job (It's been a while since I've reviewed him, he's a pretty good actor) as the villain (The name Doom isn't really subtle as we might see next year.), and the rest of the cast do fine jobs. The action is riveting, feeling like an epic (I'd mention that this was based off books by Robert E. Howard, except apparently this didn't have much to do with those. Wait, didn't I just mention-), oddities and all. It's unbalanced at times, and yet it does at least one focus: Conan and his revenge. It works in some ways and doesn't in other ways. But hey, the Conan stuff is all over now, right? Conan would be successful in his own right, with momentum for a sequel. But that is another tale that...shall also be told. With regrets either before or after watching it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Jumanji.

Review #322: Jumanji.

Cast
Robin Williams (Alan Parrish), Jonathan Hyde (Van Pelt and Sam Parrish), Bonnie Hunt (Sarah Whittle), Kirsten Dunst (Judy Shepherd), Bradley Pierce (Peter Shepherd), David Alan Grier (Carl Bentley), Bebe Neuwirth (Nora Shepherd), and Patricia Clarkson (Carol-Anne Parrish) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger)

Review
In a way, this had been coming for a long time. I had first watched this over two years ago, while on my trip with my father to Oregon for the first time (the second trip would bring a cavalcade of reviews from #043-#058), but I didn't finish all of it, quickly forgetting it. So how was it? (and why did I even try to introduce this to the review?) All your questions (except that one) will be revealed. It's...okay. There, you got your answer, the review is-Oh okay, I'll elaborate (for whoever wants it) on this. It might be slightly interesting to know that this is yet another adaptation from the author Chris Van Allsburg (who had wrote the book The Polar Express which was later adapted into its own film). The acting is decent, Williams doesn't do a bad job (thankfully not doing what other could do, like shouting...), and the rest of the cast are good. (especially with Jonathan Hyde, who is entertaining along with Grier). The effects are okay, not bad for 1995. The story is okay, not too much (what, playing a board game that unleashes unimaginable stuff? Oh and some time travel). For a good part of the film I was asking a question: Why are they playing this game? I know, to finish the game, but they damage more things than if they could've stopped after they recovered Parrish. (Who was trapped in the game for 26 years....) This might be a spoiler (So skip this line if you don't want to know the ending), but why exactly do Parrish and Whittle time travel back to 1969? I suppose the board game is a TARDIS (that might've been a twist. For me anyways...). In the end, the film isn't bad, but there's something about it that keeps nagging at it being really good. Is it bad? No. Is it recommended? Depends on the person. But oh well.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: 9.

Review #321: 9.

Cast
Elijah Wood (9), Jennifer Connelly (7), John C. Reilly (5), Crispin Glover (6), Christopher Plummer (1), Fred Tatasciore (8), Martin Landau (2), and Alan Oppenheimer (The Scientist) Directed by Shane Acker.

Review
This is an unusual film, with a different kind of animation than usual and a decent set of characters. While it does feel shorter than it could've been (Seems to be a cliche that some animated films don't last longer than 79-90 minutes), it is imaginative and very deep in its intended roots of being a dark tale not just for kids (at least I hope that is the intention), and it makes sure not to be a disappointment. The voice acting is fine, not being embarrassingly odd, just doing a fine job of establishing the characters (though odd they may be), which is a benefit. I like the fact that the film manages to have some sort of pace, always keeping you in check and making sure not to be slowed down. In the end, it's a decent film, with some sort of focus and imagination, and I'm mostly glad I watched (and reviewed) it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Live Free or Die Hard.

Review #320: Live Free or Die Hard.

Cast
Bruce Willis (John McClane), Justin Long (Matthew Farrell), Timothy Olyphant (Thomas Gabriel), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Lucy Gennero-McClane), Maggie Q (Mai Linh), Kevin Smith (Frederick "Warlock" Kaludis), Cliff Curtis (Miguel Bowman), and Jonathan Sadowski (Trey) Directed by Len Wiseman.

Review
302 Reviews (#014, #016, #018) after the last Die Hard (With the two films having a twelve year gap) film, I wondered if this would be just as good as the last three. I was right. It's essentially a standalone installment, not carrying much from the other three (Save for McClane and his daughter), but the film still has a feel from the others, which is a good thing. And the best part? Willis does a great job once again, commanding over the film and delivering lines that actually made me laugh. His character goes trough a lot, with blood and wounds all through out him, much like the last three. It's a split decision over if Long's character is either annoying or slightly beneficial. I pick the middle. He's a bit grating, but he's not the Chris Tucker of partners. The two do have some good lines together (*After McClane jumps out a car that later hits a helicopter, which actually is one of the moments of awesome moments (for me anyway)* You just killed a helicopter with a car!" "I was out of bullets", *McClane is standing next to a Boba Fett cut out* "What, like, you a big fan of the Fett?" "No. I was always more of a Star Wars guy"), and while the partner thing has been done before in Die Hard with a Vengeance with Samuel L. Jackson, this doesn't feel very off. The action is good, keeping the entertainment value at good levels, and keeping itself in check. Olyphant is an alright villain, definitely not the best, but still a useful threat. (Strange fact: It was originally called Die Hard 4.0) Overall, it's a good film (for what it's worth), that satisfies anyone wanting more Die Hard (Fun fact: There's actually a fifth film coming out soon called A Good Day to Die Hard. Heh.), or some good fun. I will only say this once, and for the sake of the film it works, so here you go (for anyone wanting some more quotes): Yippee-Ki-Yay, Motherfucker.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

A Movie Night Christmas Carol.

A Movie Night Christmas Carol.

A person was sitting in his desk, looking at his keyboard and then his screen. He shook his head afterwards. "What am I doing here? Why do I review these films sometimes?", He looked around, trying to find his tie (Presumably to calm himself in anger), but he could not. 

"Ah well. Why should I watch next?", he looked around, trying to see if he could find something good to watch, anything at all in his (somewhat) lone life. He then started to walk to his shelf, when he tripped over the couch, and while trying to stop himself, he hit himself on the shelf. "Urgh..."

"Oooh...." 

"What?"

"Ah, it is you." 

The being resembled a mix between a rock star and a king, with crowns and chains covering his left arm, a cast if you if will. He had a batch of wind with the leaves that seemed to follow him around.

"Who are you?"

"I am Mr. Tomorrow."

"For a moment there, I'd though you'd be Roger Ebert or the Terminator, like my first review. That would've been better."

"Anyway, I am here to warn you about three beings who will visit you soon. They are-"

"Past, Present, and Future?"

"How did you guess?

"Lucky guess."

"That is my cue, goodbye to you, and I wish you well with the three beings."

"Yea, three beings, like they'll be there..."

He did know they were coming. They were somewhere around the corner, all coming in at different times. He suddenly felt a burst of wind, with a breeze not felt of by man ever before. 

"Oh I wonder who it is...", he commented to himself. 

The being approached him, resembling...A guy in a tophat with rainbow colors and sparklers, shockingly enough. He also seemed to cary an unknown jewel, the color kept changing from teal to purple to even maroon. 

"Welcome. I am the Ghost of-"

"Christmas Past. Yea, I know."

"So Mr. Tomorrow told you of me then."

"Not really, I just guessed."

"I'm getting offtrack, I am here to show your past, the early days of reviewing, the good ol' days."

"Did you really say good ol' days? This is going to su-"

"Silence! Let us travel. Willingly."

The two traveled in a puff of odd looking smoke, as the two materialized.

"It looks like a great, hot su-"

"Winter. My kind of weather, shockingly enough."

"Ah. Here, you are, stating reviews...."

"It tries so hard to work everything up to be funny and heartwarming, yet the film just doesn't fall into place."

"See, wasn't that fun saying that and typing it as well?"

"I said that in my review of Christmas with the Kranks. Horrible memory, and thank you for reminding me."

"Well you're no fun. At least you reviewed Christmas films, like A Christmas Story, A Christmas Carol and Scrooge."

"Yeah, but I had others, like Transformers, Just Go With It, and more."

"Ah. You're a downer. The other being will hopefully help you."

"I doubt it."

The ghost dissapeared, as an another ghost quickly appeared with a panama hat on his head and an umbrella that he must've found (or perhaps duplicated) as it had a Question mark at the end. He also had a bag of spoons for some reason.

*sighs* "Oh gee, I wonder who this ghost is..."

"I am the Ghost of Christmas Present."

"So what do you want to show me, oh ghostly one?"

The two were transported to the present, near a house, not a familar house.

"Where am I?"

"That is not important. What is important is that you watch."

There were a group of people, playing in the grass. 

"Hey, it's those pople I have no connection with. Hello?"

"They cannot hear you, you fool."

"Then what's the point of this?"

"WATCH."

"Merry Christmas!" "Agreeable dear fellow."

"What is this, Victorian England?"

"If you had not interrupted, you might've leaned that the world around you does a while lot more then a keyboard and films."

"That's just-"

"Hold that thought. The final ghost will finally teach you a lesson. Goodbye, fellow. I must go to my...urm...machine."

He gave him a fobwatch, leaving soon afterwards.

"Well. Who's the next lackey? Who can possibly make my spirits any better now? You hear me? Give it your best shot!"

*wind swooshes around*

"Wha?"

Lightning stuck around as the two were suddenly transported to a new place. A place far different than the last two. 

"Who are you? The Ghost of Christmas Future?"

The figure did not speak, it only pointed ahead. It was moderately tall figure, wearing black.

"It figures, you seem to resemble Death, but why don't you repersent something less...clichely creepy?"

The figure changed into a new outfit. It had a familiar tone to it, wearing blue pants, with a button down shirt. 

"You! Of all the people, it had to be...You."

"So what are you here to show me?"

The quiet figure found what he was looking for, as he pointed down to a stone on the ground.

"No...Not this! Why him? Why...?"

There was a small paper next to the grave, as he picked it up, reading a line he had read only twice before.

"Graves of the dead,
This is what others dread.
Ashes to ashes, 
dust to dust."

"There, you happy? Now that you got me to look over the graves, the grave of my...father. Future me, is this your objective?"

"Yes. Now do you understand this entire thing?"

"Yes, yes I do."

"Do you want to live on?"

"Yes! Yes I want to live!"

Suddenly he was returned to his desk, the ghosts gone, hopefully for the first and last time. 

"I'm here? I'm alive? Yes! Is it what I think it is?"

He saw the Christmas tree in the house, bright as light, shining bright. 

"Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas to all of you!"

He ran off, delighted at his new spruce at life.

"Merry Christmas and bless us everyone!"

The End. Merry Christmas.

Movie Night: It's a Wonderful Life.

Review #319: It's a Wonderful Life.

Cast
James Stewart (George Bailey), Donna Reed (Mary Bailey), Henry Travers (Clarence Odbody), Lionel Barrymore (Henry F. Potter), Thomas Mitchell (Billy Bailey), Beulah Bondi (Ma Bailey), Frank Faylen (Ernie Bishop), Ward Bond (Bert), Gloria Grahame (Violet Bick), and H. B. Warner (Mr. Gower) Directed by Frank Capra (#102 -  Mr. Smith Goes to Washington)

Review
I know it sounds incredibly cliche to review this film, that it sounds all cheerful (The word Wonderful is in the title after all) and all that Christmas spirit and such (which either ends on December 26th or keeps on going until January for some reason). But as it turns out, it's a strangely depressing yet strangely useful film. Capra and Stewart are a good pair, and it works in this film extremely well. I actually thought this would be that film that would be extremely overrated, and that their was another Christmas classic everyone was talking about. I was wrong. Stewart and Travers are the main standouts (though Travers doesn't play a big role till about the last hour), with Bailey not just being a goody goody boy scout, Stewart also convey the darkness that is believable to the end. While it might sound caramel sweet at times, it has some good acting combined with humanity and good will. And isn't that what Christmas needs? Classics to watch, and goodwill toward men and women. While this film wasn't a success in its original release, it would later gain a reputation as one of the Christmas classics. Merry Christmas.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Santa Clause 2.

Review #318: The Santa Clause 2.

Cast
Tim Allen (Santa Claus/Scott Calvin), Elizabeth Mitchel (Carol Newman), Eric Lloyd (Charlie Calvin), Wendy Crewson (Laura Miller), Judge Reinhold (Dr. Neil Miller), Liliana Mumy (Lucy Miller), David Krumholtz (Bernard), and Spencer Breslin (Curtis) Directed by Michael Lembeck.

Review
Sometimes films are made just because apparently there is a need to make one. This is one of them. While the film does have some chuckles, it doesn't have much of the spirit as the first one. It just feels like a predictable, mediocre Christmas film, not as enjoyable or as memorable. Allen does a good job, not a downgrade, more of a compromise from the first film. The other actors are allright, not half bad. I just don't feel this was really needed, like the plot device was only introduced just to have another one, which is kind of pointless, you could've ended on the first with no problems. I suppose there could be a good idea or two involving Santa (granted without the "Clause" in the title), but this isn't really an idea, more of a "roll with it" idea. But oh well, there is some usefullness to it. Kinda. I hope the next review will cheer me up.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Polar Express.

Review #317: The Polar Express.

Cast
Tom Hanks (The Conductor, the Hobo, Santa Claus, and the Narrator), Daryl Sabara (Hero Boy), Eddie Deezen (Know-It-All Kid), Nona Gaye (Hero Girl), Peter Scolari (Billy the Lonely Boy), Dylan Cash (Boy on Train), Jimmy Bennett (Billy), with Brendan King and Andy Pellick (the Pastry Chefs) Directed by Robert Zemeckis.

Review
This is one of those strange Christmas films, a motion capture computer animated film, where apparently the movements are captured and then inserted into computer animation. If this sounds weird, it kinda is. Hanks portrays a more than just one character, and he does a reasonable job balancing the roles. Zemeckis does a decent job directing. The acting by the other cast are okay, not horrible, but not entirely special. The main thing of contention is the animation. It is either lifelike and creates a sense of magic or it is slightly creepy and it makes you wonder why they didn't just make a regular animated film. I pick the middle. While it does have some of the magic that makes a classic, it sometimes feels artificial, deliberately checking things off the list of what to do. While I don't think it's a classic by much means, it is recommended for anyone who likes trains and some Christmas spirit. Just expect some odd animation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Batman Returns.

now superseded by redux: https://movienightcentral.blogspot.com/2022/06/redux-batman-returns.html

Review #316: Batman Returns.

Cast
Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Danny DeVito (Oswald Cobblepot/The Penguin), Michelle Pfeiffer (Selina Kyle/Catwoman), Christopher Walken (Max Shreck), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (Commissioner James Gordon), and Michael Murphy (The Mayor) Directed by Tim Burton (#40 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and #262 - Corpse Bride)

Review
This is like the Temple of Doom of film franchises (I would've said the Licence to Kill of the series, but oh well.), and who better to make a darker Batman than Tim Burton, who seems to be a cornerstone in these reviews. But hey, sometimes the films that decide to be more edgier and more dramatic work. Does this? In some respects, yes. The visuals look more dark and colder, but they still work for a film like this. Keaton does a good job in his final time as Batman (He would leave the series just as Batman Forever was in production), keeping the allure that would sadly be lost with the next two Batmans. Instead of one villain, there are two villains, the Penguin and Catwoman, with DeVito and Pfeiffer both being allright. Personally I don't find them to be as good as the Joker in the previous film, though that was a hard act to follow. Walken does a fine job (I get to close the year out with two reviews of him, that's like a weird Christmas gift.) The small flaw that drags the film to be not as great as its predecessor is the fact is seems way too dark. Sometimes you just want it to lighten up, to not be as...weird (Especially when Kyle is brought back to life by...cats. It's hard to explain.), but in the end the film still does manage to have good action, a shame this was the last Burton-Keaton combo for the Batman series. Oddly enough, I almost forgot to mention it was set around Christmas. Strange, but yeah. Oh well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Wild One.

Review #315: The Wild One.

Cast
Marlon Brando (Johnny Strabler), Mary Murphy (Kathie Bleeker), Robert Keith (Harry Bleeker), Lee Marvin (Chino), Jay C. Flippen (Stew Singer), Peggy Maley (Mildred), Hugh Sanders (Charlie Thomas), Ray Teal (Frank Bleeker), and John Brown (Bill Hannegan) Directed by László Benedek.

Review
In the last two films that I reviewed with Marlon Brando (#109 - A Streetcar Named Desire and #110 - On the Waterfront), he did a good job, really conveying everything needed for his respective characters. And so not to spoil anything, I'll tell you that he does a reasonable job once again. The image of Brando in a leather jacket on a motorcycle is iconic, and it does grab your attention. The acting is fine, there's a balance with some good acting and some moderate acting, not entirely detracting from the film. While the film is not without flaws (It is slightly dated, you can just tell it's from the 50's without a guess.), there is some level of balanced entertainment, giving a rocking good time for the most part.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Miracle on 34th Street (1994).

Review #314: Miracle on 34th Street (1994).

Cast
Richard Attenborough (Kris Kringle), Elizabeth Perkins (Dorey Walker), Dylan McDermott (Bryan Bedford), Mara Wilson (Susan Walker), J. T. Walsh (Ed Collins), Simon Jones (Donald Shellhammer), James Remar (Jack Duff), Jane Leeves (Alberta Leonard), and Robert Prosky (Henry Harper) Directed by Les Mayfield.

Review

I wonder if there's a rule. A rule that if a film is from the 30's to even the 90's, it automatically gets remade entirely, even if there was nothing wrong with the original. I wonder who wrote this? Some no-John Hughes? The track record with him varies (In the six I've reviewed with him involved in some way with three directed (also written) by him and three written by him.), from fun to slightly too far. This sounds like one of those films people make when either they are bored or think "We need a new touch on a story that's been made for television and even a musical, no one will complain!", but is this really bad? Have I rambled on way too much? (Maybe) In some ways it looks different, but no exactly for the best. But what about Santa? Attenborough is allright, but I just can't stop thinking of comparing him with Gwenn's Santa. The other parts of the main cast (Originally played by Maureen O'Hara, John Payne, and Natalie Wood) are...okay. Wilson and McDermott do a reasonable job together though, kind of like with Payne and Wood in the original. This film decides to take a different approach with the ending, and it is one of those love it or groan it moments. For me, it's mild groan. It just feels out of place. While this film is not a horrible remake, it is keeps making you ask the same question: Why did this need to be made? But that happens for some remakes as well.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Santa Clause.

Review #313: The Santa Clause.

Cast
Tim Allen (Scott Calvin), Eric Lloyd (Charlie Calvin), Judge Reinhold (Neal Miller), Wendy Crewson (Laura Calvin-Miller), David Krumholtz (Bernard), and Peter Boyle (Mr. Whittle) Directed by John Pasquin.

Review
It's been a while since I've reviewed Tim Allen (#082 - Christmas with the Kranks, #237 - Galaxy Quest), who seems to do a consistently decent run of performances. Does he have a decent performance? No he doesn't. He has an better than just decent performance. I like him in this film, you get the sense of fun and you especially get into the Christmas spirit (If there is anyone who is tired of me saying that, let me know), doubts and all. While Reinhold's character sounds deliberately jerk-like on paper, he isn't all bad. There is no real villain, no evil Santa has to beat.  (Which is a good thing, though the idea of Santa fighting evil with a high powered sleigh is a good idea. That or him being an Time-Where was I? Ah.) It's funny at times, and it does makes sure to not lose balance (Even the child actor is decent. Is it a pattern to have either a Christmas review or have a child actor in one?), and to have cheer and all that we love.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Avengers.

Review #312: The Avengers.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers/Captain America), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner/Hulk), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton/Hawkeye), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), Stellan Skarsgård (Erik Selvig), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), and Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.) Directed by Josh Whedon.

Review
Another year, another end. Today is the 2nd Anniversary of Movie Night's first review, back in December 20, 2012 (Terminator 2: Judgment Day), so to end Season 2, I decided to review this film. (that and to appease some requests) So how is this film? I'll tell you this much: It's a load of fun. This is a new level of fun in comic book movies, one not seen possibly ever before. It succesfully uses the Avengers and keeps (or creates) their personalities intact. You'd think that with many heroes, there'd be at least one character who'd be overshadowed. Not here. It knows when to take a breather and when to have fun with itself, especially my favorite line: "Hulk, smash" The acting is fun, with Ruffalo standing out. Oddly this is my first film review with Banner/Hulk (And from what I've heard the less said aboiut the '03 Hulk, the better.), and he does a good job. For some reason, I feel inclined to say that my favorite hero in this film is Captain America. The action is a load of fun (Redundant word much?), defining itself and keeping intrest. It lives up to the hype and more, with a script that knows its bounds, raising the bar for any team up of superheroes, and it makes you eager for more. Much, much more, which is good. Happy 2 years of Movie Night, and thank you to anyone who happens to read this. I hope for more years to come (Unless that 2012 thing comes true (it won't, but gotta please the oddballs sometimes), in that case it's great to end on the Avengers.), and thank you.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Ernest Saves Christmas.

Review #311: Ernest Saves Christmas.

Cast
Jim Varney (Ernest P. Worrel), Douglas Seale (Santa Claus), Oliver Clark (Joe Carruthers), Noelle Parker (Pamela Trenton), Gailard Sartain (Chuck), Bill Byrge (Bobby), and Billie Bird (Mary Morrissey) Directed by John R. Cherry III.

Review
Sometimes, I just find films while searching them. Sometimes I hear about them either being reviewed or being mentioned by people about "Christmas favorites". Then there's Ernest. Over 300 reviews here, and Ernest has managed to not pass my so called radar. Others have been reviewed from Santa to Gojira to Big Bird to even Spongebob. From what I can understand, Ernest was essentially a commercial man, and he managed to have 10 films, with this being the fourth released. How is this...being? The title does make some sense, but I would change it slighty to Ernest and the Search for Santa Claus (That or Ernest Nearly Destroys Christmas but Saves It), but nevertheless, this is...a decent Christmas flick. Seale and Clark play off each other well, and even Varney does good as well, even if his character is slightly off (Not every day I get to see a character who pratically uses the camera as a facial expression showcase). It is indeed a weird film, but unlike Santa Claus (#309), it doesn't completely go off the deep end, this stays into near harmlessness with some fun involved. You feel that this was one of those films did for fun, and it actually works here. Call me crazy, but this is one of those Christmas fims where you'll get some enjoyment. Just make sure to take small samples though.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

Review #310: Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

Cast
Macaulay Culkin (Kevin McCallister), Joe Pesci (Harry Lyme), Daniel Stern (Marv Murchens), Brenda Fricker (Bird Lady), Catherine O'Hara (Kate McCallister), Tim Curry (Mr. Hector), John Heard (Peter McCallister), Eddie Bracken (Mr. Duncan), Rob Schneider (Cedric), Dana Ivey (Mrs. Stone), and Devin Ratray (Buzz McCallister) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, #118 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, #304 - Home Alone)

Review
In a way, I could be generous to this film given that originally I was going to review Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, but I backed out of sheer horror 15 minutes in. But then I realize, this film deserves no special treatment, not one bit. Is it horrible? I'll tell you this much: It won't continue the unintentional unlucky streak ratings in the past reviews (From 8 to 7 to 6 to 5 to 4 to 3), but it isn't as good as Home Alone either. While this film does have some of the Christmas spirit as Home Alone, my problem is that it feels too phoned in. It doesn't feel warming, it feels forced at times. The acting is decent, Culkin does a fine job, and Pesci and Stern do fine as well. The scenery sometimes looks nice, and it does have some decent laughs. But then the main glaring flaw comes in. It's a bit too...cartoonish. It may sound weird to say it, but it really isn't as funny, with one scene involving one of the bandits getting hit in the head with a brick...four times. I may be no doctor (just a reviewer), but I'm pretty sure that might hurt a whole lot more than it looks. They fall down ladders, they get slightly electrocuted (For a few seconds you can see a skeleton face as one gets electrocuted), they get hit with paint cans and more, and etcera and etcera. It goes on a bit much, and it feels weird the second time around, even though some of the gags are repeated and some are funny, it is a slightly weak sequel.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Santa Claus (1959).

Review #309: Santa Claus.

Cast

José Elías Moreno (Santa Claus), Cesáreo Quezadas (Pedro), José Aguirre (Pitch), Armando Arriola (Merlin), Lupita Quezadas (Lupita), Antonio Díaz Conde hijo (Billy), Ángel Di Stefani (Vulcan), and K. Gordon Murray (Narrator) Directed by René Cardona.

Review

Apparently, I'm doing more Christmas movie reviews. However this film makes me question if this even counts as a film and more like an insanity trip from way back when in 1959. Fun fact, this is actually a world cinema film (with this being from in Mexico, but this was dubbed in English later by K. Gordon Murray, who distributed the film), but if I'm comparing it to the other world cinema films reviewed here (#015 - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, #017 - A Fistful of Dollars, #019 - For a Few Dollars More, #167 - Gojira, #256 - Nosferatu, and #261 - The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari), this gets crushed (heh, crushed) by a mile. Never before have I seen a film that had the first ten minutes be virtually nothing essential to the plot, ice cream as punishment, a room where Santa watches kids and read their thoughts, laughing as mail comes down a chute, robotic reindeer, a station in space where Santa lives, and more "stuff", if that's the right word. Most of the acting is non-important given that it really doesn't have any influence in a certain film like this, but the only one I'll mention is the odd and ineffective portrayal of Santa, who holds not a smudge of a candle to Edmund Gwenn's Santa.

You'd think with random bursts of craziness there'd be some laughs. But no, it's so horrifying odd that it just goes beyond a level of fun. I would give it a 0 so the lonely 0/10 ranking (#184 - Birdemic: Shock and Terror) would have a companion, but then I realize that would be generous to that film, so I'll compromise and give it a far less punishing rating. In the end, there is no real story, it is insane to the Santa's max, containing only a smudge of hope. A smudge, I say. What could be worse after this? Oh dear...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Review #308: Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Cast
Jason Lee (Dave Seville), David Cross (Ian Hawke), Justin Long (Alvin), Matthew Gray Gubler (Simon), Jesse McCartney (Theodore), Cameron Richardson (Claire Wilson), and Jane Lynch (Gail) Directed by Tim Hill.

Review
For anyone who might not know (Which might be either from having decent memories of them or from trying to block them from your memory long ago), Alvin and the Chipmunks is an American animated music group created by Ross Bagdasarian, Sr, originally created for a novelty record in 1958, and they've been an ongoing group ever since. As such, because I apparently thought this might be an okay Christmas film for December (I hope all this Christmas stiff doesn't annoy the stuff out of me...or you.), I'm deciding to review this film (Not the first based on the Chipmunks, which was the Chipmunk Adventure in 1987), eventual regret or not. So how is it? For my sake, it's...not good, I'll say that. I am aware this is probably intended for little children, I'll concede that. But I take that condeding back with this. Little kids? How little? Littler then than an intended audience for a Pixar, Disney, or Dreamworks film. (Yes I said Disney. Happy? I'm not.) I'm getting way off track, but that is what happens with this film. You think about other, more entertaining films or even more interesting music. Catchy as it may be, the songs might actually make Dr. Seuss look deep. (No offense to Dr. Seuss. He was awesome.) The Chipmunks don't exactly have personality (Probably how they were 50 years ago) beyond arrogant, smart, and..sweet-hearted (Each describing each of the three), and yet the only one who I actually care about is Jason Lee. He actually gives the look of "Why am I taking care of three chipmunks instead of just sending off to a far less suffering place", which...makes sense. Cross is...strangely here. It's like he only did it-Oh. Okay than. It does indeed provide entertainment for younger people, but for others (and for the younger kids who aged rapidly since 2007) it isn't a good film.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Hudson Hawk.

SUPERCEDED: https://movienightcentral.blogspot.com/2024/08/redux-hudson-hawk.html

Review #307: Hudson Hawk.

Cast
Bruce Willis (Eddie Hawkins), Danny Aiello (Tommy "Five-Tone" Messina), Andie MacDowell (Anna Baragli), James Coburn (George Kaplan), Sandra Bernhard (Minerva Mayflower), Richard E. Grant (Darwin Mayflower), Donald Burton (Alfred), Andrew Bryniarski (Butterfinger), David Caruso (Kit Kat), Lorraine Toussaint (Almond Joy), and Don Harvey (Snickers) Directed by Michael Lehmann.

Review
This film is what would happen if you meshed many ideas, people and themes into a blender, and after the mixing is over, there is a bit of substance added into. That substance is known as the 1990's. An odd fact is that Bruce Willis wrote the story to this film, and this is probably why he stuck to just starring in films instead of writing them. But is this film any good? One word can describe the film: Yikes. Swashbuckling yikes. You think that with a intriguing cast selection there would be more effort put into it. If I had to compare this film to any film, I'd compare it to the 1960's Batman (#177) film and the series. How come? Silliness ensuing with bizarre villains who just "coincidentally" want to take over the world. It also has Candy Bar agents. This has been called an "action comedy", but I like to call it an absurd-comedy (comedy being a loose word here), an "absurdy", if you will. 

I almost forgot to mention the acting performances, which range from deliberately silly to deliberately over the top (Possibly another word for silly), yet again resembling a Batman episode. You might think that it is a bit dumb to criticize this film for its surreal humor (I sure hope so, as for all I know it was meant to be serious, but they did this on purpose) with cartoonish slapstick. However, my reasoning is that it fails in some of those respects. It's mind-numbingly silly, it isn't entirely useful, and it (somewhat) does the crime of not being that funny.  But hey, what do I know.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rush Hour 2.

Review #306: Rush Hour 2.

Cast

Jackie Chan (Lee), Chris Tucker (James Carter), John Lone (Ricky Tan), Zhang Ziyi (Hu Li), Roselyn Sánchez (Isabella Molina), Alan King (Steven Reign), Harris Yulin (Sterling), and Kenneth Tsang (Captain Chin) Directed by Brett Ratner.

Review

Sometimes a sequel deviates from the original for either the right or the wrong reasons. But the question of this film is does this do anything good or bad to the original? Well...It is almost what I said earlier in the last review, it's a weight sale that tips over good or bad. Except this scale has tiny rocks tipping over the bad side. Chan does a good job once again. He may have not have as many impressive action stunts as in the first one, but he still shines in a film with...Chris Tucker. In a way, he actually gets worse, and with less usefulness, not a trace of usefulness. Actually, Inspector Lee could have the case alone and solve it all by himself with less trouble. There are some moments of laughter, but substantially less than the first one, and the directing is a bit worse considering its louder, weirder, and not as funny. You could call this pointless, love it or hate it, or what I like to call it: Eh.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rush Hour.

Review #305: Rush Hour.

Cast
Jackie Chan (Lee), Chris Tucker (James Carter), Tom Wilkinson (Thomas Griffin), Tzi Ma (Solon Han), Ken Leung (Sang), Elizabeth Peña (Tania Johnson), Mark Rolston (Warren Russ), Rex Linn (Dan Whitney), and Chris Penn (Clive Cod) Directed by Brett Ratner (#012 - X-Men: The Last Stand)

Review
This is one of those films that could range from either action packed decency or annoying banter. This is like a weight scale, it tips for one side and tips for the other side. I do like Jackie Chan in this film, he gives off the appearance of "why is going on around me"...which makes a lot of sense actually. Aside from that...cameo in The Cannonball Run (#034), this is the first time reviewing something with him, and he does a good job. However their is a familiar actor who has presumably returned from slightly annoying me in The Fifth Element (#027) to getting a 9.1 on the grating scale, Chris Tucker. Now to be fair Tucker and Chan do make a good pair together (Somehow...), and there are some funny moments (Naming them takes a bit longer to remember though.) that almost forgive the fact of annoyances that do indeed happen. The plot is decent, not exactly great, but decent. The action and Chan's involvement in them is good, Chan clearly knows his way around doing fight scenes, which is admirable. While the film is not entirely (take your pick) without flaws, it does have some enjoyable moments to make a slighly more than standard film. Which would have a sequel. Oh dear?

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Home Alone.

Review #304: Home Alone.

Cast
Macaulay Culkin (Kevin McCallister), Joe Pesci (Harry Lyme), Daniel Stern (Marv Murchens), Roberts Blossom (Marley), Catherine O'Hara (Kate McCallister), Devin Ratray (Buzz McCallister), John Heard (Peter McCallister), and John Candy (Gus Polinski) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, #118 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets)

Review
Ah yes, Home Alone. It's fitting to review it right around the Christmas corner, and also fitting to review some actors for the first time here (Gee, that sounds familiar...), which is a good thing. Mostly. And hey, a familiar person involved here as well, John Hughes. (Director and writer of #046 - The Breakfast Club, #207 - Ferris Bueller's Day Off, #249 - Sixteen Candles) So how does this film fare out? It's good...for the most part. I have to admit it is a bit warming to the Christmas spirit, and it does have some good references here and there (With one brief clip on Miracle on 34th Street...which I reviewed previously 5 days ago. Huh.), especially near the end. Ah, yes, what about Macaulay Culkin? (Trying spelling that correctly 5 times) Well, he's not bad (I'd repeat a line I use when mentioning child actors, but I think you know the near standard of child actors already.), he has some moments that give a laugh or two. But my favorite acting performances from this film are from Joe Pesci and Roberts Blossom. I like how Pesci is just so...gnarly offbeat, combined with all that happens to him. As for Blosson, he does giving a small but useful performance that contributes to the film's eager spirit. The rest of the actors do a good job, including Catherine O'Hara and...John Candy? Oh...Yes. The plot is decent, slightly plausible. The traps and comedy are allright, a bit inventive (Even though sometimes I wondered if the traps would lead to really bad injuries...) at times. After over 20 years, this film still has some legs and is enjoyable enough, especially on Christmas. Mostly.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Miracle on 34th Street (1947).

Review #303: Miracle on 34th Street.

Cast
Edmund Gwenn (Kris Kringle), Maureen O'Hara (Doris Walker), John Payne (Frederick M. Gailey), Natalie Wood (Susan Walker), Porter Hall (Granville Sawyer), William Frawley (Charlie Halloran), Jerome Cowan (Thomas Mara), Philip Tonge (Julian Shellhammer), Alvin Greenman (Alfred), Gene Lockhart (Henry X. Harper), and Harry Antrim (R. H. Macy) Directed by George Seaton.

Review
Sometimes I review Christmas films, and the films either turn out good (#075 - Scrooge and #079 - A Christmas Carol), or...not so good (#082 - Christmas with the Kranks and #301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas), but how does this film turn out? I think you know the answer to this by now. Gwenn practically steals the show, being the big driving spirit, giving a sense of magical wonder, essentially the best Santa I've ever seen, a kind and knowing Santa Claus, beard and all. O'Hara and Payne do a great job in their first time being reviewed here, both slightly going through a transformation with their characters and for the better. Natalie Wood does a respectable job (Second time reviewing her, first being #181 - Rebel Without a Cause), doing a better job then some of the child actors reviewed here, and at the small age of 8. The story is very interesting and imaginative, giving a feeling of Christmas (even if this film was released in May) in the right way. It is a tale of belief, and it gives a sense of hope that I haven't seen in a film in a long while. Truly this is a Christmas classic that has been watched for 65 years, and it will still be watched time and time again.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Review #302: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Cate Blanchett (Irina Spalko), Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood), Shia LaBeouf (Mutt Williams), Ray Winstone (George "Mac" Michale), John Hurt (Professor Oxley), Jim Broadbent (Dean Charles Stanforth), and Igor Jijikine (Dovchenko) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)

Review

REVISED: Rating now 7/10 (June 30, 2023)

When I first reviewed the Indiana Jones films, I actually considered watching this film, having four films all reviewed together. And yet there was some sort of opposition to the thought of watching this, so I relented and didn't review it. But guess what? I've decided to review this anyway to either bring the (so-called) level of happiness from the big milestone yesterday or to just finish the (possibly) the final chapter of the Indiana Jones franchise. So how is it? Well...Let's get to the pros and cons first. Harrison Ford does his best, once again having a good performance, 19 years removed from the character but still a good one. As such, the film decides to segue into the 1950s (Indy couldn't always fight the same kind of enemy, so I'll give this a small praise), and it works in some ways...and not in others. And then there's Shia LaBeouf. He is...Not very developed, unless you count "Indy's son", "Guy with jacket", "So called rebel" as development. Perhaps they meant to make it a parallel to Last Crusade, with the old father and young son working together, but it doesn't work as well, as LaBeouf doesn't connect well with Ford.

I do like Cate Blanchett as the villain, she is far different from the other villains in previous installments, but she gives a strange unrecognizable allure that works for the most part. What I don't care for is the character of Mac (though played decently by Ray Winstone), and his "triple-agent" outline. It's pointless and not very useful. The rest of the acting and characters are alright. Allen returns to the role of Ravenwood after 27 years, and she does a fine job, even though I wish the dialogue between Ford and Allen would've had more time to develop, as it is as good as the two were in 1981. The action is mildly decent, having some enjoyment. And then there is the rest of the film. First off, there's the Fridge scene. While it does raise questions on how you could escape an explosion with a fridge, think back to when Indy escaped death by jumping off a plane with a raft and landing on a mountain side along with falling off the side and landing into a river. That sounds a bit more unrealistic, though the other questions don't escape this film. Such as why the sudden plot explosion after Mutt is introduced? Why the reveal of the beings (that I won't spoil) to begin with? Why do they look weird and not trying to resemble the era they're from to begin with? Why is Mutt even in here? Why is there no Sallah? Why is not as recognizable as the other three? That question I can answer. Because while it tries to capture the spirit of the trilogy, it stumbles in some ways even with some slight advantages to make an uneven disappointment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Review #301: How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Cast
Jim Carrey (The Grinch), Taylor Momsen (Cindy Lou Who), Frank Welker (Max), Jeffrey Tambor (Augustus May Who), Christine Baranski (Martha May Whovier), Bill Irwin (Lou Lou Who), Molly Shannon (Betty Lou Who), Clint Howard (Whobris), Mindy Sterling (Clarnella), and Anthony Hopkins (Narrator) Directed by Ron Howard.

Review
In my review of The Cat in the Hat (#210), I mentioned the How The Grinch Stole Christmas film in one line of the rhyme (don't ask) Even the Grinch has a better film. 91 reviews later, the being known as irony has come, and so here I am reviewing this. Does it live up to the so called rhyme? It certainly is better The Cat in the Hat, but this can't escape the reaches of the thing known as criticism. To be fair, Jim Carrey (Who is very familiar here: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Mask, Batman Forever, Mr. Popper's Penguins) does a show stealing job, even if sometimes he is a bit grating on the ears. The rest of the aspects varies severly. There are some decent performances by the supporting cast (Let's face it, in any Carrey film (That I've reviewed), he pretty much overshadows the entire cast), but there are some...oddities. Let me get this out of the way, but I loved the 1966 animated special and the 1957 book (By Theodore Geisel [Also known as Dr. Seuss]), but this isn't really in terms of...love. The makeup, while admirable for the effort, isn't really necessary. I do wonder if there is a Doctor in Whoville though. And then there's the main problem that in a way is connected with the other Seuss film adaptation. It's that the characters are radically changed from their original inception. While in the special the Whos were not really characterized other then just citizens who loved the spirit of Christmas, I could at least get their motivation and admire it. Here, the Whos are just...mean spirited. And that even extends to the Grinch's origin (Due to the Who's. Oh hey, that rhymed. But I don't have time.), which feels souless. Perhaps it was meant to be that way, instead of the Who's being happy with what they had, make them the opposite to try and make an interesting story. Then I realize that violates the spirit and soul of Dr. Seuss and his books. The last 20 or so minutes do attempt to be more like the book, but that doesn't help as much. In the end, while their is some sort of dialouge with a bit of comedy, it is hampered by a flawed script that doesn't capture much of the book of the lesson at all. But I will indulge you in a rhyme once again.

The Grinch is indeed better then the Cat,
But it really isn't much better then that.
Jim Carrey does a decent job,
But this still might make you sob.
Not in a good way,
But in a head shaking foray.
The spirit of the book is messed with,
It will give you an absolute fit.
Go watch the special instead,
You won't have the feeling of dread.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Watership Down.

Review #300: Watership Down.

Cast

John Hurt (Hazel), Richard Briers (Fiver), Michael Graham Cox (Bigwig), John Bennett (Captain Holly), Ralph Richardson (Threarah), Simon Cadell (Blackberry), Terence Rigby (Silver), Roy Kinnear (Pipkin), Richard O'Callaghan (Dandelion), Denholm Elliott (Cowslip), Zero Mostel (Kehaar), and Harry Andrews (General Woundwort) Directed by Martin Rosen.

Review

To begin with, Watership Down is based off the novel of the same name by Richard Adams. (Reviewing films based off novels being very familiar to me already) I do wonder if there is anyone who heard their were rabbits and hills and then saw the film and realized...it was a film far from imagined and yet excellent nonetheless. The acting is good, it sounds urgent, with the lines (for me anyways) giving a sense of importance with some of the lines, which is excellent, with the acting especially by Hurt, Briers, Andrews, and Mostel being the standouts in this film. The animation is top notch, looking beautiful and dark at times. But the main thing here is its story. It is masterfully well told, with dark elements that while being tear inducing (for some people, though let me say that this does not hurt the film), is not savage (or bright) in its way of telling a story, it has fine action and a good story to make a really good film, rabbits, tears, reviews and all. Speaking of that, thank you for reading the 300th Review of Movie Night. I thank anyone who is reading this right now and I thank anyone who has helped at all in any way possible. I hope for a whole lot more reviews. Happy 300.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Review #299: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Cast
William Shatner (James T. Kirk), Ricardo Montalbán (Khan Noonien Singh), Leonard Nimoy (Spock), DeForest Kelley (Leonard McCoy), James Doohan (Montgomery Scott), George Takei (Hikaru Sulu), Nichelle Nichols (Uhura), Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), Paul Winfield (Clark Terrell), Kirstie Alley (Saavik), Bibi Besch (Carol Marcus), and Merritt Butrick (David) Directed by Nicholas Meyer (#226 - Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)

Review
Indeed it has been a while since I reviewed a Star Trek film, this being my 5th (#009 - Star Trek, #225 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, #226, #246 - Star Trek: Generations) that I've reviewed here. Now I'll get to the main point. Is this film any good. Yeah. Real good. The main trio (Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley) do a wonderful job once again, especially with Shatner, who gives off a depth (for me anyway) not reached in his performaces beforehand. But by far the most important peformance is Ricardo Montalbán, as Khan. He reminds me of a Bond villian, only more suave. Speaking of that, the themes of revenge, death, and age are used to the fim's advantage. The directing is top notch, and the pacing is good as well. It's funny how the villian is so good even though the villian and Kirk never meet face to face, and yet it still doesn't hurt the film. The action is engaging, for the most part. The sets are good, showing off some good work done to make them. The effects are decent, but in the end the film really all boils down to how good it is. It has a hidden sense of depth with an useful plot with a whole lot of fun after 30 years. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Snoopy, Come Home.

Review #298: Snoopy, Come Home.

Cast
Bill Melendez (Snoopy and Woodstock), Chad Webber (Charlie Brown), Johanna Baer (Lila), Robin Kohn (Lucy Van Pelt), Stephen Shea (Linus Van Pelt), David Carey (Schroeder), Hilary Momberger (Sally Brown), Chris De Faria (Peppermint Patty), and Linda Ercoli (Clara) Directed by Bill Meléndez (#295 - A Boy Named Charlie Brown)

Review
A Boy Named Charlie Brown was a good film, and there would be another Peanuts film three years later. How is this? I know it may sound a bit wrong, but...it isn't as good as the previous one. Don't get me wrong, it's an alright film, but it isn't as good. It might be hard to believe, but I like it better when Charlie Brown is the main focus of a feature, and the only reason for that is because it is slightly easier to convey the theme. The film has a theme of loss (Probably given away by the title), and it does work, for the most part. However half the film feels more like a road-trip film, albeit with some funny moments, yet it could be a bit sluggish. If I had to talk about the acting, I'd say it is reasonably good, even if the majority of the film covers only four really important characters, two of them non talking (For the most part), but Webber and Kohn also do a good job. The animation is alright, but I feel that it plays it a bit safe, not being as imaginative as the previous film, but let me repeat that I said that it is alright nonetheless. In the end, this is a film that while it could've been better, it is still worth a watch for what it's worth. By sheer coincidence, this year is the 40th anniversary of this film. And by more coincidence, today is my 16th birthday. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.