January 31, 2017
Nashville.
Review #900: Nashville.
Cast:
David Arkin (Norman), Barbara Baxley (Lady Pearl), Ned Beatty (Delbert Reese), Karen Black (Connie White), Ronee Blakley (Barbara Jean), Timothy Brown (Tommy Brown), Keith Carradine (Tom Frank), Geraldine Chaplin (Opal), Robert DoQui (Wade), Shelley Duvall (L. A. Joan), Allen Garfield (Barnett), Henry Gibson (Haven Hamilton), Scott Glenn (Pfc. Glenn Kelly), Jeff Goldblum (Tricycle Man), Barbara Harris (Albuquerque), David Hayward (Kenny Frasier), Michael Murphy (John Triplette), Allan F. Nicholls (Bill), Dave Peel (Bud Hamilton), Cristina Raines (Mary), Bert Remsen (Star), Lily Tomlin (Linnea Reese), Gwen Welles (Sueleen Gay), Keenan Wynn (Mr. Green), and Thomas Hal Phillips (Hal Phillip Walker) Directed by Robert Altman
Review:
Nashville is quite an experience, that much is for sure. It takes place over the course of five days, and yet it still manages to have one of the biggest assemblages of cast that work together to make for such an interesting movie of expression. There is no real main character, nor is there ever a moment where the film loses balance over what it wants to be: a film with people as diverse in nature and as interesting as the city it sets itself in. Even some of the settings (such as the Grand Ole Opry and the Parthenon in Nashville that is used for the climax) seem to reach out as their own character, with their own kind of blemishes just like these characters. For me, my favorites in the film were not so much because of likable they were, but because of how interesting they managed to be, with Beatty, Blakley, Chaplin, Gibson, and Tomlin being the big standouts who really have their own noticeable traits and flaws that one can see in themselves or others. The scene where Tomlin and Beatty are with their (deaf) children is especially telling in making these characters significant with a good degree of subtlety. The characters don't veer too much into cliches in part because they seem so real and seem so authentic to the vision of the film.
Even minor characters (like Welles or Black) are ones that we can still relate to, even if they aren't as high up on the success trail. Goldblum (in a voiceless but constant role) is also pretty memorable, in part because of the tricycle he rides throughout the film. DoQui and Welles certainly make a good pair together in the time they share together on screen. Phillips (and the dialogue that his voice is heard from for a good part of the film) is good in conveying the reach of his character without having to show him. There are so many scenes with their own range of emotion and feeling, where even a scene where Chaplin is talking poetic about buses in a junkyard is great. The film has a great deal of quality music (all done live, and by the actors themselves), all of the songs working intricately with the scene it goes with, such as with "I'm Easy"a key standout, sung by Keith Carradine, who carries the song with the right sense of tension and emotion (fun fact: this song won the Oscar for Best Original Song that year). The film doesn't try to resolve the plot threads in a concise manner, letting it up to the viewer to see where the path of these characters go from there, especially with a climax that is great in its surprise and its final beat with the last song ("It Don't Worry Me"). Nashville is a movie that does not try to bait and switch the realities of the time it was made in, and its impact can still be felt and related to over four decades after its release.
I hope you enjoyed this review, the 900th review done since this show began 2,234 days (over six years) ago. It is obvious (to me anyway) that Movie Night has progressed significantly in terms of quality and the kind of film that gets a shot at being covered. Though the show has gone on its own kind of pace, I hope that Movie Night continues to evolve in a positive way and that you all continue to enjoy this, even if in a small way. This is still a good hobby of mine, but it is also an excellent hobby to do every so often. Thank you all.
Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.
January 30, 2017
A Shot in the Dark.
Review #899: A Shot in the Dark.
Cast:
Peter Sellers (Jacques Clouseau), Elke Sommer (Maria Gambrelli), George Sanders (Benjamin Ballon), Herbert Lom (Charles Dreyfus), Tracy Reed (Dominique Ballon), Graham Stark (Hercule Lajoy), Moira Redmond (Simone), Vanda Godsell (Madame LaFarge), Maurice Kaufmann (Pierre), Ann Lynn (Dudu), David Lodge (Georges), André Maranne (François), Martin Benson (Maurice), and Burt Kwouk (Kato) Directed by Blake Edwards (#329 - The Pink Panther and #481 - The Party)
Review:
One thing that definitely can be said about this is that it certainly continues the laughs from The Pink Panther (released less with Sellers in control this time around as the main lead, with a more peculiar accent that became the hallmark of the character. With a great deal of slapstick and gags that combine with an engaging cast willing to have fun, A Shot in the Dark is also a fine sequel, while introducing newcomers that would become mainstays in the franchise, such as Lom as the long-suffering Dreyfus and Kwouk as Cato, the skilled servant used to "help" Clouseau in keeping his skills. Both are prime in their roles, with the latter getting especially more compelling the more the film goes on. It's also a pretty decent mystery as well, where the facts and allure balance handily with a movie that never veers too seriously but also never veers too ridiculously off-point, where every scene has something worth watching. Sellers and Sommer have a fair balance of chemistry together, right from their opening scene, where Clouseau catches on fire. Sellers seems at ease doing this role, with the right sense of bumbling incompetence that never ceases to entertain nor overstay its welcome, even when it repeats a gag or two a few times. I'd say some of the situations, but that just spoils the fun of what is a good romp. The movie gets wild, but it never goes completely off the rails, always having a sense of responsibility, with a fairly concocted climax as well. At 102 minutes, A Shot in the Dark is also pretty well paced, having the right amount of gags and characters to make for a fun movie for anyone.
Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Tomorrow night: Number Nine Hundred.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
January 20, 2017
Larceny, Inc.
Review #898: Larceny, Inc.
Cast:
Edward G. Robinson (J. Chalmers "Pressure" Maxwell), Jane Wyman (Denny Costello), Broderick Crawford (Jug Martin), Jack Carson (Jeff Randolph), Anthony Quinn (Leo Dexter), Edward Brophy (Weepy Davis), Harry Davenport (Homer Bigelow), John Qualen (Sam Bachrach), and Barbara Jo Allen (Mademoiselle Gloria) Directed by Lloyd Bacon (#562 - It Happens Every Spring)
Review:
A mix of comedy and gangster films, Larceny, Inc. manages to be a fine combination of the two genres by being itself with enough snappy charm from its cast along with some fine lines as well to make for a fine little gem. Easily the best part of the movie is Robinson, in part because of his great screen presence, in a movie all about timing and straight-laced fun. Crawford and Brophy are good accomplices to Robinson, with their own quirks and lines that make them so endearing. One fun scene is their exchange about one of them having a walk onto moving traffic as part of a quick scam...and having him show them how he would bounce off a bumper. Wyman and Carson have some bit of chemistry, but they aren't given too much to do (outside of contributing to the plot), though they certainly don't hurt the movie. Quinn proves to be a decent little villain. Davenport is also pretty decent in a small but key role as a shop owner, with one good little scene where he keep reminiscing over and over as he leaves the store after selling it. Jackie Gleason (of "The Honeymooners" fame and other things) makes a brief appearance as a soda shop clerk, getting a bit of time to be involved in the background. There is something so interesting about seeing how the plot threads of the heist and the business wrap themselves so cohesively, where the laughs never seem to cease up (and even when they do, not for very long). This is an easy movie to have a good time with, in part because even when the movie isn't about getting laughs it still manages to have its own kind of talent and sort of finesse. This is a fine little spoof of gangster films with the right kind of fun and sensible writing that surely delivers on its premise.
Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
January 18, 2017
Sweet Smell of Success.
Review #897: Sweet Smell of Success.
Cast:
Burt Lancaster (J. J. Hunsecker), Tony Curtis (Sidney Falco), Susan Harrison (Susan Hunsecker), Martin Milner (Steve Dallas), Sam Levene (Frank D'Angelo), Barbara Nichols (Rita), Jeff Donnell (Sally), Joe Frisco (Herbie Temple), and Emile Meyer (Lt. Harry Kello) Directed by Alexander Mackendrick (#567 - The Ladykillers)
Review:
This is the kind of movie (often put under the category of film noir) that lures you and never seems to let go of your interest, even with character such as these and dialogue spoken in ways that are still as sharp as they were nearly 60 years after its release. Lancaster and Curtis are the perfect pair of leads that will make you recoil at their actions and how they convey them with the right sinister touch, where it's hard to tell who is more villainous and who is more pathetic. The way that the movie is shot is also another positive, where the lighting (particularly on Lancaster) really give the movie a certain feel that mike make one a bit squeamish, and for good reason. Harrison doesn't get much to do, but she certainly does a fine job at portraying a pawn in a movie all about schemes. Milner is also pretty decent at playing such a headstrong character that contrasts well enough with the rest of the characters. The supporting cast is also pretty good in making the atmosphere even more seedy. There is certainly a good degree of wit and pacing where you can be uncomfortable with the implications (read: actions) brought by the movie and still find the movie an achievement in film-making, with a good run time at 96 minutes as well. Mackendrick certainly manages to make a movie (based off a novelette by Ernest Lehman with the film written by Clifford Odets) worth watching, thick in its own layers of darkness within its cleverness. It's not a movie for anyone, but it is a movie worth watching, in part because of how well crafted it is, from the production values to the cast.
Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
January 16, 2017
A Patch of Blue.
Review #896: A Patch of Blue.
Cast:
Sidney Poitier (Gordon Ralfe), Shelley Winters (Rose-Ann D'Arcey), Elizabeth Hartman (Selina D'Arcey), Wallace Ford (Ole Pa), Ivan Dixon (Mark Ralfe), Elisabeth Fraser (Sadie), and John Qualen (Mr. Faber) Directed by Guy Green.
Review:
There is something interesting about how the movie paces itself with elements of romance and a touch of good natured humanity. It's not a movie mired in being dated or only relevant for the time, in part because this is still a film that could be made today. Sure, one could be cynical and rail against the literal nature of "love is blind" the movie takes, but I find it to be an entertaining movie in part because of the two leads. There is just something magical and charming about their scenes, where Poitier and Hartman (in her debut performance) simply just click on screen. Hartman makes this naive but charming girl one to care about. Poitier is entertaining as well, showing the right kind of depth and humanity. It's not an innocent movie either, with Winters portraying her character with the right kind of toxic nature that accompanies a movie that has enough punch to be quite effective. Ford (in his last performance) is also quite good in his role, portraying this sad old man without any hint of fakery. You can have scenes where the two are enjoying themselves buying groceries, and other scenes where she tries to navigate herself to the park on her own without help. There is enough emotion and heart that it never feels manipulative nor too sentimental. The movie flows well at 105 minutes, never dragging itself too much while also managing to have a ending that fits the film well in being itself and not going for the easy out. It certainly is a film that leaves itself open to discussion over a good deal of subjects, and it makes the mark of a fairly good movie. While it may not be as influential as Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (#139) was when released two years after this film, A Patch of Blue still manages to leave its mark with the way it presents itself and its characters. Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day, folks.
Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
January 9, 2017
Rocky V.
Review #895: Rocky V.
Cast:
Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Talia Shire (Adrian Balboa), Burt Young (Paulie Pennino), Sage Stallone (Robert "Rocky" Balboa, Jr), Richard Gant (George Washington Duke), Tommy Morrison (Tommy "The Machine" Gunn), Burgess Meredith (Mickey Goldmill), Tony Burton (Tony Evers), and Paul J. Micale (Father Carmine) Directed by John G. Avildsen (#003 - Rocky)
Review:
Ah yes, this one. It has been a while since I talked about the Rocky franchise (#003, #277 - Rocky II, #340 - Rocky III, #597 - Rocky IV, #760 - Creed), so it only makes sense that I review the one that attempted to return Rocky to his roots...and does so with minimal results. It's not the fact that it inverts the formula as it the fact that it's just not that entertaining. Neither Rocky IV or V are good, for varying reasons, with one being ludicrous and the other feeling hollow. The way that the film resets Rocky's status seems cheap, with the brain damage part somehow not clicking, in part because Rocky seems the same anyway, and the climax is a fight in the streets (which goes down the way you expect, sans any idea of Rocky getting more damage). Probably the easiest problem with the movie is the fact that it tries too hard to return to the grit of the first film (while doing an inverse of the rags-to-riches story), without much of the heart of what made that movie entertaining. Obviously this is a movie that tries to end the series with some sort of dignity that the fourth film didn't have, but it all comes off as a throwback with some mold on it. The two stories (Rocky training Tommy and his family drama) don't mesh well, in part because they just feel unfocused.
It only makes sense that Stallone cast his son to play (are you ready for this): his son, ignoring the age difference from previous films. Obviously the two have father-son chemistry, but I didn't really find the son's narrative to be particularly interesting enough to care about. Of course the solution to his problems is fighting (literally every problem in these movies can be solved by fighting), but it just feels superficial. Heck, he even befriends the dude he beats up, because I guess that's how things work in Philadelphia in the 90's. As for the main Stallone, he does a fine job as always, continuing to make Rocky a likable character, though he does have some moments where he experiences some sort of depth, like when he is talking to Adrian about having meaning in his life again by training Tommy. Relating to that, Morrison (an actual boxer) doesn't have much screen presence, never really seeming like someone to care about, with Gant taking most of the villainous role...while playing it as over-the-top as one could do it. I didn't find him to be that great a villain (in part because half the time his pleas for Rocky to fight are rejected by Adrian), and his scenes with Morrison aren't anything special. He definitely doesn't help when the movie is trying to return to its roots. Young is fine as usual, with a bit more importance this time around (for better or worse). It is somewhat nice to see Meredith (playing Mickey again in a flashback) again, even if his scene is there mainly to speed the plot up.
There is a climax, culminating in a street fight...and some messy editing, where it flashes back at times to Rocky's other fights (which occurred numerous times already), which just makes me want to watch any of the other films instead. There really isn't a way to end the movie without the status quo (Rocky still being broke) still being the same unless you kill off Rocky, which apparently was the original plan, before it was changed...and it's easy to see why. Seeing Rocky die would be the ultimate downer in a series all about perseverance and heart. Sure, he wins the fight. So what? The movie's ending can be questioned with that phrase, and there really is no answer. The previous films had some sort of meaning with the way the fights go (even the fourth one, with Rocky's speech at the end), but this one just doesn't feel right. The last scene with the two Stallones (and a credit sequence that takes images from the previous films) is somewhat good, but by then it's too late to make any real kind of impact. At the end of the day, Rocky V just doesn't click right. There's no real punch to it, and it certainly doesn't feel like a proper finale to the series.
Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...
Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.
January 5, 2017
College Road Trip.
Review #894: College Road Trip.
Cast:
Martin Lawrence (Chief James Porter), Raven-Symoné (Melanie Porter), Eshaya Draper (Trey Porter), Donny Osmond (Doug Greenhut), Molly Ephraim (Wendy Greenhut), Kym Whitley (Michelle Porter), Brenda Song (Nancy Carter), Margo Harshman (Katie Crazyman), Arnetia Walker (Grandma Porter), Vincent Pastore (Freddy), and Lucas Grabeel (Scooter) Directed by Roger Kumble (#838 - Just Friends)
Review:
Of course this movie is terrible. What do you expect? This is the kind of fare meant for younger audiences than I (a 20 year old college student who clearly should be doing better things on break), and while it is easy to admit that some could get a kick out of this movie, it is also evident that this was a dull thing to watch. It even lasts less than 90 minutes (of course), which means this isn't a movie I can't say I wasted too much time on. Lawrence seems more interested in seeing the film end than actually making his character anything other than just a weird dad with typical issues with his daughter, with one of his stunts being to sneak over to a dorm her and her friends are sleeping over to see if there are any boys there (writing this whole sentence made my head hurt)...and he ends up trapped under one of the beds. Raven is fine, but she seems to go through the motions much like the people who end up watching the movie. The only sort of interest was seeing Donny Osmond (of all people) be in the movie for about five minutes (oh, and at the end), if only because it reminded me that the only other time I ever saw Osmond in anything was when he hosted the game show Pyramid (remember that? That was over a decade ago. Oh, and the song "White & Nerdy". You know, these sentences are almost more interesting than talking about the movie...but I digress). Granted, it's him playing an overly energetic character, but it's probably the only thing about the movie worth discussing (that, and him attacking the fiance of his daughter.). Not even a pig (one of those smart ones, because that's a thing) can contribute to any real gags. This just feels like a television movie that was put into theaters, in part because of bland it is. There's nothing terribly offensive (not that there would be), nor anything that you wouldn't find in TV movies. I'd care more, but at least I never had to make a college road trip of my own.
Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...
Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.
January 3, 2017
Dirty Harry.
Review #893: Dirty Harry.
Cast:
Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Andy Robinson (Scorpio), Harry Guardino (Lt. Al Bressler), Reni Santoni (Inspector Chico Gonzalez), John Vernon (The Mayor of San Francisco), John Larch (Chief of Police), John Mitchum (Frank "Fatso" DiGiorgio), Woodrow Parfrey (Jaffe), and Josef Sommer (District Attorney William T. Rothko) Directed by Don Siegel.
Review:
Welcome to Season 7 (2017), folks. I decided to use this film as the beginning point in part because the 45th anniversary (in late December) had passed on without notice, and it also seemed right to do this film, a hallmark of police films. This is certainly an excellently crafted film, right down from the style and action but also the way it presents its main character. Eastwood is excellent at conveying this loose cannon type of cop with the sort of cynicism and blunt edge without any kind of insincerity nor too overblown. The movie is at its best when showcasing the action (or in some cases, the sets used, such as Kezar Stadium), with a particularly excellent climax in a rock quarry. Besides the grit (and catchphrases) is a movie that does not try to hide its loyalties or thoughts on certain manners, especially with scenes regarding Vernon. Guardino and Santoni are servicable, doing their roles without any kind of distraction. Robinson does a good job as the villain in part because of his mannerisms and how unassuming he seems. There is a perfect kind of imbalance that he conveys that work within the manners of the film. The movie seems to slow itself a bit around the middle, but it manages to have a good enough beginning and end that it doesn't really account for too much slog. It's obvious to say this isn't the kind of movie for anyone (especially for ones that aren't fans of violence), but it's also obvious to say this is a film that uses everything given to it (fine directing and a fine enough cast along with well conveyed action) and makes it a worth while time at 102 minutes. It isn't a standard kind of procedural and that's just the way it likes it to be.
Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7...
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.