Krull.

Review #927: Krull.

Cast:
Ken Marshall (Colwyn), Lysette Anthony (Princess Lyssa), Freddie Jones (Ynyr, the Old One), David Battley (Ergo the Magnificent), Bernard Bresslaw (Rell the Cyclops), Alun Armstrong (Torquil), Liam Neeson (Kegan), Robbie Coltrane (Rhun), Dicken Ashworth (Bardolph), Todd Carty (Oswyn), and Bronco McLoughlin (Nennog) Directed by Peter Yates (#506 - Bullitt)

Review:
Remember Battle Beyond the Stars (#819)? That 1980 movie that tried to be Magnificent Seven in space? Or Starcrash (#755)? That movie with more absurdity than dancing on a trampoline? Or The Man Who Saved the World (#371)? (same question still applies). These movies obviously had some influence from the original Star Wars film, but they also managed to have a strange sense of fun within themselves. So naturally, I figured it was time to take on a movie that meshes science and fantasy genres while also having its inklings of Star Wars in it. I also figured that since I would be going to my first Comic Con (in my home county) on Saturday, this would serve as something to accompany all of the fun along with giving you a review to help close out the month. So how is this movie? Stranger than you think.

Marshall is the main lead, but he doesn't really have much prsence besides just being a formula kind of hero, and he isn't really too unique. Anthony (with her voice dubbed by Lindsay Crouse) doesn't really have much to do, in part due to her spending a good deal of the movie captured. It's strange how the two leads really don't have too much presence nor too much time for romance, while the supporting cast manages to quite fun. Battley (and his character) serve as comic relief, and he does have the right kind of presence to make his character enjoyable. Jones plays the "wise man" role fairly comfortably, and he shares a fine scene with "The Widow in the Web" as well. Bresslaw and Armstrong are also pretty fine as well.  The effects for his change to animals is a bit murky, but it works fine for 1983. One of my favorite parts is him turning into a puppy for the kid character to play around with (for one scene, anyway), because that's what he wished for. There is a general feel of adventure and high strung design, with lines like "power is fleeting, love is eternal" seemingly accompanying it that make for a strange watch. The set design (such as with the Black Fortress) is quite nice. I do like how the main weapon is some sort of five point throwing weapon of "magic". It's almost as amusing as the evil bad guy moving his fortress every sunrise (clearly he likes travel, though he seems to forget how to deal with humans in combat). There's even a prophecy stated in the beginning, talking about how there will be a queen who will choose their king and rule their world while their son will rule the galaxy (cosmic difference, clearly). It's not every day that a movie basically tells you that the hero and the heroine will win in the beginning, so good on you I guess. The music by James Horner is pretty good, working for the adventurous spectacle that the movie attempts to pull quite well. Is the movie corny? Sure, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. There really is something different when there's a scene involving the characters trying to ride horses (called "fire mares", who do indeed fly). It meshes its sword and sorcery along with laser guns with the mending skills of someone with a lot of imagination just sparking out. I found this to be a fairly enjoyable (if not somewhat amusing) movie that works on its own kind of level.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Our Hospitality.

Review #926: Our Hospitality.

Cast:
Buster Keaton (Willie McKay), Joe Roberts (Joseph Canfield), Natalie Talmadge (Virginia Canfield), Ralph Bushman (Clayton Canfield), Craig Ward (Lee Canfield), Monte Collins (The Parson), Joe Keaton (The Locomotive Engineer), Jack Duffy (The Locomotive Leader), and Kitty Bradbury (Aunt Mary) Directed by Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, #805 - The Navigator, and #877 - Three Ages, and #908 - The General) and John G. Blystone.

Review:
This was Keaton's third starring role in a feature film (along with his second that he directed), and it was the second film of his released in 1923, the first being Three Ages, previously reviewed just last November by me. In that movie, there were good moments, but it was moderate entertinament that benefited from Keaton being himself. In this movie, the plot is much more focused, feeling well-rounded and working with the gags (instead of a movie with just gags and some sort of plot cobble) to make for a cohesive film. Inspired by (or better yet, satirizing) the Hatfield-McCoy feud (though the time period is decades prior to the feud), the film has a fine attention to set design, with some wonderful cinematography by Gordon Jennings and Elgin Lessley along with a good use of the locations (such as the Truckee River in California) and sets. The film is also pretty funny, too. The sight gags are present, but there is also a sense of adventure and madcap thrill that make the film stand out. The climax is a good sign of the fun present, with Keaton and Talmadge (her last film) having an easily charming kind of chemistry together along with a finale that allows the former to engage in rip roaring fun. The rest of the cast is also well put-together, with Roberts (who died a month prior to the release of the film) being a capable adversary for Keaton. One particularly interesting note is that there were three generations of Keatons in this film: Buster Keaton plays the starring character, while his father plays the locomotive engineer and his son plays a 1 year old version of the main character in the beginning of the film. On the whole, this is a fine piece of film that strives to entertain along with inspire some laughs, succeeding in both quite well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Sherlock Holmes in Washington.

Review #925: Sherlock Holmes in Washington.

Cast:
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Marjorie Lord (Nancy Partridge), Henry Daniell (William Easter), George Zucco (Heinrich Hinkel), John Archer (Lt. Pete Merriam), Gavin Muir (Mr. Lang, government agent), and Edmund MacDonald (Detective Lt. Grogan) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man and #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon)

Review:
This is the fifth film to star Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes (#583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles, #721: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, #798: Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror, #873: Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon). This was released in April of 1943, barely a few months after the previous film was released (having gone into general release in February after premiering in December). At 71 minutes, this runs a bit longer than the previous two films, with a fine climax involving Rathbone and Zucco, who exchange a good amount of dialogue with each other that is nifty while helping the movie get some sort of momentum. Much like the last film, it goes through the motions of a spy flick made during the war with some sort of coherence and logic. The parts in the beginning (on a train) do have some cleverness to them in watching how it is executed, though the middle edges (with occasional use of stock footage) don't compare as well. Rathbone and Bruce are up to their usual level of class, with the latter having brief moments of amusement, such as drinking milkshakes (after all, they are in America). Lord is decent as the innocent, with some degree of entertaining nature. Here's a brief summary of the film: Secret info gets turned into microfilm that is hidden into a certain type of object that falls in innocent hands. Obviously this isn't something too new (nor something that wasn't done after this film), but it works in some part to see how far the thrills try to go. There is at least some sort of effort by the others to make it seem tolerable. Notably, the movie ends with the main two characters having an exchange about America and a quote by Winston Churchill about justice and peace. It's a feel good kind of movie that will work for anyone looking for some more Sherlock things. Is it good? Not particularly (for me, anyway), but I'm sure that it'll work for others looking for some form of entertainment.

Footnote: At least this film isn't The Boy Next Door.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Boy Next Door.

Review #924: The Boy Next Door.

Cast:
Jennifer Lopez (Claire Peterson), Ryan Guzman (Noah Sandborn), Ian Nelson (Kevin Peterson), John Corbett (Garrett Peterson), Kristin Chenoweth (Vicky Lansing), Lexi Atkins (Allie Callahan), and Hill Harper (Principal Edward Warren) Directed by Rob Cohen (#043 - The Fast and the Furious)

Review:
Simply put, this is the equivalent of a Lifetime movie, with the "saucy" details turned slightly up, with the range of cheesy acting intact. This isn't an awful movie, but it isn't a movie worth caring too much about. There are things to laugh about (Guzman, looking at least five years older than the 19 year old he is supposed to be playing), but it isn't exactly a "so bad its good" kind of film, because it is simply just a dull flick. As a thriller, it doesn't have much in terms of excitement, and it definitely doesn't have any sort of passion present in any of these characters. Lopez is probably the best  actor in the film, merely because she has the most presence (Corbett comes second, at least for me anyway), though she can't save the movie from being a dry sponge. Guzman isn't much of a villain, nor much of any kind of presence. Apparently, the original screenplay by Barbara Curry was about a neighborhood boy making conflict between a family. Naturally, this was change, where the age of the boy next door being changed along with her being separated from her husband. I do wonder if the dialogue was as bland in that screenplay as it is on screen, where atmosphere and any sense of engaging in anything that these characters say and do is completely washed out. One easy low-light is Guzman's character giving Lopez's character a first edition of The Iliad. I can't tell which part is sillier, the idea that this would seem convincing, the cleanliness of the "book", or this "bond" that they share for the book. The climax (in which it is three versus one) is just as bland, in part because there is no real sense of energy. In any case, this is clearly not a movie made for me, but it is also does not seem to be a movie for people looking for something beyond their Lifetime products. If you want to waste 90 minutes, this is probably a bit high on the list, but even schlocky sci-fi films (#755 - Starcrash, for example) work better than this.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

The Pilgrim (1923).

Review #923: The Pilgrim.

Cast:
Charlie Chaplin (The Pilgrim), Edna Purviance (Miss Brown), Sydney Chaplin (Eloper / Train Conductor / Little Boy's Father), Mack Swain (Deacon Jones), Loyal Underwood (Small Deacon), Dean Riesner (Little Boy), Charles Reisner (Howard Huntington), and Tom Murray (Sheriff Bryan) Directed by Charlie Chaplin (#353 - Monsieur Verdoux, #599 - The Kid, #600 - City Lights, #759 - The Gold Rush, #775 - Shoulder Arms, and #820 - Modern Times)

Review:
At just under 47 minutes, this was Chaplin's second shortest feature length film (next to Shoulder Arms, which is just a few minutes less than this film), and this was also the last film he made for First National Pictures (which he had done since 1918). It definitely isn't one of his finest pieces of works, but The Pilgrim is at least a serviceable good time. Chaplin does a fine job as usual, playing a crafty convict who impersonates a preacher. One particular highlight is when he delivers an improvised sermon revolving around "David and Goliath", which goes as well as you'd expect. Chaplin can do any sort of stranger role (whether it be a stranger in military action or as The Tramp) with an easy kind of finesse. Purviance (in her last appearance with Chaplin in a feature film) is fairly decent, and the rest of the cast (some familiar to anyone who sees enough silent film) is pretty satisfactory in the roles that they play; Murray is part of a particular good part during the end of the film, with Chaplin "escaping" near the border. The movie goes at a fine pace, owing to its short length, but it is a decent enough movie to recommend because of the serviceable amount of gags it uses, with Chaplin being the key link. In a sea of great Chaplin films, this is a little gem that is fairly useful at being entertainment and sometimes that's all that matters.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Himiko.

Review #922: Himiko.

Cast:
Shima Iwashita (Himiko), Masao Kusakari (Takehiko), Rie Yokoyama (Adahime), Choichiro Kawarazaki (Mimaki), Kenzo Kawarazaki (Ikume), Yoshi Kato (Ohkimi), Jun Hamamura (Narrator), Tatsumi Hijikata (Dancer), and Rentarō Mikuni (Nashime) Directed by Masahiro Shinoda.

Review:
Ah yes, another world cinema film, this time from Japan. What is it about? Well...it's a movie about a shaman queen who falls in love with her half-brother and how this love jeopardizes her powers. When it comes to fantasy-dramas, this certainly stands out as something different. There is a good deal of surreal nature to everything, with blends of myth and passion. Obviously this is not a movie striving for too much historical accuracy (seemingly reminding me of a soap opera at times), but Shinoda seems to know what he is doing with his vision for the movie with regards to mood. It's not always easy to solve the cipher that is this movie, but it is at least somewhat compelling enough to at least see how it plays itself out. There definitely is a good deal of style with regards to how the movie looks (along with how it is shot), with numerous shots having a black background among the set pieces.The score is also pretty eerie and striking for the movie and deservingly so. Iwashita is pretty decent in the title role, expressing numerous moods and expressions usefully enough, with some strange chemistry with Kusakari. Speaking of which, Kuraskari is okay, even if he doesn't give too much expressions at points, though his passion is evident at times. Yokoyama is also pretty alright in the film. Mikuni is also fairly adequate. The movie is likely more entertaining to watch for what it shows rather than the performances, but there is enough spectacle and other-worldly nature to make for a useful watch. What other movie can have its climax include a sword fight in the middle of a mountainside after having one of its characters get tortured (along with a twist that isn't as strange as the movie is)? The experimental nature of the film may not be for everyone, but if one can find this I'm sure that you'll get something out of it.

When it came time for April Fool's Day to come about, I wanted to review something a bit on the weird side (previous April 1st reviews include #033 - Smokey and the Bandit, #115 - Return of the Jedi and its Redux Review, #362 - Mac & Me, #788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, with the latter two ending up as jokes on myself), so I decided to do a bit of searching and this one had come up as a choice. Strange how it had been six months since the last world cinema film. In any case, I hope for a happy month of April for all of you at home.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.