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.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

Review #879: Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

Cast:
Steve Martin (Neal Page), John Candy (Del Griffith), Laila Robins (Susan Page), Michael McKean (State Trooper), Kevin Bacon (Taxi Racer), Dylan Baker (Owen), Olivia Burnette (Marti Page), and Larry Hankin (Doobie) Directed by John Hughes (#046 - The Breakfast Club, #207 - Ferris Bueller's Day Off, #249 - Sixteen Candles, and #643 - Uncle Buck)

Review:
When it comes to great buddy films and great holiday films, this one will likely spring to mind. Martin and Candy are a great duo, in part because of how easy they seem to portray their roles, along with having some wonderful chemistry. But like other good comedies, there is also a good edge of drama as well, with a great sense of realness and charm within itself. Sure, there are good funny scenes (such as when the two learn about being robbed), but there are also good dramatic scenes, such at the motel and even near the end as well. The story structure is a familiar one, but it is executed in a fresh manner. The timing is excellent, with gags and secondary characters that serve their purposes well. It uses its scenery (mostly with snow) nicely, where everything seems real and looks real too. It's not a movie with mere caricatures, as both are equally likable in their own way, contributing their own kinds of emotion that makes for a film filled with depth. In short, this is a fine film that keeps itself in check, with Martin and Candy providing for many highlights that make for an excellent film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Long, Long Trailer.

Review #878: The Long, Long Trailer.

Cast:
Lucille Ball (Tacy Bolton-Collini), Desi Arnaz (Nicholas 'Nicky' Collini), Marjorie Main (Mrs. Hittaway), Keenan Wynn (Policeman), Gladys Hurlbut (Mrs. Bolton), Moroni Olsen (Mr. Tewitt), Bert Freed (Foreman), and Madge Blake (Aunt Anastacia) Directed by Vincente Minnelli (#405 - The Reluctant Debutante, #510 - Father of the Bride, and #620 - Lust for Life)

Review:
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of I Love Lucy. If you've known me over the years I've done this show, you are aware that I tend to veer towards older movies (in fact, 510 (including this one) of the films reviewed by me were before 1990), but Lucy was never one of my go-to shows growing up, though I know of its reputation and of its long lasting length as reruns on television. The Long, Long Trailer was one of only three films released during the time it was on (with The Magic Carpet and Forever, Darling being the other films), and the story goes that MGM believed the film wouldn't be much of a success because of the fact audiences could see the duo on TV. However, the film turned out to be a success, in part due to the slapstick that is (somewhat) endearing to me and no doubt endearing to the audiences of the time as well. There is something about the movie that manages to feel so real, with location shots (such as Yosemite), and adequate enough timing without being too canned. The part with the rocks inside the trailer is one highlight for me, in part due to the timing of the right moment of when everything culminates. The other cast members are pretty decent, though it really is all about
Ball and Arnaz, whose chemistry helps the movie out. The trailer is an interesting set in it of itself, and it certainly is sizable enough to contribute to some fine gags. As a whole, it's a decent little movie that is endearing enough for at least one watch. It's not a hallmark of comedy by any means, but it is at least entertaining.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Three Ages.

Review #877: Three Ages.

Cast:
Buster Keaton (The Boy), Margaret Leahy (The Girl), Wallace Beery (The Villain), Lillian Lawrence (The Girl's Mother), Joe Roberts (The Girl's Father), and Kewpie Morgan (The Emperor / Cave Man / Roman Thug) Directed by Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, and #805 - The Navigator) and Edward F. Cline.

Review:
This was the second starring role for Keaton, made three years after The Saphead and his first feature that he directed. The film was structured and shot as three separate shorts, as a form of insurance in case it did not work well as a feature, with the three films representing a different Age, from the Stone Age to Rome to the modern-day. The main prevailing theme in all three parts is the prevalence of love in society all-throughout time, with Keaton getting the girl in each story. In that regard, it is somewhat interesting (if not slightly repetitive), though the end result is a film that is moderately entertaining, but not really all that funny. In other words, you'll get some chuckles, but nothing is really that memorable (although Keaton escaping a prison due to his phone booth being towed out of the prison). Neither period really stands out entirely from the others, but they are fine for the course. Leahy is a decent lead, and Beery is a fair enough villain. It has good moments, but nothing that you could really say is rip-roaring hilarious, though Keaton is good as it gets. In a sea of Keaton films, this likely wouldn't be one I would recommend immediately, but it is adequate enough to see at least once.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Red Zone Cuba.

Review #876: Red Zone Cuba.

Cast:
Coleman Francis (Griffin / Narrator), Anthony Cardoza (Landis / Fidel Castro), Harold Saunders (Cook), John Carradine (Mr. Wilson), John Morrison (Joe), George Prince (Cherokee Jack), Tom Hanson (Bailey Chastain), Lanell Cado (Ruby Chastain), and Charles F. Harter (Cliff Weismeyer) Directed by Coleman Francis (#744 - The Beast of Yucca Flats and #767 - The Skydivers)

Review:
It has been 50 years since Red Zone Cuba (made on a estimated budget of $30,000; also known as Night Train to Mundo Fine) was released (even though there really isn't a source that gives a definitive date, I'm doing it on this day as a "Turkey" gift to you at home for Thanksgiving Eve). This was the third and last film that Coleman Francis directed. It took me a while to recover from his last two films, but here we are nearly a year later. Oh boy, this film. Remember how Madea seemed like the breaking point for this show? Here's one that will shatter those thoughts and assemble them into jagged edges. It only makes sense that Francis also had to star in this film, because I guess no one could play a wretched lead other than him (if he had wanted to star in another film, he should've played the part of a talented director). The movie might good at one thing, which is the fact that it might poke a hole in the idea that a movie can be be so bad it's good. Believe it or not, this movie isn't very good, nor is it shot in Cuba (shocking, I know). There is some sort of plot within this, with a trio of main characters that are about as appealing as melted cauliflower. Francis is at least consistent with the sound quality once again, in that it is questionable at certain points. Carradine (in a guest starring role) appears briefly in the movie, even singing the title song "Night Train to Mundo Fine", which could be the perfect song to play right before a movie as strange as this. On second thought, strange is somehow too nice of a word to describe this film as. The fact that he is used as a framing device to set up the plot (that he has no connection to) is almost as ridiculous as the song.

There must really be some sort of thought process to make a movie that goes from "escaped convict" to "Bay of Pigs" to "mining metals". Oh sure, there's acting, in the sense that I'm enacting a decision to waste time on a movie that has a guy with a Brooklyn accent playing a character obviously meant to be someone else. Here's a highlight: Francis' character stating how he wants to go legit, and 20 seconds later he attacks Cardoza's character for not giving him a ring. Even something like a character who was left for dead suddenly reappearing at the end isn't the most ridiculous aspect of a movie that thinks parts of California can pass off as Cuba (another gripe: Black title letters on a dark greyish background). You might be wondering why I even decided to review the film on its 50th Anniversary. On top of the fact that I like honoring film anniversaries (and certain birthdays), I figured that it was time to finally finish the last of the Francis films and fully give an assessment on his "trilogy", which goes as follows: They are all terrible, with scattershot plots and more scattershot acting than you can shake a stick at. You could watch his films...or watch the MST3K versions. Even giving this film a 0 doesn't do this film justice: Watch at your own risk.

In any case, I wish a Happy Thanksgiving to all of you readers at home. Enjoy tomorrow, but also if you're having a "Friendsgiving" today. Look it up.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Babes in Toyland (1934).

Review #875: Babes in Toyland.

Cast:
Stan Laurel (Stannie Dum), Oliver Hardy (Ollie Dee), Charlotte Henry (Little Bo-Peep), Felix Knight (Tom-Tom Piper), Henry Brandon (Silas Barnaby), Florence Roberts (Mother Widow Peep), Virginia Karns (Mother Goose), Pete Gordon (The Cat and the Fiddle), Angelo Rossitto (Elmer the Pig), Zebedy Colt (Willie the Pig), Payne B. Johnson (Jiggs the Pig), Marie Wilson (Mary Quite Contrary), Johnny Downs (Little Boy Blue), Alice Moore (the Queen of Hearts), John George (Barnaby's servant), Kewpie Morgan (Old King Cole), Ferdinand Munier (Santa Claus), Robert Hoover (Bobby Shaftoe), Charley Rogers (Simple Simon), Jean Darling (Curly Locks), Billy Bletcher (the Chief of Police), and William Burress (the Toymaker) Directed by Gus Meins and Charley Rogers.

Review:
Considering that I had never seen a Laurel and Hardy film in the near six year run of Movie Night, it only made sense to do this film right near the holidays. Based off the operetta of the same name, Babes in Toyland (later re-released under the title March of the Wooden Soldiers) is a fairly engaging movie that has a good deal of sets, imagination, and songs that really make for an entertaining watch. Laurel and Hardy have great chemistry and timing together, sharing rip-roaring scenes, such as the peewee scene. They also have some fine exchanges, along with some good wordplay. The rest of the cast is also pretty good, with Henry and Knight sharing a few songs and some chemistry together that contribute to make for such a lively and interesting film. The climax with the wooden soldiers is also pretty charming, filled with joy and some technical achievement, complete with Laurel and Hardy getting in on some fun. The costumes are also pretty good as well, with a world like Toyland being so creatively designed. There are different versions of the film (one of which cuts the film to 67 minutes from the original 77), with a colorized version also existing, which looks fairly decent, but if you're interested in the film, always try to find the best version for a movie as good-hearted as this.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Doctor Strange.

Review #874: Doctor Strange.

Cast:
Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Stephen Strange), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Karl Mordo), Rachel McAdams (Christine Palmer), Benedict Wong (Wong), Michael Stuhlbarg (Dr. Nicodemus West), Benjamin Bratt (Jonathan Pangborn), Scott Adkins (Lucian), Mads Mikkelsen (Kaecilius), Tilda Swinton (the Ancient One), and Zara Phythian (Brunette Zealot) Directed by Scott Derrickson.

Review:
It's good to back in the theater again, and this time with friends to watch it with. When it comes to these Marvel films, it always seems that I can't not be surprised by the end product, no matter how good (or great) they usually are. There's always something to be surprised or amazed by, and the way that this movie universe is built makes for a diverse amount, and even if I don't know much about the comic book they usually end up being pretty good. The same can be said for Doctor Strange as well. It's an entertaining film, in part due to its cast and effects. Strange manages to change throughout the movie in terms of his manner, and Cumberbatch succeeds in conveying that, convincing in his mannerisms and timing, even getting time to say some quips. He's not as arrogant as Tony Stark for example, but he displays some sort of humility and some sort of charm. Ejiofor is also pretty good in portraying a character as rigid as the script allows him to be. McAdams isn't given too much to do, but at least she isn't meant to just be a love interest this time around, having a bit more independence and some sort of grace in the role Any movie that begins with "Shining Star" and "Feels so Good" wins at least some vote by me. The rest of the cast is exceptional, with Mikkelsen playing a fairly entertaining villain (even if half the time he's wearing what looks like glitter...long story), and Swinton and Wong are also pretty good, achieving some sort of mystical allure. The climax is also pretty good, demonstrating some creativity, with two credits scenes at the end that are also pretty well done (par for the course). The effects are where the film excels at, whether during some action or when Strange first meets the Ancient One. It looks really stunning, along with having a good fit with a film as mind-bending as this one, having some fun with the weirdness that goes on. There isn't technically a big bad villain to beat, but this film manages to still go along with a winning formula with its own kind of flair and own kind of imagination to succeed.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon.

Review #873: Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon.

Cast:
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Lionel Atwill (Professor Moriarty), Kaaren Verne (Charlotte Eberli), William Post Jr. (Dr Franz Tobel), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Holmes Herbert (Sir Reginald Bailey), Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson), and Henry Victor (Dr. Joseph Hoffner) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man)

Review:
This is the fourth of the Holmes series with the Rathbone-Bruce duo (with the previous three reviewed here previously: #583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles, and #721 - The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, #798 - Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror), premiering in Los Angeles in late December 1942. This film uses elements of the Doyle story The Adventure of the Dancing Men (actually just the code, but still), while taking place during the War, though this one is more of a spy flick. On the whole, it's a standard kind of flick that entertains in part due to Rathbone and Bruce, but also a relatively good climax. Obviously it's not a film to watch for faithfulness to Holmes stories (literally watch any other Sherlock adaptation), but the charm of the two actors along with a relatively sane plot make for good entertainment. I especially like how Holmes goads Moriarty on to drain his blood slowly, which is one of a few good moments in a climax that moves at its own pace. Obviously the tones of the war are prevalent once again (with a bombing test in the middle of the film), but there is some room for some sort of mystery. Atwill plays Moriarty fairly decently, stated with a good deal of coldness for an actor very prevalent in this era. Moriarty had already been portrayed in the series before (by George Zucco in the second film), but I suppose it's part of the tradition to reuse (or "revive") villains. The rest of the cast is okay, with some comic relief by Hoey and Bruce (the former would star in five more Holmes films), though the real focus is how the movie goes through the motions with some grace and some logic, with no real twist this time around. On the whole, it's an average film that would be nice for anybody looking to kill some time at 68 minutes, or just someone looking for some fine standard fare, with a bit of adventure for the time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Madea Christmas.

Review #872: A Madea Christmas.

Cast:
Tyler Perry (Mabel "Madea" Simmons), Larry the Cable Guy (Buddy Williams), Kathy Najimy (Kim Williams), Chad Michael Murray (Tanner McCoy), Anna Maria Horsford (Eileen Murphy), Tika Sumpter (Lacey Murphy), Eric Lively (Conner Williams), JR Lemon (Oliver), Alicia Witt (Amber), Lisa Whelchel (Nancy Porter), and Noah Urrea (Bailey McCoy) Directed by Tyler Perry.

Review:
Has Movie Night gone under the hill? Is it reaching for anything now? Am I reviewing...a Christmas film in November? Actually, this is the first film I've done starring Tyler Perry, creator of things that likely clogged up TBS years back, because I can't remember anything about his shows. There really doesn't seem to be a consistent plot to this film...is it a movie about this family? Is it about doing a Christmas jubilee (because I guess it's the town's anniversary? Because that only applies to 25 or 50 year celebrations), or is about farming? A dam? For some reason, the farmer sell their crops on this jubilee...wha, you've never heard of selling crops in winter? Also, did you know that mayors can just fire teachers but can't read a contract to see its stipulations? Somehow, the movie keeps going in spite of itself. There must be a problem when Larry the Cable Guy is actually more endearing than Tyler Perry...the bar is set so low by so many lame and tired jokes that exist in some sort of vacuum. The movie doesn't even have much to do with Madea, which is a blessing covered in muck. There is some sort of anti-bullying plot...which ends with Lively's character punching Murray in the face...after the latter gets saved from a car wreck (don't worry, one of them apologizes...the latter one. Heck, they give the family a pie). Did I mention that one of the characters lied to their daughter about their dad being killed (instead, he jilted her for another woman)...and it doesn't really seem to be addressed again after that. It's like there are no consequences, where characters can just steal stuff from a store after being fired, tie up a kid to a wood board with Christmas lights, and flat out lie about a company giving a town money in front of the company's representatives. There isn't really a villain, which is somewhat surprising. I guess they decided that there needed to be more focus on padding itself out with repetitive dialogue. It fails as a comedy and it fails as a drama, having both no real sense of joy and also no sense of dramatic impact, respectively.

At the end of the day, this is already bottom of the barrel stuff that is also mixed in with bottom of the barrel Christmas stuff. I'm not a fan, but I'm sure some of the people who read this are fans, so I guess if you like Madea already, go right on ahead. Honestly, I don't understand this phenomenon (much like other trends in media), but that's how it goes.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

Review #871: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

Cast:
Elizabeth Taylor (Margaret "Maggie/Maggie the Cat" Pollitt), Paul Newman (Brick Pollitt), Burl Ives (Harvey "Big Daddy" Pollitt), Judith Anderson (Ida "Big Mama" Pollitt), Jack Carson (Cooper "Gooper" Pollitt), Madeleine Sherwood (Mae Flynn "Sister Woman" Pollit), and Larry Gates (Dr. Baugh) Directed by Richard Brooks

Review:
Can't say I expected to do this one (based off the play of the same name by Tennessee Williams, who already had his play A Streetcar Named Desire adapted into a film earlier in the decade), but sometimes college and this show mesh together (as opposed to being on different ends). At best, it is an alright movie, up to the standard of films of the time, though it isn't likely one of my favorites. Taylor and Newman certainly have fine chemistry together (even in scenes not so pleasant), with a fair amount of screen time dedicated to the two. It takes time to get interesting (with the plot and all, especially with lengthy scenes setting up the main characters), but the climax is fairly serviceable. The big highlight (and where it gets fun) is Burl Ives, who practically steals the show after he appears midway through. His insults are edged entertainingly, but he's not completely without some sort of humanity, and he does well to contribute the climax. The rest of the cast do an adequate job in their roles, having some sort of arc that works. The sets are also pretty fine, and the movie flows well at about 100 minutes. If you're looking for a fairly adequate adaptation of a play, I think this will work for you, as opposed to Williams, who reportedly told people waiting to see it that "This movie will set the industry back 50 years. Go home!" Regardless, while I don't think I'll watch it in the near future again, I think it is at least fine as its own thing. It has enough drama and atmosphere to work just neatly enough.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Narrow Margin.

Review #870: The Narrow Margin.

Cast:
Charles McGraw (Det. Sgt. Walter Brown), Marie Windsor (Mrs. Frankie Neall), Jacqueline White (Ann Sinclair), Peter Virgo (Densel), Gordon Gebert (Tommy Sinclair), Queenie Leonard (Mrs. Troll), David Clarke (Joseph Kemp), Don Beddoe (Det. Sgt. Gus Forbes), and Paul Maxey (Sam Jennings) Directed by Richard Fleischer.

Review:
With a cast of unknowns and a low budget, this is a film that manages to be a serviceable efficient little film noir. There is some sense of suspense within itself, not spending too much time wasting away, establishing characters without much effort. They have the characteristics of ones you might notice in other noirs of the time, but this manages to click at the right points in part due to its cast. McGraw is a pretty good everyman, and Windsor is also pretty alluring as well. They have a fine amount of banter mixed with bits of cynicism that is engaging enough to work. White is also pretty interesting, having some decent chemistry with McGraw. The rest of the cast also does fine (Maxey stands out in part due to his scenes with McGraw), and even the kid actor (Gebert) isn't too annoying. The train setting helps keep the movie compressed and interesting. There is some action (and at least one fight on a train), which is nice and dandy to watch. The twist at the end is pretty clever as well, not being too far fetched or too unknown. On the whole, this is a nice flick because of it goes through the motions in a satisfactory manner.  As such, the directing is good for the time, having some fairly decent shots and a fairly balanced plot that more often then not knows what it wants to be. Quite simply, if you like film noirs, old cinema, or movies that don't overstay their welcome, this is the one for you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

D2: The Mighty Ducks.

Review #869: D2: The Mighty Ducks.

Cast:
Emilio Estevez (Gordon Bombay), Kathryn Erbe (Michelle McKay), Michael Tucker (Mr. Tibbles), Jan Rubes (Jan), Carsten Norgaard (Wolf "The Dentist" Stansson), Maria Ellingsen (Maria), Joshua Jackson (Charlie Conway, #96), Elden Henson (Fulton Reed, #44), Shaun Weiss (Greg Goldberg, #33), Matt Doherty (Les Averman, #4), Brandon Adams (Jesse Hall, #9), Garette Ratliff Henson (Guy Germaine, #00), and Marguerite Moreau (Connie Moreau, #18) Directed by Sam Weisman.

Review:
Though the first film isn't technically a great piece of film, it was at least (to me, anyway) a moderately entertaining movie that had some sort of charm to it, even among its hokey-ness. Maybe it was the hockey, or maybe it was just the way it flowed. But with the sequel (and its bizarre title), there doesn't seem to be as much faithful charm. It seems to be more a movie muddled it wants wants to be. There is nothing that seems convincing (in both characters and plot), with no real motivation to care about this team trying to win (the Junior Goodwill Games, of course). Norgaard is moderately entertaining as the villain (did you expect Iceland as the final opponent? Me either), fitting his nickname of "The Dentist" as well as one can. The slapstick and hockey don't really stand out from what you might expect, not really being entertaining enough to talk about (roping an opponent isn't as cool as it seems), going through the motions you'd expect. As a whole, it's a mediocre Disney film that would be good to watch once, but it isn't anything special enough to want to watch more than that.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Mighty Ducks.

Review #868: The Mighty Ducks.

Cast:
Emilio Estevez (Gordon Bombay), Joss Ackland (Hans), Lane Smith (Coach Jack Reilly), Heidi Kling (Casey Conway), Josef Sommer (Mr. Gerald Ducksworth), Joshua Jackson (Charlie Conway, #96), Elden Henson (Fulton Reed, #44), Shaun Weiss (Greg Goldberg, #33), M. C. Gainey (Lewis), Matt Doherty (Lester Averman, #4), and Brandon Adams (Jesse Hall, #9) Directed by Stephen Herek (#021 - Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and #502 - Man of the House)

Review:
What is it about this movie that inspires joy? It's not as cynically honest as The Bad News Bears (though it does have a similar premise), but there is a sort of charm to this film in its silliness. The characters are about as interesting as the movie allows them, with Estevez being good at being a grouch, with some sort of believably as a coach. There is at least a semblance of atmosphere, with some nice shots of Minnesota. It has its interesting moments (mostly involving hockey, with the flying V standing out), and though it ends like the way you would expect there is at least some sort of closure to the plot. Sure, the movie waddles between ridiculousness (especially when it starts quacking) and legitimacy, but it is serviceable. The villain (of sorts, played by Smith) is also serviceable in his ridiculous competitiveness. The movie is funny when it is being itself and not going for something inherently ridiculous. The child actors are fairly decent as well, with the varying kinds of of personalities that are in some way charming. I wouldn't say the movie breaks any real ground, but it is at least a good way to spend 100 minutes. Obviously there are other sports films to watch and obviously there are other kids films to watch, but I suppose that if you really need a fix of both Disney flicks and hockey this is the one for you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Alice, Sweet Alice.

Review #867: Alice, Sweet Alice.

Cast:
Linda Miller (Catherine Spages), Mildred Clinton (Mrs. Tredoni), Paula Sheppard (Alice Spages), Niles McMaster (Dominick 'Dom' Spages), Jane Lowry (Aunt Annie DeLorenze), Rudolph Willrich (Father Tom), Michael Hardstark (Detective Spina), Alphonso DeNoble (Alphonso), Gary Allen (Jim DeLorenze), and Brooke Shields (Karen Spages) Directed by Alfred Sole.

Review:
40 years ago (November 13, 1976) this film (originally known as Communion) was released, and I figured that it was time to get to reviewing it. From the beginning there is a certain kind of strange aura to everything, from the imagery to the characters, with DeNoble being one of the standouts in terms of creepiness. The mask used by the killer is especially creepy, in part due to how translucent it is. The scenes where the stabbings take place are great, in part because how sudden they are along with the fact that the movie builds up the right mood for it. I should note that the movie is set in the 1960's (filmed in Paterson, New Jersey), and the look of the movie helps make for a nifty mystery. The characters are written with a bit of cynicism to them, where authority figures aren't necessarily the ones easy to root for, which is a nice twist. The family dynamic is also riveting in its own right, because it plays a significant part in the plot while also making for fine drama. It even manages to have a good twist (thankfully not just placed at the end) which certainly leaves for some good thrill along with a bit of thinking to it. The music by Stephen J. Lawrence is also pretty good, having the right sense of chills and atmosphere, especially around the death scenes. The last one in particular is great, because it manages to seal the eerie nature of the movie with a semblance of macabre to everything.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Nothing Sacred.

Review #866: Nothing Sacred.

Cast:
Carole Lombard (Hazel Flagg), Fredric March (Wally Cook), Charles Winninger (Dr. Enoch Downer), Walter Connolly (Oliver Stone), Sig Ruman (Dr. Emil Eggelhoffer), Frank Fay (Master of Ceremonies), Troy Brown (Ernest Walker), Maxie Rosenbloom (Max Levinsky), and Margaret Hamilton (Warsaw, Vermont Drugstore Lady) Directed by William A. Wellman (#349 - Wings and #494 - The Public Enemy)

Review:
In a time like this, Nothing Sacred manages to find its place in being relevant to the point where it is timeless, in part due to a neat simple story and some fun screwball comedy within its satire elements. This film is readily easy to find, due to it being in the public domain after its copyright registration wasn't renewed in 1965, so you can find it on the Internet (or other alternative manners) without problem. It should be noted that this was the first screwball comedy in color, along with Lombard's only film in Technicolor, and it certainly stands out. This was also a film that used effects such as rear screen projection (most notably during the scene where the characters arrive in New York via plane). Lombard and March certainly have a decent chemistry together, especially when they argue, which culminates with a "boxing" scene at the end. Lombard has a welcoming presence, being one easy to root for, certainly fitting the part with enough grace and charm to fit such a fun role, which she often called one of her favorites. Connelly certainly stands out as the exasperated newspaper head; one of my favorite parts is when he tells March's character some news with a cracked voice, obviously trying to hide exasperation, which is amusing. As one would expect there is enough fine little lines, with a fine balance of timing. The rest of the cast is also pretty good, even if the film is really all about Lombard and March, who seem to have a really good time. The satire excels in that it doesn't choke the fun of the film nor does it seem artificial. It's not a film that will make you deeply about journalism and the "big story", but it is a movie that would inspire at least one conversation, and I suppose that is all that counts.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Saphead.

Review #865: The Saphead.

Cast:
Buster Keaton (Bertie "The Lamb" Van Alstyne), Beulah Booker (Agnes Gates), Edward Connelly (Musgrave), Edward Jobson (Rev. Murray Hilton), Edward Alexander (Watson Flint), Odette Taylor (Mrs. Cornelia Opdyke), Carol Holloway (Rose Turner), Irving Cummings (Mark Turner), Jack Livingston (Dr. George Wainright), and William H. Crane (Nicholas Van Alstyne) Directed by Herbert Blaché and Winchell Smith.

Review:
This was Keaton's first starring role in a feature film, as he was recommended for this movie by Douglas Fairbanks, with this propelling him to stardom. This was not written by Keaton unlike some of his later films, but there is at least a decent enough story, albeit with a weight of melodrama that nearly crushes it. It takes a while for the plot to get to Keaton, in part due to having to set up the plot lines that will soon converge into such a strange mish-mash, with secret affairs, staying out to late to impress a girl (who is also your adopted sister), stock broking, and a last act that manages to show a bit of what made Keaton so interesting to watch. One of my favorite parts is him trying to keep his balance (of sorts) while at the stock exchange being bullied a bit by the other brokers, keeping his composure neatly enough. The movie is only really interesting when Keaton is around, showcasing his famed stoic expression and his grace that would make him a star. The rest of the cast isn't bad, being serviceable for this kind of silent film. The film takes a while to dig itself out of being a drama, but it is decently paced at 77 minutes. For 1920, it is a relatively decent movie, and it is fine to suggest this film for someone wanting to start getting into Buster Keaton films.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Hot Water.

Review #864: Hot Water.

Cast:
Harold Lloyd (Hubby), Jobyna Ralston (Wifey), Josephine Crowell (Her Mother), Charles Stevenson (Her Big Brother), and Mickey McBan (Her Little Brother) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman, #674 - Grandma's Boy, #758 - Safety Last!) and Sam Taylor (The Freshman, #727 - For Heaven's Sake, Safety Last!)

Review:
The last time I did a Harold Lloyd film was last November, and I figured that it was time once again, with around 20 days to Thanksgiving and such. This time around (in his 7th feature film) is an episodic kind of film, with three parts merged into one feature, as opposed to the plot driven Lloyd films (like Safety Last!, for example). The first part (involving him winning a turkey in a raffle and the ensuing ride home) is pretty well done, with the turkey naturally playing a good part in some fine gags. The second part (about Lloyd and some of the extended in law family going on a ride in a new car) is also well done. One moment that was pretty quirky was when the mother-in-law starts crying (because her wedding gift was broken - by an annoying little kid, naturally) and Lloyd consoles her by kissing her on the cheek...via a dog, of course. I do like that one of the inter titles talks about how the couple will soon have a new car to themselves...after 59 payments, of course. Naturally this was made in a time where neck ties were important to wear (I myself wear two ties), which leads to a fine little gag when he puts one on when driving. The gags are fun to watch as usual, with Lloyd being a good every-man. The last part (involving the mother-in-law sleepwalking around the house) is pretty funny with all of the misunderstandings by Lloyd, with a chase scene in the middle of a wind storm at his house. His hair even goes up near the end, which is a charming little shot. The movie itself is quick at 60 minutes, and if one is looking for a Lloyd film, this would fit the bill nicely.

So there was a baseball team that won the World Series on Wednesday (November 2nd), from Chicago. Must've been the White Sox. (Ha!) 
Congratulations to the Cubs, who I first referenced in my Sharknado (#625) review (back in 2014, when talking about the fact that the film was made meaning the Cubs would win in my lifetime...with a footnote saying I could live to be 100.), and now they finally did it. Strange year, this is. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Waxworks.

Review #863: Waxworks.

Cast:
Emil Jannings (Harun al-Rashid), Conrad Veidt (Ivan the Terrible), Werner Krauss (Jack the Ripper / Spring-Heeled Jack), William Dieterle (The Poet / Assad the Baker / A Russian Prince), John Gottowt (Inhaber der Panoptikums), Olga Belajeff (Eva-Maimune-Eine Bojarin) Directed by Paul Leni and Leo Birinsky.

Review:
Waxworks (known as Das Wachsfigurenkabinett in Germany) is an anthology film, with some fantasy and horror elements (yes, this another German "world cinema" film on Movie Night. Do not worry, other countries will get their due all in good time). Two main stories (Harun al-Rashid, Ivan the Terrible) and a closing one (Jack the Ripper/Spring-heeled Jack) are conveyed to us (with the framing piece being that the Poet must come up with backstories for the two wax figures), with Dieterle being in all three parts. The sets and costumes for the two main stories are spectacular, with fine cinematography work by Helmar Lerski. There is also a bit of neat color tinting as well. The first segment is pretty good, with a nice performance from Jannings that brings out some nice humor. It's the longer segment (by a few minutes), but it doesn't overstay its welcome too much. The second segment is also pretty interesting, with Veidt playing this villainous kind of role with a bit of lunacy that later turns into desperation, with the scene of him trying to reverse the hourglass being quite frantic, with his fate at the end being quite poetic. The final piece to close out the film is brief (around six minutes), but it is serviceable, even if it ends a bit like you'd expect (who could've dreamed that one up, I wonder), for the 20's anyway. Obviously it isn't likely realistic with world history facts, but there is a curiosity that the movie inspires within itself. Krauss does fairly well as the last villainous character. On the whole, this is a fine piece of work, weaving some enjoyable stories together with a good sense of style and flair for the time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Incubus.

Review #862: Incubus.

Cast:
William Shatner (Marc), Allyson Ames (Kia), Eloise Hardt (Amael), Robert Fortier (Olin), Ann Atmar (Arndis), and Milos Milos (Incubus) Directed by Leslie Stevens.

Review: 
Before the review, I will provide a bit of background to this movie in the following paragraph. If you'd want, move on to the next paragraph, which contains the review. 

Incubus (Inkubo) was released 50 years ago on October 26, 1966 at the San Francisco Film Festival, with a bunch of enthusiasts of the Esperanto language there. This was directed by Leslie Stevens, creator of the original "The Outer Limits", which had been cancelled prior to this film, with Dominic Frontiere (composer of the first season of the show) contributing the music for this film. Conrad Hall (winner of three Oscars) did the cinematography, in his first credited contribution. This is the second film released in the language (the first being Angoroj in 1964), which had been created in 1887 by L. L. Zamenhof. The language is popular among parts around the world, but apparently not enough in a concentrated area. As for the pronunciation of the language in the film, supposedly the Esperanto enthusiasts were laughing at the way the actors (who rehearsed for less than two weeks in phonetic training of their lines) spoke the lines. The film, while not popular in the United States, was somewhat popular in France.  The film was thought to be lost for 30 years due to a fire. However, one copy was found in France (with subtitles on the bottom), and the film was restored and is now available after all these years. It should be noted that one of the actors (Milos) killed himself before the film's release, Stevens' company went bankrupt not long after, Hardt's daughter was kidnapped and killed two years later, and Atmar died the same month of this film's release. By the time of its release, Shatner had already started his run on Star Trek. On this Halloween, it only seems fitting to review this movie, with the legacy that it has.

Now then, with all that history, how is the movie? I can't really judge their pronunciations of Esperanto (I had never even heard the language spoken prior to this film), so the best way to judge the acting is to see how they interact with the movie around them. I should note that Shatner doesn't show up until around 15 minutes in, with the film focusing on the succubi and darkness around a village. The scene where Ames kills one of these travelers in the water is pretty interesting, in part due to the camera work. When it comes to uniqueness, this one may take the cake, with one scene showing a priest sucking an egg while carrying a frog (knock yourself out trying to interpret that). This is the kind of movie that one might show to some friends late at night, or at an art house to try and figure it out. The music by Dominic Frontiere is also quite interesting, adding to the film's mystique. It isn't really a boring movie, just one with some sort of controlled vision that tries to stand out in being something eerie and different without being too pretentious. The film lasts just under 80 minutes, which is somewhat a positive in that it can't really droll too long. The camera shots range from closeups to superimposing shots, all of which are interesting in their own right. This is the kind of movie that could almost be enacted on the stage, for better or worse. Shatner is fairly engaging (as one would expect), with enough interesting moments of him speaking dialogue as interesting as it gets. He certainly has some chemistry with Ames. She is pretty interesting to watch as well. Hardt is also adequate, with a better presence than Milos does. The climax is one to behold, as Ames faces off against the Incubus...who has turned into a goat. It's so strange seeing this fight as it cuts between a real goat and a goat head pushing against her a few times, with one shot of the goat licking itself. It's not a great seminal work, but it is a film with a certain kind of vision that works in the ways that it wants. There is a certain intriguing nature to this movie that not a lot of films can bring within its eeriness. This is the kind of film that you should at least check out for curiosity's sake, or for Shatner, at least. Happy Halloween.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Golem: How He Came into the World.

Review #861: The Golem: How He Came into the World.

Cast:
Albert Steinrück (Rabbi Loew), Paul Wegener (The Golem), Lyda Salmonova (Miriam), Ernst Deutsch (Loew's assistant), Lothar Müthel (Knight Florian), and Otto Gebühr (Emperor) Directed by Paul Wegener and Carl Boese.

Review:
It has been a while since the last time I reviewed a world cinema film, and it only made sense to a famous one from Germany, which was where the last world cinema film was from (#797 - People on Sunday). The Golem: How He Came into the World (known as Der Golem, wie er in die Welt kam in Germany) was released on October 29, 1920, and it was the third Golem film made by Paul Wegener, with the other two being The Golem (1915) and The Golem and the Dancing Girl (1917). However, this is the only one that is not lost, and it happens to be a prequel to the previous two films as it shows how the golem (a mythical being created by inanimate matter by magic) is created. The film has been called an influence on the 1931 version of Frankenstein (#072), and I can see that in some parts, such as with the Golem himself, who lumbers around in a menacing matter one that somewhat resembles Karloff's movements 11 years later. In any case, Wegener (who also co-directed the film) does an excellent job, making the Golem a truly interesting monster with a fair amount of facial expression to him as well. It's also been used as an example of German Expressionism, with sylish angles and color tints that correspond excellently with the cinematography by Karl Freund and Guido Seeber. Steinruck does a favorable job, having the right sense of gravitas without becoming cartoonish in his movements. Salmonova is fair, though she isn't given much to do aside from the climax. It is interesting that the Golem isn't stopped by another monster or anything particularly brute in force, but by a child of all things. For anyone looking for a great piece of cinema from yesteryear (96 years) or some fine horror that works at its own pace, I would suggest this film as one you should check out. Happy Halloween.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave.

Review #860: Dracula Has Risen from the Grave.

Cast:
Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Rupert Davies (Monsignor Ernest Muller), Veronica Carlson (Maria Muller), Barry Andrews (Paul), Ewan Hooper (Priest), Barbara Ewing (Zena), and Marion Mathie (Anna Muller) Directed by Freddie Francis (#856 - The Evil of Frankenstein)

Review:
For Halloween Eve (as I would call it), here's one more Hammer film. With a title like that, what can you expect? This was third Dracula film with Christopher Lee in the title role, and he actually does speak this time. It starts out with a girl found in a bell tower, an apparent victim of Dracula (who is she? Who knows?), which is somewhat amusing. Dracula (still frozen in ice) is brought back in a particularly amusing scene, as a priest falls on a rock, and the blood from his head reaches a crack in the ice and bleeds onto Dracula's mouth, with Dracula arising not long after, with reddish eyes to boot. Andrews is interesting, and he has some decent enough scenes with Carlson (another person familiar with Hammer films). Davies is pretty good as well. I liked the previous film a bit more than this in terms of the characters, but it works just enough on its own merits. There certainly is a good deal of style with the camera shots (especially when Dracula is around), and the effects are fine as usual. This time around, Dracula can only be killed with a stake if you have faith, which either is a bit clever or just a way to make the film last a bit longer. I guess it's better than being killed by water. At 92 minutes, this is a decent enough film that has enough flair and Hammer cliches to work.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Dracula: Prince of Darkness.

Review #859: Dracula: Prince of Darkness.

Cast:
Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Barbara Shelley (Helen Kent), Andrew Keir (Father Sandor), Francis Matthews (Charles Kent), Suzan Farmer (Diana Kent), Charles Tingwell (Alan Kent), Thorley Walters (Ludwig), Philip Latham (Klove), Walter Brown (Brother Mark), and Jack Lambert (Brother Peter) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman, and #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed)

Review:
This was the second of the Dracula Hammer films to feature Christopher Lee (eight years after his last appearance), though this time Peter Cushing (as Van Helsing) does not return. In fact, Cushing wouldn't feature with Lee in a Dracula film again until Dracula A.D. 1972 (I should note that Cushing starred in The Brides of Dracula, whereas Lee did not), though he is shown in the prologue, taken right from Dracula (#258) and its climax. This time around, the Kent family are the ones who encounter Dracula, revived due to mixing blood of one of the Kents with his ashes. The scenery is brilliant as usual. Dracula appears halfway through the movie, and the effects used to show his revival (along with his awakening from the place he was buried) is quite excellent. It should be noted that Lee doesn't speak all throughout the movie, with it either being due to Lee not wanting to speak the lines written for him (as said by Lee) or that there were no lines written for him (as said by the writer). In any case, his performance relies on his facial expressions, his hissing, and his imposing features, which he does quite well. Shelley is somewhat annoying (yes, she is the one who warns them to leave), but she is interesting after she becomes one of the undead. Keir is good at giving some sort of exposition about Dracula but also being quite entertaining. Matthews and Farmer are fine, having the sort of chemistry together one would expect in a horror film like this, which isn't overbearing nor too radically different. The scene where Lee and Farmer are alone together is also quite eerie and creepy, in part due to the music by James Bernard. It's interesting to see Walters (who you'd recognize from Frankenstein Created Women) as a sort of Renfield type of character, and he has a certain strangeness about him that works. You don't have to see the first one in order to get a grip on this film, which is nice. This time around, Dracula succumbs not due to the sun or a stake, but...(are you ready for this): running water. There is something amusing about that, in part because of Lee flailing around in the ice, but the movie doesn't really lose too much steam, in part because it ends not long after. On the whole, it's obviously not as good as the first film, but it is enjoyable in its own right, even after over 50 years.

Side note: If one is checking the Labels section and wondering why (British born) Jack Lambert is listed with a (B) next to his label, it is to differentiate him from the American actor of the same name.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed.

Review #858: Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed.

Cast:
Peter Cushing (Baron Victor Frankenstein), Veronica Carlson (Anna Spengler), Freddie Jones (Professor Richter), Simon Ward (Dr. Karl Holst), Thorley Walters (Inspector Frisch), George Pravda (Dr. Frederick Brandt), Windsor Davies (Police Sergeant), Allan Surtees (Police Sergeant), and Maxine Audley (Ella Brandt) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, and #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman)

Review:

With a title like that, what can you expect? Frankenstein certainly is a bit more evil in this one, though at least this time he does create a monster, and they even fight in the climax. At least this time around there's some blood (especially in the beginning) and some violence to appease someone. This was the fifth in the Hammer line of Frankenstein films (after The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958), The Evil of Frankenstein (1964), and Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)), and one would guess that if you're already this far into the franchise, anything can happen and it wouldn't be surprising...which proves to be the case here. This time, Frankenstein wants someone's knowledge, because I suppose the scientist that transferred someone's soul into a body can't find the secret to preserving a brain in suspended animation. Cushing is certainly more villainous this time around, which certainly makes things a bit different this time around. I should note that there is a rape scene in the film, which Cushing, Carlson and Fisher all objected to. It's a disturbing scene that was added in by a producer of the movie. Carlson and Ward provide fairly compelling counterparts to Frankenstein, somewhat easy to root for. Jones is a decent enough Creature, particularly in the climax. The final 20 (or so) minutes are when the movie gets interesting, with a fight between the characters, accompanied with fire that seems reminiscent of the Universal Frankenstein films, but it does its own spin on that. I'd say this is better than the previous Frankenstein film, in part because of the entertainment value. The effects for the Creature (with stitches and a bald head to boot) is pretty excellent, with spurts of blood made at the end of the decade.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Frankenstein Created Woman.

Review #857: Frankenstein Created Woman.

Cast:
Peter Cushing (Baron Victor Frankenstein), Susan Denberg (Christina), Thorley Walters (Doctor Hertz), Robert Morris (Hans), Peter Blythe (Anton), Derek Fowlds (Johann), Duncan Lamont (The Prisoner - Hans's Father), Barry Warren (Karl), Alan MacNaughtan (Kleve), and Peter Madden (Chief of Police) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, and #833 - Spaceways)

Review:
With this installment in the Hammer Frankenstein films, I suppose having a monster being created by Frankenstein was getting a bit tired, which explains the change for this film...involving the soul. Honestly the movie's enjoyment might rely on whether you can really buy into the whole "putting people's soul into dead bodies" premise as something to enjoy. I guess it's admirable that they went with something newish, but it still manages to be confusing later on. It is an okay movie, with some fun provided by Cushing, always reliable in making a movie that isn't really that exciting somewhat energetic. Denberg is decent as the "Woman" in the title, having a fair amount of presence. Walters is decent in a bumbling role, different from the usual crop of assistants in these films, though he'd probably be best suited for being a Mall Santa. What I find strange is some of the plot structure, particularly the set up for what turns out to be the Woman "created" by Frankenstein (to be clear, he transfers Hans' soul into his deal girlfriend's body)...Why would Hans not just say where he was on the night of a murder? Is it that embarrassing to say that he was with her? Also, it seems that the soul of Hans "talks" to Christina (via his head, of course)...which we get to hear, so he's basically talking to himself, considering his soul is in her...or maybe it's some sort of split thing, not conveyed very well. There isn't a ton of blood, but there is a decent amount of violent action, though one has to get through the soul aspects first. It's a serviceable movie, at least.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Evil of Frankenstein.

Review #856: The Evil of Frankenstein.

Cast:
Peter Cushing (Baron Victor Frankenstein), Peter Woodthorpe (Zoltan), Duncan Lamont (Chief of Police), Sandor Elès (Hans), Katy Wild (Rena the Begger Girl), David Hutcheson (Burgomaster of Karlstaad), James Maxwell (Priest), Howard Goorney (Drunk), Anthony Blackshaw (Policeman), David Conville (Policeman), Caron Gardner (Burgomaster's Wife), and Kiwi Kingston (the Creature) Directed by Freddie Francis.

Review:
This was the third Frankenstein film released by Hammer, released six years after The Revenge of Frankenstein (#469) and the first in the series not directed by Terence Fisher, but it is also the first film in the series where the Monster resembles the classic Universal look, due to a deal between the two. The monster here resembles the classic look somewhat, but it honestly isn't very terrifying, resembling papier-mâché more than anything. If you're going to emulate the classic look, you invite the criticism when comparing the looks. The sets do look pretty good, with the same kind of neat scenery one would expect. The continuity of the first two films seems to be thrown out the window, which is disappointing, though the biggest problem is that Frankenstein seems to be less evil than he usually is (apart from the opening scene), seeming to emulate the Universal films a bit (obviously). It's funny that the least villainous incarnation of Frankenstein is in the movie called "Evil of Frankenstein", with a hypnotist being the true villain. Woodthorpe is only as threatening as one would be of a hypnotist, so take that for what it is Elès and Wild are moderately enjoyable as well. There is some decent horror (and some interesting effects for ice), at least. It isn't boring, but it certainly isn't as good as the other two films, falling around the same quality as one would see in the Universal Frankenstein films, which is only as good as you make it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Wolf Blood.

Review #855: Wolf Blood.

Cast:
George Chesebro (Dick Bannister), Marguerite Clayton (Miss Edith Ford), Ray Hanford (Dr. Eugene Horton), Roy Watson (Jules Deveroux), Milburn Morante (Jacques Lebeq), Frank Clark (Old Pop Hadley), and Jack Cosgrave (Edith's uncle and manager) Directed by George Chesebro and Bruce Mitchell.

Review:
Wolf Blood (also known as Wolfblood: A Tale of the Forest) is the earliest known surviving werewolf film in existence, as The Werewolf (released in 1913) is now lost to history. This was made by an independent company named Ryan Brothers Productions. The werewolf in this film is not one that comes from a werewolf bite, but a transfusion of wolf blood into an injured person, hence the title. Halfway through the movie (which is only 67 minutes) is when the transfusion happens, though he doesn't actually turn into a wolf, as it is all in his head. There is some fairly decent location work, with the wilderness and all. The movie is more about the love triangle romance between Chesebro-Clayton-Hanford (yes, a love triangle...which is quite strange), which is somewhat entertaining, but nothing special. There is some decent music and color tinting, at least. The plot isn't really that much about the wolf, but it is serviceable for the drama genre of the silent era. There really isn't too much werewolf action (aside from a dream part with wolves), so in that sense the movie is disappointing if one is looking for horror. I suppose one could look at the film from a psychological standpoint (though the twist at the end isn't really that surprising), or study the dynamic of how one falls in love with someone really quickly despite being engaged (par for the course, I guess). From a historical aspect, there is some importance to the movie, but it isn't a seminal piece of film to write home about. It's an okay silent drama (if you haven't seen a dozen of them already and don't have high expectations), but it's not much of a horror film to pick out of the numerous ones with wolves.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

They Came from Beyond Space.

Review #854: They Came from Beyond Space.

Cast:
Robert Hutton (Dr. Curtis Temple), Jennifer Jayne (Lee Mason), Zia Mohyeddin (Farge), Bernard Kay (Richard Arden), Michael Gough (Master of the Moon), Geoffrey Wallace (Alan Mullane), Maurice Good (Agent Stillwell), Luanshya Greer (Female Gas Station Attendant), John Harvey (Bill Trethowan), and Diana King (Mrs. Trethowan) Directed by Freddie Francis.

Review:
It figures I had to pick some low budget sci-fi flick for today, especially one made from sets from another Amicus Productions film, Daleks - Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D (#472), while being based on a novel named "The Gods Hate Kansas"...while utilizing a title as cliche as one would expect. It is evident early on the lack of charisma this movie has, with everything being conveyed in a very dull manner with its ridiculous aspects seeming to be cobbled from better projects. If you like seeing random sets and random splotches of plot (like a metal plated scientist being protected from some sort of attack), this is the movie for you, with all the stops of lunacy one would expect from a low budget, low rate film. This is the kind of movie where you fight to stay attention and watch it, in part because you want to make sure you're still conscious. The cast doesn't really have any seeming life to them, with Hutton being as standard as it gets, and there is no real charisma between any of these actors. One highlight (or whatever word you would use) is one of the characters melting down their silver trophies in order to make a "helmet" to protect himself from the intruders...and it looks about as you'd expect. Naturally, the climax is a cluster of stuff thrown on the wall, with Michael Gough appearing as the Master of the Moon, where it is revealed that they did their intrusion in order to get workers to get them home to die. Yes, I'm serious. At the end (to spoil it for you), the two groups agree to have a partnership together, because I guess enslaving humans as workers to build a ship can be swept under the rug because they learned they could just have asked. The best thing about the movie? It lasts only 85 minutes. If you know me and this show well, I do have a spot for low budget flicks, provided that the movie actually looks like it's trying to be good, but this is not the right example of a good low budget film, nor a competent one.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.