Movie Night: Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Superceded by Redux Review: https://movienightcentral.blogspot.com/2023/06/redux-who-framed-roger-rabbit.html

 
Review #352: Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Cast
Bob Hoskins (Eddie Valiant), Charles Fleischer (Roger Rabbit, Benny the Cab, Psycho, Greasy), Christopher Lloyd (Judge Doom), Kathleen Turner (Jessica Rabbit), Joanna Cassidy (Dolores), Alan Tilvern (R. K. Maroon), Stubby Kaye (Marvin Acme), and Lou Hirsch (Baby Herman) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express)

Review
Well, well, what can I say. I've heard so much about this film and its new techniques it used all those years ago, directed by none other than Robert Zemeckis. While the Polar Express wasn't exactly great per se, it was okay. This film...is so much better. The animation works really well, especially when it interacts with the live action characters, obviously made with skill and care. The acting works too, especially from Bob Hoskins. I love the way he acts with Roger, managing to get a laugh from me even when he is so hard boiled. Fleischer does well, emulating a classic cartoon character, not too annoying, which is fine. He also voices other characters who are just as memorable. But Lloyd steals the show, with the scenes that he is in, then again, he always gave me a sense of enjoyment, which stays around here. The rest of the cast, including Turner, do respectable jobs, keeping the tone of the film intact. This is a charming film that manages to keep itself going, weaving a creative story along with making me laugh, being a highlight of animation all in all.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Schindler's List.

Review #351: Schindler's List.

Cast
Liam Neeson (Oskar Schindler), Ben Kingsley (Itzhak Stern), Ralph Fiennes (Amon Göth), Caroline Goodall (Emilie Schindler), Jonathan Sagall (Poldek Pfefferberg), Embeth Davidtz (Helen Hirsch), Małgorzata Gebel (Wiktoria Klonowska), Mark Ivanir (Marcel Goldberg), Beatrice Macola (Ingrid), Andrzej Seweryn (Julian Scherner), Friedrich von Thun (Rolf Czurda), and Jerzy Nowak (Investor) 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, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull)

Review
This is a polarizing film. This is a film that blends into any time period, managing to have shock and horror, but not disgusting you to the point of leaving. It keeps you in, managing to work for all with Spielberg obviously wanting to do this project, and to do it right, and for good reason. Films usually don't always touch us, some are for entertainment, some are for art, some are for others, but this is for many, many people, as a tribute, which works to the film and to the people. It is a reminder, it is a sad tale, with the black and white working especially well. The acting is good, especially from Neeson, who manages to leave an impact on you. It's been twenty years since this film, and even so it still works very well. It is what most call a masterpiece.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Manos: The Hands of Fate.

Review #350: Manos: The Hands of Fate.

Cast
Harold P. Warren (Michael), Diane Mahree (Margaret), Jackie Neyman (Debbie), John Reynolds (Torgo), and Tom Neyman (The Master) Directed by Harold P. Warren.

Review
If I ever regret watching a film, this would be it, along with Birdemic. What can I say about a film that has nothing going for it? The facts about the film are immensely better then the film itself. It has really bad choppy edits, with a camera that can't film more then half a minute and the quality being a copy of a copy of the original work print (which was recently found in 2011), which gives the impression of being filmed through a drain. The fact that this managed to be filmed in color (Eastman as said by the...poster of the film) and not in black and white astonishes me.

This was made on a bet to see if Harold P. Warren (a insurance and fertilizer salesman) could make a film all by himself on the budget of a shoestring ($19,000), with amateur acting (including himself). You might think that because he did a majority of the film making process, the is the 60s equivalent of Tommy Wiseau. He is not for only one reason: Wiseau had a budget ($7 million), and he still had a bad (if not laughable) film. This is an incoherent mess, with dubbing for all the voices, being shot at night (they couldn't film at daytime because the actors has jobs) an attracting moths, without much light for scene, including one scene where two cops go "investigate" by going three steps away from the car, then give up (this due to the fact the lights didn't illuminate much, if at at all), which is immensely noticeable. The only person that looked like they had some talent is John Reynolds, as Torgo (also known as that guy with big springs in his legs), giving a slightly creepy performance, even if sometimes it is undermined by the dubber (The dubber apparently thought repeating lines made sense. Oh well. The dubber apparently thought repeating lines made sense.) The fun fact is that "Manos" translates to Hands, making this literally Hands: The Hands of Fate.

Believe it or not, but this film actually had a grand premiere, at a theater, with a searchlight and the whole cast (Except for Reynolds who had died earlier) there to see the grand failure. Warren said that if was dubbed differently, it could be me made into a comedy, which is correct. The film faded from the critical eye for nearly 30 years, fading from laughter until Mystery Science Theater 3000 riffed on it, giving this film some level of recognition, good or bad is debatable (for about 5 seconds), but nonetheless, this is one of those films that you can suffer through AND still comment on, either as jokes, or at yourself if you manage to watch it. If you need to waste an hour, you could watch it and have some sort of critique...or just watch the MST3K version. Either way. Wow, great idea for Review #350, hmm? It's like I make a copy of a review, badly saturated, and with the same line writing months ago. I lived through the film, and if you can live through the film, you should get a medal. But hey, 350 Reviews, at least that's something. Now then...

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Wings (1927).

 Review #349: Wings.

Cast
Charles Rogers (Jack Powell), Clara Bow (Mary Preston), Richard Arlen (David Armstrong), Gary Cooper (Cadet White), Jobyna Ralston (Sylvia Lewis), El Brendel (Herman Schwimpf), Richard Tucker (Air Commander), Gunboat Smith (Sergeant), and Roscoe Karns (Lieutenant Cameron) Directed by William A. Wellman.

Review
Wings is an unique film in some ways. It was the first film to win Best Picture (known as Outstanding Picture at the time) at the first Academy Awards, the only silent film to win the award, and it also includes aerial action from the yesteryear of 1927, over 85 years ago. But does this film still hold up? Yeah, pretty much. The actors do try to convey emotion, to convey message with expressions rather then voice (Obviously considering this is silent), which works decent. Clara Bow does a memorable job, though, having a certain zing which manages to make you interested in her character, which helps. The aerial action is understandably cool. It works really well, especially with the brief flash of color when the planes go down. The story isn't a whole lot, but the action and the relative enjoyment exceed overall. Is it great? Not precisely, but it is a fixture of importance in film and in history, which is more than enough. Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Poltergeist (1982).

Review #348: Poltergeist.

Cast
Craig T. Nelson (Steven Freeling), JoBeth Williams (Diane Freeling), Heather O'Rourke (Carol Freeling), Dominique Dunne (Dana Freeling), Oliver Robins (Robbie Freeling), Zelda Rubinstein (Tangina Barrons), Beatrice Straight (Dr. Lesh), Martin Casella (Marty), Richard Lawson (Ryan), James Karen (Mr. Teague) Directed by Tobe Hooper.

Review
When I think about it, there are some films I watch and have an expectation for, and with Steven Spielburg contributing to the story and screenplay and with Tobe Hooper directing, what could go wrong? The only thing that happen to be wrong was in my assumptions. The film frightfully exceeded my expectations and turns out to be one of the best film in the decade of the 1980s. The acting works very well, especially from Nelson and Williams, given that the pairing of them comes off strong, always keeping the tension going, along with O'Rourke. The best part though is the story and the effects. Oh boy, those effects. The story works well, and it even manages to pull a twist at the end. The effects do provide scares, especially in the middle and at the end as well. It's a film that provides all the perks of a classic with good atmosphere and chills to go with it. Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Planet of the Apes (1968).

Review #347: Planet of the Apes.

Cast
Charlton Heston (George Taylor), Roddy McDowall (Cornelius), Kim Hunter (Zira), Maurice Evans (Dr. Zaius), James Whitmore (Assembly President), James Daly (Honorious), Linda Harrison (Nova), and Robert Gunner (Landon) Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner.

Review
It figures that even though I happen to own the 2001 remake and the 2011 reboot Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the original, 1968 version is reviewed first. That or it was on, I suppose. And because Rod Serling wrote the screenplay along with having Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowall starring in their first times here, why the heck not, they can't pry this review from my cold, dead, hands. The story is good, I like how it doesn't try to veer into silliness, strangely resembling (for me anyway) a longer version of a Twilight Zone episode (BTW, you should really check out The Twilight Zone, it's a really great series. The 50's one, I mean), especially with the ending, which works well to this day. The acting works, it grows on you after a while or so (like Heston), especially with some memorable quotes. It is easy, however to tell what age this was made from as is sometimes has a dated look, but that doesn't hurt the film entirely. 45 years since, and it still is a recommended piece to watch, either before or after watching the remake. My goodness...You did it. You really did it. You maniacs! You remade it! Damn you! Damn you all to hell! Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: On the Town.

Review #346: On the Town.

Cast

Gene Kelly (Gabey), Frank Sinatra (Chip), Ann Miller (Claire Huddesen), Jules Munshin (Ozzie), Betty Garrett (Brunhilde Esterhazy), and Vera-Ellen (Ivy Smith) Directed by Stanley Donen (#137 - Bedazzled and #227 - Singin' in the Rain) and Gene Kelly (#227 - Singin' in the Rain)

Review

It's been a while since I reviewed a musical or even a film, and this just happens to be both. But look, Frank Sinatra happens to be in this (I wonder if anyone will be thinking to themselves "Who?"), so there's a small first. Gene Kelly pops up once again, always seeming to be impressive in either directing or starring. The film around Kelly does a respectable job, with singing and dancing right off the bat, mostly being useful. Kelly again does manage to carry a good portion of the film, which is useful, along with Sinatra and Garrett. The story may no be much, and it may seem strangely short (at about 100 minutes), but it works for the most part. It has a strange charm, keeping you watching for some odd reason. Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Happy Gilmore.

Review #345: Happy Gilmore.

Cast
Adam Sandler (Happy Gilmore), Christopher McDonald (Shooter McGavin), Julie Bowen (Virginia Venit), Frances Bay (Grandma Gilmore), Carl Weathers (Chubbs Peterson), Allen Covert (Otto), Kevin Nealon (Gary Potter), Richard Kiel (Mr. Larson), and Bob Barker. Directed by Dennis Dugan.

Review
It's unamazing how I've managed to not review a film starring Adam Sandler for over 300 reviews. The predicatble thing I would say would be "And after watching this, I probably won't review him for the next 300 reviews." Granted,  that might be true, but that word predictable does ring in for this film. Like some (or most) sports films, they have a formula, the loser who manages to break his way into a sport, who goes throught trouble and some major event happens to him, which motivates the person as they win a major event in the end. But hey, it could be worse, I could be watching The Waterboy. Sandler does okay, I suppose, not really funny, but...not really funny. The only things I can say are enjoyable for me is the fight with Bob Barker and...Richard Kiel (Gee, isn't that familiar...), oddly enough. If you want a golf movie...you'd be best off with Caddyshack. But I digress. The strange thing is that it gets a better rating than Twilight. Ouch.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Twilight.

Review #344: Twilight.

Cast
Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan), Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Peter Facinelli (Carlisle Cullen), Elizabeth Reaser (Esme Cullen), Ashley Greene (Alice Cullen), Kellan Lutz (Emmett Cullen), Nikki Reed (Rosalie Hale), Jackson Rathbone (Jasper Hale), Billy Burke (Charlie Swan), and Cam Gigandet (James Witherdale) Directed by Catherine Hardwicke.

Review
Ah, yes, Twilight. It has been nearly five years since this film had been inflicted on the sorry masses of people and nearly eight years since the novel by Stephanie Meyer was released. When I first heard of the film nearly two years ago, I had no idea of what it was...and I had the (now unfortunate) chance to watch it back then. It didn't leave much of an impression, but over time, I started to groan at the strange following for this film, so I decided to give this film a watch. And how is it? It is undoubtedly the most mind numbing film ever made. But not for its visuals, but for how the story manages to be so...stupid. How it manages to ignore logic and manages to annoy and depress you at the same time. Trying to compare the acting can be very easy simplified like this: Stale, weird, meh, forgettable, silly, ?, etc, etc. I also wonder why no one questions why when Bella is saved, no one other than the two notices a car door got crumpled and she hadn't had a scratch. But what bugs me the most is how anyone can be invested in the main character or the *spoiler?* vampire. She loves a being who 100 years old in a 17 year old body that creeps at her and "can't read her mind". She may monologue, but I don't think there's one moment where there's any interest for or by the character. Its not much of a love story, more a weird tale to...Trust a guy who follows you and is older than you? Pattinson does his weirdest, but sometimes it gets too laughable. Sometimes it gets to the point where the person who watches it has to chide it for being almost as silly as Batman & Robin, and when you do that, your film is doomed. But of course, not all films suffer for silliness and some get sequels. It's a sad film when you realize that no matter what, this "monster" of a film got sequels. Notice how I didn't mention the vampires, and that's only because if I did, this review would last nearly an hour. But oh- Never mind. Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night Redux: Licence to Kill.

Review #290 - REDUX: Licence to Kill.

Cast
Timothy Dalton (James Bond), Carey Lowell (Pam Bouvier), Robert Davi (Franz Sanchez), Talisa Soto (Lupe Lamora), Anthony Zerbe (Milton Krest), Frank McRae (Sharkey), Everett McGill (Ed Killifer), Wayne Newton (Professor Joe Butcher), Benicio del Toro (Dario), Anthony Starke (Truman-Lodge), Pedro Armendáriz, Jr. (President Hector Lopez), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), David Hedison (Felix Leiter), Priscilla Barnes (Della Churchill), Robert Brown (M), and Caroline Bliss (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by John Glen.#281 - The Living Daylights, #290 - Licence to Kill, #296 - A View to a Kill, #358 - For Your Eyes Only)

Review
PART ONE: A Little History
I first reviewed this film back in November 23, 2012, having already reviewed The Living Daylights, Dalton's other Bond film. Was it good? It sure was memorable, and that was one of the main reason I decided to watch again more than two months later. I said a good deal of statements in my original review, such as this: "Honestly, the title Licence to Kill emphasizes the darker, edgier attempt at Bond. But another question is does that work? Yes...and no.", "The story is more back in reality, more then the last one, and even more then in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is admirable", "The violence is more prevalent, and it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It's a give and take kind of thing.", "Dalton is more improved here, more darker and yet still interesting" "While it isn't a great Bond film, it is still one of the stronger Bond films" Nevertheless, the film would be the last for six years, due to legal wrangling, with Dalton leaving during the hiatus. But does this rewatch help the film?

PART TWO: The Actors
Timothy Dalton once said this of the Bond films before him: "I think Roger was fine as Bond, but the films had become too much techno-pop and had lost track of their sense of story. I mean, every film seemed to have a villain who had to rule or destroy the world. If you want to believe in the fantasy on screen, then you have to believe in the characters and use them as a stepping-stone to lead you into this fantasy world. That's a demand I made, and Albert Broccoli agreed with me." Dalton was right, and it shows in his performance as James Bond, especially in this film. He read the books to try to more like the actual novel version of Bond, and I do like his efforts here. He is especially convincing in the action sequences, and he even did some of the stunts for this film. He sets his mark on the franchise, in a good way. Carey Lowell is our leading lady, and she is excellent. She manages to level with Bond and not being some lady to be rescued, which is a good thing, especially in this age. Then there's our villain, played none other by Robert Davi. He is a gem of a villain, and while he is evil, he manages to be memorable and very suave somehow. He works well with Dalton, which is a good thing. Talisa Soto is our other leading lady, and she is relatively okay. She has less to do than Lowell, but she does manages to work out well. But the actors I remember from this are David Hedison and Desmond Llewelyn. Hedison had already played Leiter in Live and Let Die, so he naturally has some experience than the other Leiters before him. He does convey the character more than just an ally of Bond. Llewelyn works here more than most of the films because his role is expanded a bit, which means more of Q, which is always fun. Zerbe and Newton aren't as great,but they manage to have enough skill to be passable. Robert Brown does a good job, reminding me of Bernard Lee's M, which is a good thing. McRae and del Toro are memorable in their own ways. The actors do a fine job overall.

PART THREE: Conclusion
John Glen directs his fifth and final Bond film, which he did from 1981 to 1989, the most by any director (the films being For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, and The Living Daylights). He had a style that conveyed action and an attempt to change Bond to fit the 80s. Previously, Glen was the editor for three previous films, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. The action works well, especially in the truck sequence, which manages to be triumphant in its approach. It is double edged sword on Bond film on whether you like brutal Bond films without as much silliness or slightly silly Bond films with more of a lighthearted tone. The former works mostly and the latter works most of the time. But oh well. It's a shame that this is the last Dalton film as Bond, but at least he comes out on top. The story works for what it's worth, Dalton is excellent, the villain is good and the leading ladies work well enough. Take it for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Tron: Legacy.

Review #343: Tron: Legacy.

Cast
Jeff Bridges (Kevin Flynn/CLU), Garrett Hedlund (Sam Flynn), Olivia Wilde (Quorra), Bruce Boxleitner (Alan Bradley/Tron), Michael Sheen (Castor/Zuse), James Frain (Jarvis), and Beau Garrett (Gem) Directed by Joseph Kosinski.

Review
I reviewed the original Tron over 200 reviews ago (#098), and I thought that it was a pretty good film with pretty good visuals. 28 years after the original film, there would be a sequel, with Bridges back, in new form...and in oldish form. What I mean that they try to generate a face 30 years ago onto Bridges' body, which is used in flashback sequences and in the main villain, CLU. Geez, you think that he would have a clue by now. The other main character is Flynn's son, and...he's kinda lame. I get what they're trying to do, make him a "rebel", to gain sympathy for him. The problem for me is that it really isn't necessary or...important. At least the film's name isn't "Tron: Son of Flynn", but oh well. How is the film? It's...Give or take. The visuals do have some amazement at times, kind of like the first film. But where liked the first for it having imagination that managed to keep the film running, this is what I like to call off the grid. The concepts are odd and sometimes head hurting. The acting is fine, I liked Bridges and he picks up just where he started all those years ago. The only actor I scratch my head is Michael Sheen. I don't know, maybe its intentional, but good grief, sometimes its just better to be subtle. Speaking of which, there isn't even that much of Tron in this film, which is odd considering half the title is...I don't know, Tron. This is a film that is depends on what you like. Some will go for some effects and some will go for the opportunity to see a long awaited sequel. It may be slightly disappointing as a sequel, but take it for what its worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night Redux: On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Review #279 - REDUX: On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Cast
George Lazenby (James Bond), Diana Rigg (Tracy di Vicenzo), Telly Savalas (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Gabriele Ferzetti (Marc-Ange Draco), Ilse Steppat (Irma Bunt), Bernard Lee (M), George Baker (Sir Hilary Bray), Yuri Borienko (Grunther), Bernard Horsfall (Shaun Campbell), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Angela Scoular (Ruby Bartlett) Directed by Peter Hunt.

Review
It has been three months since I reviewed this film, which I did on November 5, 2012. I stated a few things about it and its infamous star, George Lazenby, such as "Ah, George Lazenby. Who?", "As for Lazenby, he is..mild in his performance as Bond, not as great as Connery. But here's the thing. His name is not Connery. But this was expected." "Lazenby may not be a great Bond, but he at least makes an attempt to do something new with Bond. Not a great attempt, but still." After nearly three months, I bought the film so I could see if my judgement of 8 out of 10 stars was either accurate or maybe a bit harsh. Reviewing films can have its judgement of rightfulness and...its moments of regret. This is one I wanted to know that if I was right the second time around. So how was it the second time? First off, I won't try to say it all in this sentence, so let's do a bit of an analysis. First off, we have our history. Sean Connery had grown tired of the role of Bond after 5 films, leaving after You Only Live Twice had ended. So the search was on for a new Bond, with George Lazenby being selected. Peter Hunt, the editor of the last five Bond films, was picked to direct the film. Lazenby wasn't exactly an actor, more of a model, with not much experience. He certainly looks the part, and he does well in the fight scenes.

   With the acting, I believe that this is a rookie Bond, more of a novice, not as experienced as Connery's Bond, but Lazenby does indeed try. It's sad though when in the film he tries to impersonate another character...and he gets dubbed over by the person he's supposed to be impersonating. Now, Diana Rigg (of The Avenger fame) on the other hand, is great. She represents a rare type of Bond girl that manages to get to Bond's heart, with the exception being Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale. She manages to help Bond out, rescuing him at one point. It's amazing how it's not only just a spy film, but a bit of a romantic tale as well. But what makes it even better is that the romantic parts don't weigh the film down, it actually helps the tone of the film, being a tragic sort of tale. Then there's our villain, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He manages to be chilling yet very entertaining as a Bond villain, not being a slow megalomaniacal type of villain, more one Bond has a tough time defeating. To me, a Bond villain works better when he does manage to nearly be on the same level with Bond, representing the challenge Bond faces. His plot (which I won't spoil) chillingly makes some sort of sense. It works because it has some logic, which is a good trait for a film of its caliber. Ilse Steppat does a good job as Blofeld's henchwoman, sadly this was her last film role, as she died days after the film's release. One actor who seems to gain a bit of development is M, played by Bernard Lee, as we even get to see his house at one point, which provides a sliver of humanity.

Peter Hunt once said that he wanted the film to be different than any other Bond film would be. It was his film, not anyone else's. And...it makes sense. It is a far cry from Goldfinger (before it) or even Diamonds Are Forever (after it), and this film works in so any ways. Then there's the length, which I said in the original review "The film is a bit lengthy...". When I think about it now, it isn't that lengthy anymore. Honestly, I can take over two hours of film, as long as it provides entertainment and charm. This film does both. The action works well, but it probably works because of the location they used, which was in the Switzerlands, with Piz Gloria being the main location, and it looks great. The icy slopes work well, but the location for the last memorable scene looks even better. Speaking of which I have to admit that last scene is bitter and yet very fitting end to a film such like this. The film is its own realm, without the silly aspects or the gadgets, but it does have much more to compensate. It is a film that is better than what I originally thought in my original review. While Lazenby may not be up to par or as memorable as the other Bonds, the film is not hampered, with a great Bond girl, a great villain, and a good story to go with it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Groundhog Day.

Review #342: Groundhog Day.

Cast
Bill Murray (Phil Connors), Andie MacDowell (Rita), Chris Elliott (Larry), Stephen Tobolowsky (Ned Ryerson), Brian Doyle-Murray (Buster Green), and Rick Ducommun (Gus) Directed by Harold Ramis (#138 - Bedazzled (2000) and #208 - Caddyshack)

Review
It figures that Groundhog Day is upon us, a day described by the main character as "A thousand people freezing their butts off waiting to worship a rat. What a hype.", so why not review a film with the same title? So how is it? Pretty good. Once again, I'm reviewing something with Bill Murray involved (Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II, Scrooged, Tootsie, Caddyshack, Stripes, Space Jam), and he once again does a good job, always seeming to have some good wry humor, which helps the film in more ways than one. MacDowell does a fine job, better than the last time I reviewed her (#307 - Hudson Hawk), and the rest of the cast do good, keeping the level of humor high. But its main benefit is its story, which manages to be original and straight forward. It is well made and it is especially telling in how life sometimes seem to resemble a rerun over and over for unknown reasons, kind of like these reviews. On a day where a rat tells us it might be early spring, this film celebrates 20 years, and I celebrate that it manages to stay original after those years. Happy Groundhog Day, everyone.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Dr. Who and the Daleks.

Review #341: Dr. Who and the Daleks.

Cast
Peter Cushing (Dr. Who), Roy Castle (Ian), Jennie Linden (Barbara), Roberta Tovey (Susan), Barrie Ingham (Alydon), Michael Coles (Ganatus), and Yvonne Antrobus (Dyoni). Directed by Gordon Flemyng.

Review
2013 is the 50th anniversary year of Doctor Who, and to help commemorate, I decided to...review a Dr. Who film? When it comes to Dr. Who films, there aren't that many. And after watching this, I still doubt that this is a "Dr. Who" film. Our leading actor is not, William Hartnell, but...Peter Cushing. That might be a benefit until after watching it I realize he doesn't carry much of the charm or even the determination of the Doctor. And what's worse? His name in the film is...Dr. Who. I assume he came from Whoville, from Ma Who and Pa Who, but I digress. It's sad when the only thing the film managed to not change much are the Daleks. The companions are more cardboard cutouts of the real characters. It is amazing though in one grand thing, it's...slowness. It's amazing how a short film (about an hour and 20 minutes) can feel nauseously slow, and the Dalek voices don't really help. It feels boring and it doesn't capture any of the spirit that make Doctor Who great. Clearly the only thought process was like this: "Daleks!" "We need a story." "Daleks, dang it!" "We need a cast." "Get Peter Cushing in some makeup!" "Wh-" "DALEKS!", but again, I digress. You could be using your time more wisely by reading a book, or by, I don't know, watching some actual Doctor Who. But oh well. Happy....February everyone.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.