May 31, 2017
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.
Review #940: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.
Cast:
Bill Hader (Flint Lockwood), Anna Faris (Sam Sparks), James Caan (Tim Lockwood), Neil Patrick Harris (Steve the Monkey), Bruce Campbell (Mayor Shelbourne), Andy Samberg (Brent McHale), Mr. T (Officer Earl Devereaux), Bobb'e J. Thompson (Calvin "Cal" Devereaux), Benjamin Bratt (Manny), and Al Roker (Patrick Patrickson) Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller (#540 - The Lego Movie and #568 - 21 Jump Street.)
Review:
The last time that I had reviewed an animated movie was back in December (with Beauty and the Beast - #891), so it is welcome to review a film that is from a different animation studio - Sony Pictures Animation. This is based off the children's book of the same name, which I remember reading quite fondly when I was a child; obviously the movie takes liberties with the source material (with the food falling from the sky being from a machine being one example), but can it manage to pull off delicious entertainment (pardon the pun)? To put it lightly, it works just fine. Hader and Faris shine just fine as leads, having a fair amount of chemistry while also being fairly interesting in their own ways; Hader's character treads on familiar grounds, but he manages to give the character enough likability and charm, especially when on screen with Faris' character, who is equally engaging to watch. The father-son dynamic between Hader and Caan goes around the same lines that you'd expect from these kind of movies, though at least it isn't broadly annoying. Campbell does a fine job at showing the gluttony of the de facto antagonist of the movie (unless you count an abundance of food as an adversary); the supporting cast is pretty likable, with Harris, Samberg and Mr. T being capable highlights. The highlight of the film is the animation, which is bright and colorful but it fits for the movie; seeing burgers come out of the sky while the sky becomes a shade of purple is quite nice to look at (alongside other shots of fun foods, like ice cream). It isn't a movie without much emotional punch, but there is enough entertainment and moments of charm and food (so much food) within its 90 minute run-time to make a capable movie. Is it something to the caliber up something like Up (#288, released months before this film)? Not quite, but not everything needs to be that kind of gem; sometimes the best thing to watch (or eat) is a nice tasty digestible burger (or movie). Bottom line, this is a capable little film worth at least checking out.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
May 26, 2017
Swamp Thing.
Review #939: Swamp Thing.
Cast:
Ray Wise (Alec Holland), Adrienne Barbeau (Alice Cable), Louis Jourdan (Anton Arcane), Dick Durock (Swamp Thing), David Hess (Ferret), Nicholas Worth (Bruno), Don Knight (Harry Ritter), Al Ruban (Charlie), Ben Bates (Arcane Monster), Nannette Brown (Dr. Linda Holland), Reggie Batts (Jude), and Mimi Craven (Arcane's Secretary) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, and #633 - Red Eye)
Review:
With all of the superhero/comic book movies that have come out in the past decade (and the ones that will come in the next few years), it is a bit refreshing if not interesting to see one from a different time and what better than an 80s flick? Based off the DC Comics character of the same name, Swamp Thing is a more grounded kind of hero movie, feeling like a mix of monster and horror movies that make for a serviceable kind of film. Wise does well in the time he has on screen, making his character fairly relatable prior to his transformation. Barbeau is the one we see more of throughout the film (the eponymous hero takes a while to show up, naturally), and she pulls off a fine performance; her scenes with Swamp Thing are also enjoyable (one of the best parts is him answering her question if he is hurt: "Only when I laugh", with him soon laughing). Jourdan is a fair villain, being a bit overblown in his genius without being an over-the-top foe. His henchmen aren't too noteworthy, though Worth has an amusing scene with the two main leads after they all escape. Batts (in his only film role to date) does a capable job in a comic relief role. The film does have its moments of amusement, but it never veers towards outright slapstick, managing to keep a good balance while not being overtly campy. Craven does a fine job directing, handling the horror and sci-fi pretty well. The action scenes are enjoyable, and the suit for Swamp Thing looks pretty decent. The film also has a nice look to it as well (filmed in South Carolina); the swamp is fairly good to look at, mainly because the movie doesn't have a blurred effect to it (in other words, the special effects and the sets don't blur into each other). Though the movie lasts just 91 minutes, it certainly runs at an efficient pace, keeping itself going quite well. It isn't a great superhero flick, but it is a capable kind of movie worth considering.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
May 23, 2017
Girl Shy.
Review #938: Girl Shy.
Cast:
Harold Lloyd (Harold Meadows, The Poor Boy), Jobyna Ralston (Mary Buckingham, The Rich Girl), Richard Daniels (Jerry Meadows, The Poor Man), and Carlton Griffin (Ronald DeVore, The Rich Man) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman, #674 - Grandma's Boy, #758 - Safety Last!, #864 - Hot Water, and #889 - A Sailor-Made Man, #903 - Dr. Jack, #918 - Why Worry?) and Sam Taylor (The Freshman, #727 - For Heaven's Sake, Safety Last!, Hot Water, Dr. Jack, Why Worry?)
Review:
It is nice to come closer to being full circle with Harold Lloyd's silent feature filmography, with this being the ninth of his eleven to be reviewed (reviewed out of order, but still). This was Lloyd's sixth feature film, with this being the first not to be produced by Hal Roach (who had produced the previous five); in addition, this was a "character picture" (as described by Lloyd), where the relationship between Lloyd and Ralston's characters is given more emphasis than simply having a load of gags. However, the climax of the movie (involving numerous modes of transport, such as the trolley, horse-drawn wagon, and horseback) is a clear highlight for the movie in terms of eye catching hilarity. This time around, the main character is a stutterer around girls who writes about his "lovemaking"; two different types of women (and how to "woo" them) are shown, one being a vamp and the other being a flapper; these two scenes are pretty amusing for the time. Lloyd and Ralston do a pretty job together, balancing sentiment along with moments of amusement quite well. Daniels lends a capable hand to the film, and Griffin serves as a fair enough villain for Lloyd to take action against. Like the other Lloyd films, it runs at a good capable pace (this time around 80 minutes) while also showcasing some fun gags; one of my favorites is Lloyd being moved slowly by a turtle while trying to talk with Ralston. The stuttering (and accompanying whistle to help Lloyd out) never comes off as tedious nor too ridiculous; the parts with him trying to get his book published is quite funny as well. On the whole, this falls along the line of being another good Lloyd movie to watch and enjoy. It isn't as great as something like Safety Last!, but it definitely is something to have a good time with, stutter or not
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
May 22, 2017
Eraserhead.
Review #937: Eraserhead.
Cast:
Jack Nance (Henry Spencer), Charlotte Stewart (Mary X), Allen Joseph (Mr. X), Jeanne Bates (Mrs. X), Judith Roberts (Beautiful Girl Across the Hall), Laurel Near (Lady in the Radiator), Jack Fisk (Man in the Planet), and Jean Lange (Grandmother) Directed by David Lynch.
Review:
What can I really say about Eraserhead? Fittingly, this is the first film featured on here directed by David Lynch, who also wrote the film along with doing the music, editing, special effects and other technical aspects in a movie that served as his directorial debut. He described the film (released 40 years ago on March 19, 1977 at the Filmex film festival) as "A dream of dark and troubling things"; to try and interpret the movie would be pretty fruitless along with missing the point of these reviews: seeing if this serves as quality entertainment. For me, it is a fairly interesting movie worth looking at, though it may not be for everyone. Nance is our every-man that we follow through the movie, and it is his expressions and actions in this strange world Lynch has crafted that we get to see amidst all of the imagery and sounds. He is the only one who is given significant time to be seen throughout a movie that expresses a surreal kind of horror that preys on one watching closely. The rest of the cast isn't as prevalent in presence, but they certainly are noteworthy, such as Near and Fisk. The black-and-white look of the film is also key in how it works in capturing this strange little world, making for a unique crisp experience. The baby is easiest the most horrifying thing to look at, and the way that it sounds is especially horrifying. Any scene involving it is disturbing, but the whole movie has other moments of gore and weird elements; even something like chicken for dinner is creepy. At 89 minutes, this is a movie that runs at a fair pace in that it never seems to drag itself too much in pretentiousness because there is usually something to look at coming around the corner, with an ending that is like the film itself: flowing at its own pace and on its own terms. Is it a good movie or is a great movie? It definitely excels on establishing atmosphere (along with effects), but for me it operates as a movie that tells its story with a type of unique energy to it that clicks more often than not. When it comes to putting a label on a movie like this, "cult film" likely works best. To try and talk about this movie at a greater length would be hiding the main point: See the movie for yourself and hopefully it gives you some entertainment.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
May 20, 2017
Sherlock Holmes Faces Death.
Review #936: Sherlock Holmes Faces Death.
Cast:
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. John Watson), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Arthur Margetson (Dr. Bob Sexton), Hillary Brooke (Sally Musgrave), Halliwell Hobbes (Alfred Brunton), Minna Phillips (Mrs. Howells), Milburn Stone (Captain Vickary), Gavin Muir (Phillip Musgrave), and Gerald Hamer (Major Langford) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, and #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington)
Review:
I hope that I am not boring you folks with the reviews of these certain films; I do indeed have some interest in these detective films, which clearly have some sort of appeal for me. This is the sixth of the Rathbone series (#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, and #925), but this one is a mystery revolving around murder in a house (instead of something involving the war, though there are military characters present). After three films of wartime infused spy plots, this certainly comes off as refreshing (honestly, the title is a bit strange - doesn't he always face people dying?). One of my favorite scenes is when Holmes realizes one of the clues in a "ritual" involves a checkerboard floor on one of the rooms, and naturally Holmes decides to use the people in the house in order to act the ritual out. The film runs smoothly enough at 68 minutes, mixing capable characters alongside Rathbone and Bruce (with his character having a bit more competence than before) as expected. One of the more quirky scenes with Rathbone is him talking to a squawking raven. It isn't the best Holmes film with Rathbone (for me, nothing tops the first film), but it certainly is an improvement over the previous three movies, in part because of the way it operates itself. The villain (Margetson), while not strong or particular clever, is somewhat satisfying in that he is not merely one dimensional. Brooke is a somewhat fair supporting actress (the most quirky scene involving her is one where she is reciting a ritual and a bolt of lightning strikes through a window and hits a suit of armor near her). It ends with a dialogue between the two main actors about a "new spirit abroad the land" that isn't about greed (inspired by an act of selflessness by Brooke's character), which is interesting if not somewhat broad. The mystery is entertaining enough, and this is a fairly good way to spend an afternoon with a serviceable type of movie like this.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
May 17, 2017
The Atomic Kid.
Review #935: The Atomic Kid.
Cast:
Mickey Rooney (Barnaby 'Blix' Waterberry), Robert Strauss (Stan Cooper), Elaine Devry (Audrey Nelson), Bill Goodwin (Dr. Rodell), Robert Emmett Keane (Mr. Reynolds), Whit Bissell (Dr. Edgar Pangborn), Joey Forman (MP in hospital), Dan Riss (Jim, FBI Chief Agent), Peter Leeds (FBI Agent Bill), and Hal March (FBI Agent Ray) Directed by Leslie H. Martinson (#177 - Batman)
Review:
I suppose the random nature of this show means that any film I happen to come across is fair game for reviewing...and this one (distributed by Republic Pictures) just popped up. I suppose summer vacation is the best time to churn out some more reviews, no matter what the result. This is the first time I'm reviewing a film with Mickey Rooney as the main star, and what better than a movie where he gets an atomic bomb dropped on him? Or one where he eats a sandwich with peanut butter sardines, and horse radish? Of particular note is that the film was written (along with Benedict Freedman and John Fenton Murray) by Blake Edwards, one year before he became a director. This is a movie that clearly aspires to be something easily digestible while being considerably thin in plot. Rooney is somewhat entertaining, managing to have some fun, and he has somewhat capable buddy chemistry with Strauss, though they don't have much screen-time in the middling middle parts of the movie until the end of the film. Devry (billed as "Ms. Mickey Rooney" in the beginning credits) and Rooney are somewhat interesting to watch, but they can't carry the movie to any real enjoyment. It really is just a movie with some mild gags, simply put. This is a movie not worth complaining too much about in part because remembering it is more of an effort than trying to actively give criticism. Is there any highlights? I guess the geiger counter watch is somewhat neat looking, though it is muddled by all the gags involving the main character's neutrons changed anytime he gets in contact with the nurse (get it?). Somehow, the plot includes a spy ring, though it doesn't really go anywhere. Simply put, it's a stale but harmless kind of movie.
Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.
May 12, 2017
The Big Combo.
Review #934: The Big Combo.
Cast:
Cornel Wilde (Police Lt. Leonard Diamond), Richard Conte (Mr. Brown), Brian Donlevy (Joe McClure), Jean Wallace (Susan Lowell), Robert Middleton (Police Capt. Peterson), Lee Van Cleef (Fante), Earl Holliman (Mingo), Helen Walker (Alicia Brown), and Jay Adler (Sam Hill) Directed by Joseph H. Lewis.
Review:
When it comes down to film noirs, there is always something interesting about their appeal, whether it be due to the cast (or supporting cast), the way that it is shot, the way that it is structured, or even just the way that it is on an entertainment level. The Big Combo (produced by Theodora Productions and Security Pictures while distributed by Allied Artists Pictures) stands out in how nifty it operates with the cast and pacing. It isn't a great movie, but it certainly is a good enough movie that works on enough entertaining levels. It has a raw edge to it (particularly with one scene involving tonic) that underlies a fairly well-moving gangster movie. Wilde and Wallace (who were married at the time) have their fair share of moments together that work due to how they balance each other and their roles simply and coherently. Conte is a capable villain, giving this character the professional touch required for the movie. Donlevy does a fine job as the right-hand man to Conte, and they do a fine job balancing out their nefarious operation. The rest of the cast are serviceable in their supporting roles, not doing anything to ruin the balance or tone. The latter half of the movie is well executed, with Conte's fate being particularly memorable to watch; the climax in a foggy hangar is done quite well. At 87 minutes, it certainly has a good pace to it that is readily accessible. It's the final scene, with Wilde and Wallace standing in the airport with fog and shadows around them that stands out among the rest, with the credit going to John Alton and his cinematography that resulted in such a nice shot in a movie that works best as a neat little film noir gem.
On a different note, I graduate from my local college (South Texas College) today, with an Associate's Degree in Secondary Education in hand. What a ride it has been for four semesters, especially with how Movie Night has operated around it. With any luck, the reviews will keep coming, no matter what the next step is for me as long as I continue to enjoy doing them, which I still do. Thank you.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
May 10, 2017
Embryo (1976).
Review #933: Embryo.
Cast:
Rock Hudson (Dr. Paul Holliston), Barbara Carrera (Victoria Spencer), Diane Ladd (Martha Douglas), Roddy McDowall (Frank Riley), Anne Schedeen (Helen Holliston), John Elerick (Gordon Holliston), Vincent Baggetta (Collier), Jack Colvin (Dr. Jim Winston), and Joyce Brothers (Herself) Directed by Ralph Nelson.
Review:
I had wanted to do this film a while back during the fall season, but I had forgotten about the movie (which is amusing, given all the reviews that occurred anyway) until now. Strangely, the movie begins with a statement from a Dr. Charles Brinkman III, stating: "The film you are about to see is not all science fiction. It is based upon medical technology which currently exists for fetal growth outside the womb. It could be a possibility tomorrow...Or today." I guess with words like that, one could have hope for this strange film, released by Cine Artists Pictures (who went bankrupt before being able to renew the copyright on the movie). And how is it? Well, it certainly is something you wouldn't expect (nor expect to find). The movie revolves around trying to make life (or more specifically, keeping life alive). Naturally, he starts with a dog before deciding upon doing so for a fetus with some sort of experimental thing called "placental lactogen". This goes about as well you'd expect (complete with voice-over by Hudson during the latter experiment), with all of it meant to be taken seriously. Yes, even with the fact that the decision to proceed with a human is only a few days after having "success" with a doberman. When the movie turns from a half-baked Frankenstein into an equally half-baked version of My Fair Lady (or Pygmalion) is likely when the movie lends itself rope to seal its fate. It is evident that the makers of the movie wanted to do something with horror and drama (with not-science fiction, if one goes by the opening) that would have an effect of audiences, but that never seems to succeed. At least it isn't too long (104 minutes), but that can't help in making it seem somewhat dull.
McDowell makes a "cameo" as a chess player who competes against Carrera's character, complete with an outburst after the match ends, which is somewhat amusing. Hudson is the best actor in the movie by merely having a presence that comes closest to being convincing, even with somewhat dry monologues (recorded on tape) throughout the film. Carrera doesn't really spring much personality into the role; she is watchable when trying to interact with colleagues or when trying to search for a cure to her biological problem, but that doesn't excuse a somewhat listless performance. Even when she makes a villainous turn (gasp if you aren't surprised), it doesn't help in making the movie entertaining. Ladd doesn't fare too well either, nor does Schedeen, in part because they don't have any sort of screen time to make anything significantly worth investing in. When the movie gets to its climax, there is no investment in any of these characters, and when you can't care about the stakes the film tries to set, one question is posed: Who cares? Naturally, it ends with a car chase (no joke), complete with aging makeup and a reveal that would be shocking if not merely serving to end a ridiculous movie. On the whole, this is a ridiculous movie that doesn't have as much entertainment value as it should while also not having as much credibility as it wants to strive for, failing on numerous levels for everyone.
Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.
May 8, 2017
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.
Review #932: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.
Cast:
Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), Zoe Saldaña (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Baby Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Michael Rooker (Yondu Udonta), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Elizabeth Debicki (Ayesha), Chris Sullivan (Taserface), Sean Gunn (Kraglin), Sylvester Stallone (Stakar Ogord), and Kurt Russell (Ego) Directed by James Gunn (#626 - Guardians of the Galaxy)
Review:
With reviews like these, I generally try to avoid making it about the experience I had around watching the movie in a theater on opening week, mainly because I fear that it may come off as irritating to you fellow readers. But I do admit that the Marvel films (after nine years and 15 films) are generally entertaining along with being well crafted, whether watched alone or with others by me (with the latter applying this time around). The first Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun enjoyable time that had its shares of amusement and thrills, which definitely hit the right spot for me (I'm just surprised it was released three years ago). In any case, this is a fairly enjoyable sequel, and while it doesn't quite rise to the level of the first film, it still works just enough without just being a rehash. The story decides to split the characters up until around the climax (while thankfully not hinting at them breaking up or anything), and I think it helps in letting the film breathe a bit with the characters it tries to feature along with the action. The main group of heroes are all pretty well in their roles; Baby Groot is a neat highlight. Pratt does a fine job, having good chemistry with Saldana and Russell. Cooper and Bautista also do fine jobs. Rooker (a fairly neat standout in the first film) gets a more significant kind of role this time around, and he does a good job with that advantage, being quite fun to watch. Russell is naturally entertaining, and he does a fine job at delivering the gravitas one would expect playing a living planet as a character. Klementieff is also pretty good at playing a slightly naive but easily likable character that has some neat scenes with Bautista. The rest of the cast (such as Gillian and Gunn) are also pretty fine at the roles they play. There is certainly a degree of emotional depth this time around (reminding me of The Empire Strikes Back, at least in some part) that more often than not manages to hit the mark and not bog the movie down, especially when the movie has a great spectacle of effects and action to back itself up nicely at 136 minutes. Take it for what it is: Good ol' fun, with Gunn delivering a fun flick once again.
With reviews like these, I generally try to avoid making it about the experience I had around watching the movie in a theater on opening week, mainly because I fear that it may come off as irritating to you fellow readers. But I do admit that the Marvel films (after nine years and 15 films) are generally entertaining along with being well crafted, whether watched alone or with others by me (with the latter applying this time around). The first Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun enjoyable time that had its shares of amusement and thrills, which definitely hit the right spot for me (I'm just surprised it was released three years ago). In any case, this is a fairly enjoyable sequel, and while it doesn't quite rise to the level of the first film, it still works just enough without just being a rehash. The story decides to split the characters up until around the climax (while thankfully not hinting at them breaking up or anything), and I think it helps in letting the film breathe a bit with the characters it tries to feature along with the action. The main group of heroes are all pretty well in their roles; Baby Groot is a neat highlight. Pratt does a fine job, having good chemistry with Saldana and Russell. Cooper and Bautista also do fine jobs. Rooker (a fairly neat standout in the first film) gets a more significant kind of role this time around, and he does a good job with that advantage, being quite fun to watch. Russell is naturally entertaining, and he does a fine job at delivering the gravitas one would expect playing a living planet as a character. Klementieff is also pretty good at playing a slightly naive but easily likable character that has some neat scenes with Bautista. The rest of the cast (such as Gillian and Gunn) are also pretty fine at the roles they play. There is certainly a degree of emotional depth this time around (reminding me of The Empire Strikes Back, at least in some part) that more often than not manages to hit the mark and not bog the movie down, especially when the movie has a great spectacle of effects and action to back itself up nicely at 136 minutes. Take it for what it is: Good ol' fun, with Gunn delivering a fun flick once again.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
May 6, 2017
Not of This Earth.
Review #931: Not of This Earth.
Cast:
Paul Birch (Paul Johnson), Beverly Garland (Nadine Storey), Morgan Jones (Harry Sherbourne), William Roerick (Dr. F.W. Rochelle), Jonathan Haze (Jeremy Perrin), Dick Miller (Joe Piper), Anna Lee Carroll (Davanna Woman), and Pat Flynn (Simmons) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, and #852 - The Terror)
Review:
With an estimated budget of $100,000 and a run-time of 67 minutes (some prints have it as 71 due to repeating certain scenes), this is certainly a movie that fits in as a carefully crafted sci-fi flick. And who better than Roger Corman? It had been a while since I covered one of his numerous films, so this seemed to fit the bill. Birch is a neat villain, in that his insidious nature and voice go well together in making the scenes with him and Garland have their share of thrills. Garland also does a fine job, having a fair share of competence along with a fair sense of panic. I have to admit, a movie about an alien studying the effects of human blood on him and his dying race is an interesting premise, while wearing sunglasses most (but not all) of the time, even in the dark. Jones and Roerick are also pretty good in supporting roles; Haze stands out, mostly because he seems so capable at playing this assistant role with a good touch of charm. Miller is in the movie for one fun little scene as a vacuum cleaner salesman, with a little look toward the camera just before his untimely departure, which is amusing somehow. The effects on the alien (such as his eyes) is pretty good for the time, though the flying creature does remind me an umbrella or lamp (whichever seems funnier). It's not exactly a clear cut invasion movie, nor is it a movie about a sympathetic alien, but there is something about how he interacts with the humans (and vice versa) that works. This is a fairly competent kind of science fiction movie, having some quick thrills and some level of suspense that I'm sure would fit well for anyone. It's no masterpiece, but it is a fairly manageable experience and sometimes that is all one needs for a movie.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
May 4, 2017
The Humanoid.
Review #930: The Humanoid.
Cast:
Richard Kiel (Golob), Corinne Cléry (Barbara Gibson), Leonard Mann (Nick), Barbara Bach (Lady Agatha), Arthur Kennedy (Dr. Kraspin), Ivan Rassimov (Lord Graal), Marco Yeh (Tom Tom), and Massimo Serato (Great Brother) Directed by Aldo Lado.
Review:
What day is it? Why it's May 4th, otherwise known as Star Wars Day by fans due to the easy pun on the catchphrase "May the Force be with you". As such, I figured it best to honor the day with...a film that has "inspiration" taken from Star Wars, made in Italy (released there under title of L'umanoide) and released in 1979. The similarities are apparent from the opening titles, with an opening text crawl detailing events from the film (though this is set in the distant future on "Metropolis"). The villain of the movie wears a costume that looks like a low rent Darth Vader outfit (though his face is visible this time), while also commanding a spaceship in the shape of triangle. At least the plot-line is something different, involving turning people into super soldiers (called "Humanoids", naturally). There is a feasible budget this time around (reportedly around $7 million), so the sets have an admirable cheesy feel to them, doing this better than say, Starcrash (#755).
The mish-mash of ideas is quite entertaining if not strange, from the wonder kid filled with mysterious (if not random) powers (and his own mysterious protectors) to the robot dog (because of course) to the villainess who relies on youth serums (gee I wonder what her fate will be) to Kiel basically playing a mix of the Hulk and other monsters with a big heart. There's even a character called the Great Brother, with his brother being the villain (are you surprised?). The music by Ennio Morricone is weird and wonderful, with a bunch of synthesizer arrangements, disco grooves that certainly make for an interesting listening experience. Kiel is interesting in the sense that this is one time where he actually has more than a couple of lines, though after becoming the title character he doesn't speak much; he manages to a capable job nonetheless. Clery and Mann are somewhat capable. The big standout is Yeh, playing some sort of mystical kid hero who excels at playing the ridiculous nature the role carries (he rides on a ghost ship at the end). Rassimov plays the villain, though obviously he doesn't have much evil presence as Kennedy, who hams it up just a notch more along with Bach. He does get to fire laser beams though, so in a way we all win. The ending is pretty interesting, in that it ends with a ghost ship flying away to Tibet with the kid and his friends (?????), with an ending text and narration talking about it took intelligence, insight and strength to defeat a mortal enemy - because of course it ends with that. On the whole, this is an entertaining, if not exactly sane kind of movie.
Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.
May 3, 2017
Tormented.
Review #929: Tormented.
Cast:
Richard Carlson (Tom Stewart), Susan Gordon (Sandy Hubbard), Lugene Sanders (Meg Hubbard), Juli Reding (Vi Mason), Joe Turkel (Nick), Lillian Adams (Mrs. Ellis), and Gene Roth (Mr. Nelson) Directed by Bert I. Gordon.
Review:
When it comes to horror films, can you think of one with a ghost tormenting her old lover and his impending marriage? Where one moment involves the main character holding up a ghost and...its head? It seems the only one that can hear and see this ghost is the main character, who sees her in a photograph along with seeing her head in a wrap, even though it is actually just flowers. This is a ludricious kind of movie, filled with pallid characters and a thin plot that still manages to veer toward the absurd, particularly with the ending. With ridiculous cliches (and accompanying spooky music), this is a movie that falls into line with other run-of-the-mill horror flicks like The Screaming Skull (#654), with both films also having been lampooned by Mystery Science Theater 3000. There isn't much to the actors aside from Carlson, who manages to be pretty capable (all things considered) as the lead in a movie where he shows the most energy that reaches believability. Gordon doesn't really get much to do, and Sanders isn't too much better. Reding isn't much of a villain, and her presence doesn't make the movie any more chilling. The climax of the movie is swift (this is a 75 minute film, after all), if not as somber as one would probably expect in a movie like this, though it doesn't really leave that much impact. At the end of the day, this is a movie filled with empty pacing and even emptier people.
Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.
May 1, 2017
Bigger Than Life.
Review #928: Bigger Than Life.
Cast:
James Mason (Ed Avery), Barbara Rush (Lou Avery), Walter Matthau (Wally Gibbs), Robert F. Simon (Dr. Norton), Christopher Olsen (Richie Avery), Roland Winters (Dr. Ruric), and Rusty Lane (Bob LaPorte) Directed by Nicholas Ray (#181 - Rebel Without a Cause)
Review:
For the time this was made (in the middle of the 1950s), this certainly stood among movies that revolved around the life of a family, especially considering its subject matter (based off a 1955 story in The New Yorker named Ten Feet Tall by Berton Roueché). While it does serve as a cautionary tale about overuse of medications (with cortisone - discovered less than a decade prior to the release of this film), it also manages to weave a tale about conformity and family life. Granted, the highlight is undeniably Mason (who also produced the film), showing different kinds of emotions through the film that seems convincing; these range from being a caring family man to being in pain to being infused with megalomania, and he does it without going over the top (I do wonder if this could be cut into a horror film, especially the ending). Matthau does an understated job in a supporting role, playing the role neatly enough. Rush also does a good job in the movie as well, neither just being the other lead in a movie with a character as larger than life as Mason plays; she manages to show us her side of what she sees in the life of her household. It's strange how a scene involving a broken mirror can work so well in showing both Mason and Rush at their best, but it just helps with showing the fractured nature of the things to come. Olsen is the weak link of the three (but being a child actor, I'll cut some slack), but he does a well enough job in being as natural as one can be, and he also does a fine job in the climax. In a movie that flows well at 95 minutes, the climax is given fine buildup while also delivering in delivering drama along with suspense. This isn't a movie that relents nor allows any easy kind of cheap critiques, merely allowing this drama to play out. It has its moments of fine drama that will assuredly work for anyone looking for a film that doesn't hold judgement.
Happy May Day, folks.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.