The Right Stuff.

Review #892: The Right Stuff.

Cast: 
Fred Ward (Gus Grissom), Dennis Quaid (Gordon Cooper), Ed Harris (John Glenn), Scott Glenn (Alan Shepard), Sam Shepard (Chuck Yeager), Lance Henriksen (Wally Schirra), Scott Paulin (Deke Slayton), Barbara Hershey (Glennis Yeager), Veronica Cartwright (Betty Grissom), Jane Dornacker (Nurse Murch), Harry Shearer and Jeff Goldblum (NASA recruiters), Kim Stanley (Pancho Barnes), Pamela Reed (Trudy Cooper), Charles Frank (Scott Carpenter), Donald Moffat (Lyndon B. Johnson), Levon Helm (Jack Ridley and Narrator), and Mary Jo Deschanel (Annie Glenn) Directed by Philip Kaufman.

Review: 
Watching epic movies (especially historical ones) can be interesting, provided that that the pacing and the subject matter make for good entertainment, with this being adapted from the non-fiction book of the same name by Tom Wolfe, which covered both the story of the Project Mercury astronauts (also known as the Mercury Seven) along with the pilots dealing with high-speed aircraft such as Chuck Yeager, ranging from his breaking of the sound barrier in 1947 to the launch of Mercury-Atlas 9 in 1963. Even with a 192 minute (over three hour) run time, obviously some liberties had to be taken in order to tell a story like this, and the end result is certainly satisfying enough, with spectacle and cast to boot. Even after Project Mercury is introduced by the first hour, it doesn't merely become about the crew, as it also continues to give time to Yeager, while also not being just a technical story. The two stories run parallel with each other very smoothly, while showing some wonderful effects and costumes. By the time Yeager's story ends, there is a sense of triumph that carries on to the end of the other narrative that make for exquisite viewing and an ambitious movie.

Ward does a fine job, along with Quaid, who make for entertaining scenes together. Harris (playing the recently departed John Glenn) stands out amongst the crew, likely due to his charm but also the determination he manages to show in someone as interesting as John Glenn was. Glenn (playing Alan Shepard) is pretty entertaining, having some quips along with some sort of charm. Shepard (playing Chuck Yeager) plays the role with a straight laced but ultimately interesting way.  The rest of the cast is also pretty good, with Moffat being quite entertaining as LBJ. As said earlier, the film takes liberties with certain events (such as the Mercury-Redstone 4's hatch cover blowing, with some implication toward Grissom being the cause and Jack Ridley being shown talking to Yeager after the former had died in 1957), but it does not detract too much from the story's flow. It never feels too long, nor out of its element in regards to showing these astronauts and their lives. One of the best scenes is them discussing with the scientists over installing a window, in part because you see how they see themselves more than just test subjects. On the whole, this is a movie that inspires curiosity along with excitement over an age long gone but not forgotten, with enough depth and skill to make for a tremendously entertaining experience.

On that note, I wish all of you readers at home a Happy New Year as we approach 2017, and in effect Season 7 of Movie Night. Season 6 had 116 reviews (with only one review in January to begin the season), as compared to the 90 in the previous season (2014). With any luck, Movie Night will keep trying to push the limit of the standard I hold myself when writing these reviews, along with trying to cover a diverse amount of movies, the good and the bad.

Thank you for reading, and I will see you in the new year. 10, 9, 8...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Beauty and the Beast (1991).

Review #891: Beauty and the Beast.

Cast:
Paige O'Hara (Belle), Robby Benson (The Prince/Beast), Richard White (Gaston), Jerry Orbach (Lumière), David Ogden Stiers (Cogsworth), Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Potts), Bradley Pierce (Chip), Rex Everhart (Maurice), Jesse Corti (LeFou), Hal Smith (Philippe), and Jo Anne Worley (the Wardrobe) Directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise.

Review:
What is there to say about Beauty and the Beast that countless others haven't said over the past 25 years since it was released? Especially from someone who had never seen it before? I'll try to keep my words around the usual level of babbling for a movie like this. In any case, it's easy to like Beauty and the Beast. It's also easy to love it. Why is it so easy? Maybe it's the gorgeous animation, or maybe it's the wonderful songs, or maybe it's the characters that give the movie its depth. There is a certain kind of grace the film has, from the opening scene narrating the tale of the Prince's turn into the Beast, to a climax that is executed neatly. The ballroom dance sequence is a particular scene that stands out, from the waltz to the animation (with the background animated in CGI mixing with the traditional animated characters) to just how delicate everything is handled, which makes for a fantastic scene. There is never a dull moment in the movie, and it certainly looks like great care was taken in terms of how everything flows from scene to scene. The characters are enjoyable as well, exuding their own fair kinds of charm and depth. O'Hara does a fine job at portraying this main character with a good deal of wit and grace, and her scenes with Benson are as entertaining as one would expect, with the latter giving the character the right amount of conflict and presence. White is a fun villain (with his look certainly helping), conveying the right amount of arrogance and some form of charm within an enemy as delightfully evil as this. Orbach and Stiers certainly go well together, and they (along with Lansbury) contribute to making these songs so catchy and so enjoyable, especially "Be Our Guest", with the rest of the cast also doing a fine job. On the whole, this is a great film, complete with everything anyone of any age could enjoy, from animation to characters. At 84 minutes, it's an easy film to recommend to anyone, especially if you're in the Disney mood.

Countdown to 900 Reviews: 10, 9...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Surviving Christmas.

Review #890: Surviving Christmas.

Cast:

Ben Affleck (Drew Latham), James Gandolfini (Tom Valco), Christina Applegate (Alicia Valco), Catherine O'Hara (Christine Valco), Josh Zuckerman (Brian Valco), Bill Macy (Doo-Dah/Saul), Jennifer Morrison (Missy Vangilder), and Udo Kier (Heinrich) Directed by Mike Mitchell (#209 - Shrek Forever After)

Review:

Here's a quick description of how the movie is: It's terrible. It is easy to say this movie is terrible, because it is terrible on a massive scale. The majority of the jokes do not land. The characters aren't ones to root for in any capacity, nor ones we should be following. The story trudges at such a bland pace that borders on being tedious that it makes for not only an unfunny movie but also a boring movie. It isn't so much Affleck's fault as it is the script's fault for being bad. Never once does his character come off as anything other than pathetic or flat out creepy. His pursuit of trying to spend time with people so he isn't alone on Christmas (which means bribing a family, naturally) never really rises to a level where I should actually care. It just comes off as sad, not something to inspire laughs, which is a problem in a movie trying desperately (or for a lack of a better word, lamely) to make you laugh. Gandolfini is somewhat better, in the sense that his character seems easier to go along with. It doesn't mean he's likable, but it does mean that it seems more easier to accept. Applegate doesn't have a bad edge to her either, but she also doesn't really have much characterization either. Her chemistry with Affleck seems more basic than anything else, with no real sort of impact. It's nice to see O'Hara, but her character also isn't really anything of note. When one of the quips of the movie is a Sonny Bono reference (to his skiing accident, no less), it really does say something about just how this movie wants to take itself.

Perhaps it is easy to make a cynical kind of Christmas movie, which this film falls under. These are movies that try to be festive by completely taking the spirit out of what makes movies, and in effect the holiday being covered. There are movies like Elves (#680), which are dumb, but harmless in its attempt at cheer, even with killer elves. Then there are movies like Christmas with the Kranks (#082) and Just Friends (#838), ones with the bare minimum of cheer along with a lack of laughs. But then there are movies like Santa Claus (1959, #309) Jingle All the Way (#491), The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause (#496), Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (#507), Four Christmases (#772) and A Madea Christmas (#872), where it seems that cheer has been replaced with some form of misery, intentional or not. There aren't really any sort of laughs because of the movie, though it can inspire laughs at its expense. And then of course there is Deck the Halls (#497), the ultimate in terrible Christmas movies (for this show), a movie that sucks out the holiday spirit completely with a baseless plot and even more baseless characters. But with all of this, where does Saving Christmas stand? I'd say it falls around the bottom, managing to be a movie bereft of fun while also tremendously tedious as well.

Most of the examples listed actually sound like they could've been made into dramas, in part because they aren't really funny enough to be anything other than sad ideas. In fact, this film actually does have some attempt at drama, particularly at the end, but of course the movies doesn't actually have any sort of buildup nor does it earn any sort of pity. Most of these movies (except Santa Claus Conquers the Martians) deserve pity for being terrible. Here's the bottom line: Skip this movie.

Countdown to 900 Reviews: 10...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

A Sailor-Made Man.

Review #889: A Sailor-Made Man.

Cast: 
Harold Lloyd (The Boy), Mildred Davis (The Girl), Noah Young (The Rowdy Element), and Dick Sutherland (Maharajah of Khairpura-Bhandanna) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman, #674 - Grandma's Boy, #758 - Safety Last!, and #864 - Hot Water)

Review: 
Given that this film was released on December 25, 1921, it only makes sense to honor the film on its 95th anniversary. This was Harold Lloyd' first feature film, though it came purely by accident. The excessive amount of gags written for the film meant a length not seen for shorts (also known as two-reelers) of the time, which amounted to a cut that lasted 47 minutes. Lloyd decided to preview this film to audiences (custom at the time), and the positive reception to the film led to its length being kept as is. With a cast like this (and a film length like this), it certainly makes for a passable film up to the standards that other Lloyd films had, with enough entertaining gags. Lloyd is affable as ever, always managing to do an everyman task like this with his own edge of charm. Davis is servicable as the love interest, and Young is fairly entertaining in his rowdiness. On the whole, it's not the best Lloyd film in terms of story or gags, but it is still a fine piece of entertainment that is readily available for people curious about Lloyd or yearning for more fun.

On a side note, Happy Hanukkah (which began yesterday), Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa and Boxing Day (beginning tomorrow), but most of all, have a Happy New Year.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rogue One.

Review #888: Rogue One.

Cast:
Felicity Jones (Jyn Erso), Diego Luna (Cassian Andor), Ben Mendelsohn (Orson Krennic), Donnie Yen (Chirrut Îmwe), Mads Mikkelsen (Galen Erso), Alan Tudyk (K-2SO), Riz Ahmed (Bodhi Rook), Jiang Wen (Baze Malbus), Forest Whitaker (Saw Gerrera), Jimmy Smits (Bail Organa), Alistair Petrie (General Draven), Genevieve O'Reilly (Mon Mothma), and Ben Daniels (General Merrick) Directed by Gareth Edwards (#582 - Godzilla)

Review:
If you are wondering why I didn't review this film earlier, it's because I didn't feel the need to go to another opening night premiere of a Star Wars film (done one year earlier - #769) without letting some of the talk about the movie come and go. Was I excited? Of course. It's not so much that it's easy to get me excited about certain films, the fact remained that I wanted to install some sort of thought process that would keep a balanced system of bias, where I didn't put too much weight on it being a prequel (good and bad) with characters of a different cloth from the rest.

At any rate, how is the movie? It is easy to say this is the best Star Wars prequel, and it is also easy to say this is the first of the franchise that's really like a war film. I'm not saying it's the first war film of the franchise (look at the title of the franchise after all), but it's the first one to really show its effects on a true scale, with a varying degree of grit. It is a dark movie at times, but it also manages to have its moments of charm one would expect from this franchise. Jones does a fine job at making this character relatable and someone easy to root for, while having a fair amount of chemistry with Luna, who also has his own qualities that work for the film. Mendelsohn is an adequate enough villain, not too smarmy nor too out of the way. Yen and Wen are pretty good together, having a good enough repertoire when it is needed. The rest of the cast is serviceable, with Tudyk being a good source for quips.

The effects are pretty good, in the sense that they do not feel too distracting. There are some excellent shots (such as the Star Destroyer coming out of the dark, just before the Death Star does as well) in a movie that also has a good deal of grit that works with the tone really well. The effects also have an impact when it comes to certain character such as Tarkin. I have to admit, I was curious to see how the effect would look, with Peter Cushing's likeness being inserted over someone else' body, with Stephen Stanton voicing Tarkin. The effect is a bit jarring, but at least it doesn't entirely distract from the movie too much, with there being some use to Tarkin being there. The same could be said for Darth Vader, who plays a significant role that Jones does well. There are other links to the original film, but the movie doesn't smother itself too much in nostalgia. It has a look that works for the intent of the movie, but it doesn't entirely forget to have its own vision as well. I didn't find it as good as The Force Awakens (#769, in part because I felt a bit more for the characters in that one), but I did find to be as consistent as the other film. On the whole, the movie is fairly good at establishing quick atmosphere and characters, with a consistent tone. It's not a great film nor is entirely without flaws, but it is at the very least an enjoyable if not bittersweet movie.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Billy Madison.

Review #887: Billy Madison.

Cast:
Adam Sandler (Billy Madison), Darren McGavin (Brian Madison), Bridgette Wilson (Veronica Vaughn), Bradley Whitford (Eric Gordon), Josh Mostel (Principal Max Anderson), Norm Macdonald (Frank), Mark Beltzman (Jack), Larry Hankin (Carl Alphonse), and Theresa Merritt (Juanita) Directed by Tamra Davis.

Review:
Let me get this out of the way early: I don't like this movie. And yet somehow, this manages to be the kind of movie that is digestible, even if it is made of some sort of junk. Much like the other Sandler films done on this show (#045 - Just Go With It and #345 - Happy Gilmore), the gags miss more than they hit (at least for me anyway), though at least this one (like the latter listed) is watchable at 89 minutes. Sandler plays a character with some sort of idiocy that can be endearing, I suppose. I'm just not a fan of his kind of shtick, which just feels tired after a few minutes. McGavin is pretty endearing, probably more than Sandler, despite not having too much screen time. Whitford is somewhat enjoyable as the villain (in a snarky way), because it's like seeing a race for weirdest character, though he loses that to Mostel, playing a school principal...and a wrestler. They are occasionally funny, somehow. Sandler and Wilson have a chemistry (in that it is a word) that sort of helps the movie have some sort of human element. It isn't charming, but it is something. There is a plot, and at least it's one that doesn't hurt the senses. Obviously this isn't a movie for me (or anybody looking for some comedy without easy gags with varying levels of body humor), but I can't really get too worked up about it. Who am I to judge a movie about people who act like fools? The movie flows the way you'd expect, with lame gags and being about as harmless as someone with too much caffeine. Would I recommend it? Of course not. But I can't stop you.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

A Thousand Words.

Review #886: A Thousand Words.

Cast:
Eddie Murphy (Jack McCall), Kerry Washington (Caroline McCall), Clark Duke (Aaron Wiseberger), Cliff Curtis (Dr. Sinja), Steve Little (Co-Worker), Allison Janney (Samantha Davis), John Witherspoon (Blind Old Man), Jack McBrayer (Starbucks Coffee Employee), Kayla Blake (Emily), Lennie Loftin (Robert Gilmore), and Ruby Dee (Annie McCall) Directed by Brian Robbins (#147 - Norbit and #221 - Good Burger)

Review:
Simply put, this movie is bad. Really, really bad. It is the kind of a movie that exists in a void of nothingness, a void of absolute garbage that isn't really worth getting angry over. There are movies that are blandly terrible (#236 - Mr. Popper's Penguins), movies that are insufferable (#772 - Four Christmases), and movies like this. It's not so much a comedy-drama as it is a movie lacking in any kind of enthusiasm. It is obvious to see the biggest flaw for the film right away: Taking away Eddie Murphy's voice. Granted, he still talks throughout the movie (along with a strange bit of voice-over that feels off-putting), but Murphy just isn't very good at miming. I wonder how this would have been as a silent film, actually. There is never a moment where you feel for anything that is going on, where anything really matters. It also doesn't help that the characters in the movie act like idiots, where simply gestures are interpreted wildly, and other ones are just weird. I fail to see how trying to order coffee (with gestures, of course) can lead to wanting Paul McCartney music (also, who sells that in a Starbucks shop?). Murphy and Washington have little to no chemistry, with no sort of spark of excitement or literally any sort of life. Duke isn't particularly funny (how many times have we seen dweeby characters like this), but I guess him putting duct tape on Murphy is interesting...in that it should have happened earlier in the film. The rest of the nondescript cast is about as bland as you expect, in a movie filled with cliches and dead ends. There's a scene where Murphy is telling a character about his condition (it's a dream sequence, naturally), with the two of them laughing...and he suddenly has leaves flying out of his mouth. Yup, leaves. That's probably the only surprising thing in this movie. Think about that.

Somehow, this movie's release was delayed numerous times. Apparently it was filmed in 2008, but it didn't get released until 2012 (remember those days?) due to being caught up in the split from Dreamworks and Paramount, with re-shoots occurring in 2011. You could've released this as a TV special, or literally any medium that isn't film, because this isn't something you put in theaters. So how does the plot work? Apparently getting a splinter from Bodhi Tree and some sort of handshake between Murphy and a guru (played quite blandly by Curtis), with the tree appearing outside his place that night. Okay, so leaves fall out every time he talks, I get that. But why does it happen when he write notes? Or when he gives it a certain gesture but not other gestures he uses? Why only a thousand? Do tree have so little leaves, or is it the universe giving him a raw deal? Heck, why not just write a note down and carry it with you? I doubt you could lose more words that way considering you're showing the same note around to people. Obviously this is a movie...but who needed this film? Who wanted this? What interested the people who made this into doing a film bereft of any kind of spirit? How did Murphy think this was a good idea? It isn't even a movie with an exploitative kind of spirituality or drama aspect, it's a movie that flat out stinks. When my mom asked about the movie, she wondered why he didn't just use sign language. My response (which pretty much epitomizes the film) was that I don't think any of these characters would even know what sign language is. This does have one benefit: it's a brilliant time waster.

I can't believe I actually wrote so many words about this pile of minutes compiled into a film that crashed and burned without any kind of fire to it. It's actually quite funny. I've done essays for college that had more words, but this is far more strange to do (plus this isn't up to the kind of quality junk I write). To reward you, let me present some things you can do around this holiday month (if there's more than one holiday in the month, it's a holiday month, okay) that are better than this movie. In the holiday spirit, here's twelve:

1. Write your own text show! (I hear you can make it a hobby)
2. Survey ideas for Christmas gifts (no, your social media posts to them count)
3. Try weird food combinations and show your friends (my personal favorite: ketchup on anything)
4. Play a bunch of music choices and literally never break out of the pattern for weeks (no joke)
5. Try wearing two ties (it'll really impress your friends)
6. Try passing a semester (or three) of college (done, without much fear by me)
7. Hang out with friends (who else would you hang out with, a date?)
8. Somehow write reviews for over 100 films in a calendar year for the first time in two years (yup)
9. Make references to cities you have a soft spot for (hello, Buffalo!)
10. Make lists in order to try and be funny (is it working?)
11. Use spell check more often, especially when trying to convey what movie to see
12. Run parallel to an 5K run (been there, done that. Why pay money to wear a Santa suit?)

Literally any of these things would be better than seeing this film. The final word count (including the rating listed after this count): 1000 words. Seriously.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Purple Rain.

Review #885: Purple Rain.

Cast:
Prince (The Kid), Apollonia Kotero (Apollonia), Morris Day (Morris), Olga Karlatos (Mother), Clarence Williams III (Francis L), Jerome Benton (Jerome), Billy Sparks (Billy), Jill Jones (Jill), Dez Dickerson (Dez), Wendy Melvoin (Wendy), and Lisa Coleman (Lisa) Directed by Albert Magnoli.

Review:
Purple Rain is certainly an interesting movie, that is for sure. It's not campy, but it isn't entirely a drama. This was the film debut of Prince, in a movie that has semblances of autobiography but is more about showcasing his talents, with songs such as "Let's Go Crazy" and "Purple Rain", naturally.  The film does have some sort of plot, though the way the tone can simply just go wild is certainly interesting. There's a line between laughing on purpose and laughing without regard to what's going on...this is a movie where the lines become a bit blurred. One scene you could have the main lead tricking someone into diving into a cold lake and leaving them there (briefly), and another scene you can have him bump his rival with his motorcycle. Trying to figure the movie out is like trying to remember the lyrics of a song...played in reverse. The characters are about as strangely constructed as the film is, but they certainly are interesting, even if there is no real sort of emotional depth to anything other than the songs (for the most part). Day (as the de facto villain) is pretty enjoyable, however. His expressions and the way he conducts this character (oozing with sleaze) is pretty enjoyable. Even a scene mimicking "Who's on First" with Day and Benton is pretty funny. Kotero and Prince have some sort of chemistry (with a romance that literally develops overnight), though they certainly fit with the movie. There is a strange charisma to everything that keeps you watching a movie that isn't quite as vain as it could have been. It's like fast food that is admittedly a bit wrought with sauce but is still enjoyable. The songs are certainly a treat, with Prince and The Time both having some riveting tunes. It's not a terrible film, nor a good one, but it is a fairly watchable and engaging movie. You want a movie of the time? A movie that makes you want to listen to the album? Or something that is just something on its own. It's not the kind of film worthy to picked on by film "analysts", but it is the kind of movie to sit back and talk on.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ex Machina.

Review #884: Ex Machina.

Cast:
Alicia Vikander (Ava), Domhnall Gleeson (Caleb Smith), Oscar Isaac (Nathan Bateman), Sonoya Mizuno (Kyoko), Symara A. Templeman (Jasmine), Elina Alminas (Amber), Gana Bayarsaikhan (Jade), and Tiffany Pisani (Katya) Directed by Alex Garland.

Review:
Ex Machina is certainly an interesting movie in so many ways. The first component is the atmosphere set up quickly in the film, which is this high-tech (and obviously reclusive) residence, with some shots of the residence and the environment around it that show some form of isolation. There is a small dedicated range of characters that also help to that feeling, and they are excellent. Vikander does a good job at giving this character some sort of life and you do sympathize with her in some part. There really is no sort of definitive hero kind of character, as everyone seems to have sort of hidden edge to them, even with Gleeson's character, who comes off as somewhat of an everyman with his own kind of desires to exploit, and he plays it well. Isaac is the only real clear cut type of character a bit easier to define, in part because of his reclusive nature, and without spoiling too much he does a good job at portraying this narcissistic kind of person, carrying the dialogue without a shred of unbelievability. The dialogue between Isaac and Gleeson also contributes to the tone of the film being more than just a case of a Turing Test, with Vikander and Gleeson having a fine amount of chemistry as well. Mizuno doesn't have any lines, but her performance is noteworthy in its own way because she still manages to have a kind of presence even when in the background. The effects are also pretty good in that they seem to mesh with the film without becoming too distracting, with the robots being a good case of that. It's a tightly made film, with no real compromises but a good deal of consequences and stakes. The ideas it presents have touches of influence from other concepts (Frankenstein might be a good example), but it is done in a way that feels fresh and works in an acceptable manner. It's good entertainment, but it's better pondering material as well, especially with the ending. I recommend the movie, in part because of what it does with what it is given, with a cast and execution like this.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Kite Runner.

Review #883: The Kite Runner.

Cast:
Khalid Abdalla (Amir Qadiri), Zekeria Ebrahimi (Young Amir), Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada (Young Hassan), Homayoun Ershadi (Agha Sahib), Atossa Leoni (Soraya), Shaun Toub (Rahim Khan), Saïd Taghmaoui (Farid), Abdul Salaam Yusoufzai (Assef), and Elham Ehsas (Young Assef) Directed by Marc Forster (#384 - Quantum of Solace and #542 - World War Z)

Review:
The Kite Runner (based off the novel of the same name) manages to be satisfactory in the simplest sense of the word, but I feel that this probably worked better as a novel than as a film. It's not so much that it lasts over two hours (128 minutes, to be precise) as it feels a bit stilted in drama. The first act of the film (with the children) is neatly crafted in drama and it manages to create some atmosphere, while having a shocking development that is carefully executed. The kite running is something that manages to evoke wonder and fun, in part because I hadn't heard of kite running before. The child actor are fairly entertaining as well. Though technically an American film, Dari is used for a great portion of the film, which is noteworthy. It seems there is a good amount to like (and that is true), but I feel the flaws lie a bit with the second half. Once it gets to adult Amir, I feel that it isn't as compelling, feeling more like it is going through the motions of melodrama without a real sense of fulfillment. It's not so much the movie doesn't have enough emotion, it just doesn't seem to have the right amount of connection. It doesn't run out of steam, it just comes off as faint where it really could have registered as something more. The main cast (Abdalla, Ershadi, Leoni) are pretty compelling in their own ways, though I find Ershadi's character more relateable that Abdalla's to care about. On the whole, it doesn't so much drag as just move a bit slow, but it is somewhat entertaining with a fair amount of impact, even if it isn't as good as it could have been.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Big Clock.

Review #882: The Big Clock.

Cast:
Ray Milland (George Stroud), Charles Laughton (Earl Janoth), Maureen O'Sullivan (Georgette Stroud), George Macready (Steve Hagen), Rita Johnson (Pauline York), Elsa Lanchester (Louise Patterson), Harry Morgan (Bill Womack), Harold Vermilyea (Don Klausmeyer), Dan Tobin (Ray Cordette), Richard Webb (Nat Sperling), Elaine Riley (Lily Gold), Luis Van Rooten (Edwin Orlin), Bobby Watson (Morton Spaulding), and Lloyd Corrigan (McKinley) Directed by John Farrow.

Review:
The Big Clock utilizes its main actors (Milland and Laughton) to great effect, in a movie that manages to work a film noir in part due to its sharp and quick pace. Laughton portrays this villain with a great kind of villainy, in part because how mean he comes off. It's so easy to see parts of this man in other people, but Laughton manages to make him seem so compelling. You know from the gecko that he's a villain, but the way he oozes the lines makes him so watchable. Milland shouldn't be forgotten either, as he makes for a good everyman protagonist. He's a believable character who isn't overplayed from reality. It is a film noir, but it also has some good snappy dialogue along with melodrama. O'Sullivan is okay, though she doesn't really get much screen time. Corrigan is pretty noteworthy, especially around the climax, alongside Macready's effort with a sniveling character. The ending of the movie is swift, after a good deal of buildup and suspense. It's a clever film where the hunter becomes the hunted, but it also is a nifty little look into newspaper editorials of the time, with a serviceable length of 95 minutes and some nice shots (such as the clock) which work well enough for me, and I'm sure it will work well enough for you as well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Fantastic Voyage.

Review #881: Fantastic Voyage.

Cast:
Stephen Boyd (Charles Grant), Raquel Welch (Cora Peterson), Edmond O'Brien (General Carter), Donald Pleasence (Dr. Michaels), Arthur O'Connell (Colonel Donald Reid), William Redfield (Captain Bill Owens), Arthur Kennedy (Dr. Peter Duval), and Jean Del Val (Dr. Jan Benes) Directed by Richard Fleischer (#453 - Soylent Green, #460 - Doctor Dolittle, #624 - Conan the Destroyer, #829 - Red Sonja, and #870 - The Narrow Margin)

Review:
Fantastic Voyage is an entertaining movie that manages to have enough spectacle moments and a fine amount of atmosphere to overcome some structural faults. The film moves at a relatively adequate pace, trying to set up its plot with some form of legitimacy and pace, not taking too long to get to the body effects. Boyd is fairly decent as this every-man kind of role, not being too strong or dull in any one direction. Welch is interesting, though she isn't given too much screen time. Pleasence is engaging as always, giving off the right sense of clout. The effects are the showcase for the movie, and they are quite interesting for the time (1966) it was made, especially when you first see the body, giving off a sense of wonder. There are some fairly good moments, such as when they have to go through the ear drum, with silence required throughout the operating room in normal size. It takes its time while building up tension, with a fairly good culminating noise and ensuing action. The plot-holes that enter the surface around the climax derail some of the momentum, such as the fact the ship is left in the body at the end (Isaac Asimov fixed this in his novelization of the movie, which managed to be released months before the film). The saboteur revealed at the end is a bit strange, in that there really isn't too much motivation given for it besides "working for the other side". However, the film is entertaining enough that this can be somewhat forgiven. If the film wasn't as interesting, it wouldn't be easy to forgive.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Tillie's Punctured Romance.

Review #880: Tillie's Punctured Romance.

Cast:
Marie Dressler (Tillie Banks, Country Girl), Mabel Normand (Mabel, Charlie's Girl Friend), Charles Chaplin (Charlie, City Slicker), Mack Swain (John Banks, Tillie's Father), Charles Bennett (Uncle Banks, Tillie's millionaire uncle), and Chester Conklin (Mr. Whoozis/Singing Waitor) Directed by Mack Sennett.

Review:
I figured that there really needed to be something unique to begin the month of December, and it happens to be my birthday today as well. As such, it only make sense to do the first feature-length comedy, released nearly 102 years ago. This is the earliest film covered on Movie Night (one year earlier than #763 - A Fool There Was), based off a play called Tillie's Nightmare. The film certainly seems a bit stagey at times, though that's not necessarily a bad thing. It was made by Keystone Studios, with Mack Sennett, a legendary comedic innovator (known as "The King of Comedy" during his lifetime) of the time in the form of slapstick, which is present heavily in this film. The movie runs from 74 to 82 minutes, depending on what version you are watching, though it runs smoothly enough regardless of the cut. Dressler manages to have a fair amount of screen presence, and she handles the slapstick quite well, while expressing herself quite a bit with a fine amount of grace. Chaplin (in a role not like The Tramp, for once) is also pretty good, in part because he handles the slapstick and action with enough cleverness and his own kind of charm. Normand is also pretty good, handling the situations that go on with a fine bit of presence while having some decent chemistry with Chaplin, with Swain and Bennett also doing fair jobs as well. The Keystone Cops make an appearance in the film as well, and they are pretty funny in the scenes they show up in. The slapstick presented in the movie manages to work most of the time, in part because of how quick it is, without any sort of cartoonishly overplayed comedic element. The trips and falls (and hits) are conveyed well, even in silent form. The story is pretty efficient at accompanying the comedy as well. The climax is one to behold, with lots of falls and a large set to open up many sort of gags, one involving a falling bed. On the whole, this is a neat movie that is more than just a historical footnote, with a good deal of comedy that works on numerous levels that make for good entertainment.

Happy Birthday to all the people on December 1, such as Bette Midler, Woody Allen, Sarah Silverman, and...me, too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.