Space Master X-7.

Review #1017: Space Master X-7.

Cast: 
Bill Williams (John Hand), Lyn Thomas (Laura Greeling), Robert Ellis (Pvt. Joe Rattigan), Paul Frees (Dr. Charles T. Pommer), Rhoda Williams (Stewardess Archer), Joan Barry (Jean Meyers), Carol Varga (Elaine Frohman), Thomas Browne Henry (Prof. West), and Thomas Wilde (Collins) Directed by Edward Bernds.

Review: 
How many science fiction films can one watch before they seem to run all-together? I guess that depends on the level of patience one has for the premise or the time that it was made in. After all, the film (originally known as Missile into Space) was released in June of 1958, four months after Explorer 1 launched. If you're wondering what the monster of the movie is, it turns out to be a fungus that when tinged with human blood, it turns into a pile of "space rust" that grows exponentially while also being spread through human contact. I will admit that this is an interesting premise, although the film is more about the woman that unknowingly is exposed to the fungus while trying to go from Los Angeles to Honolulu, with narration that accompanies her movements while trying to evade the authorities. In that case, it feels more like a detective drama than a sci-fi film, and it doesn't help that there is only one victim during the film. In fact, there is no real villain (like a mad scientist or anything) for the film, aside from the "space rust" of course, so it's a chase movie without too much thrill to it. That's not to say that this is a lifeless movie, but this is likely a movie you could watch right before going to bed late one night, which is a double-edged sword in it of itself. 

The film was made by Regal Films, though it was distributed by 20th Century Fox. The performances of the movie are pretty standard stuff, nothing too riveting or flamboyant, although I will say that Frees (known for his numerous roles involving voices) is one of the more noteworthy parts, serving to deliver the exposition of the fungus. The other noteworthy aspect is an appearance from Moe Howard (best known as one of the Three Stooges) in a rare non-comedic role, appearing as a cab driver (with accompanying hat). His son-in-law, Norman Maurer, ended up designing the special effects of the space fungus due to Howard's help in getting Maurer a position to work on the film, with the ensuing effects costing just $1,000. The effect isn't anything too spectacular, but it gets the job done for what the film wants (and it's admirable to have effects done for a price that wouldn't really be done for films nowadays). On the whole, this is a movie that comes and goes like something you watch to fill the time, not really worthy of any harsh criticism or much attention span. Of note is that the film was released as part of a double bill with The Fly (#710), so I guess if you ever encountered both of the films, you would get at least one good time.  Obviously I wouldn't recommend it, but I guess if you really want a fix of sci-fi and detective drama...then go ahead, I guess.

In any case, tomorrow is a new month. The final one of the year, so hopefully I find some fun things to watch and review for you folks.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Coco (2017).

Review #1016: Coco.

Cast: 
Anthony Gonzalez (Miguel Rivera), Gael García Bernal (Héctor), Benjamin Bratt (Ernesto de la Cruz), Alanna Ubach (Mamá Imelda Rivera), Renée Victor (Abuelita Elena Rivera), Ana Ofelia Murguía (Mamá Coco Rivera), Edward James Olmos (Chicharrón), Alfonso Arau (Papá Julio Rivera), Selene Luna (Tía Rosita Rivera), Dyana Ortellí (Tía Victoria Rivera), Herbert Siguenza (Tío Felipe Rivera and Tío Oscar Rivera), Jaime Camil (Papá Enrique Rivera), Sofía Espinosa (Mamá Luisa Rivera), and Luis Valdez (Tío Berto Rivera) Directed by Lee Unkrich (#074 - Monsters, Inc, #155 - Finding Nemo, #382 - Toy Story 3, and #441 - Toy Story 2) and Adrian Molina.

Review: 
You are likely wondering if there was anything before or after the film. In this case, Olaf's Frozen Adventure, a 21-minute "short" played before the main feature. Long story short, it is a finely animated piece, but I don't see the point of playing this before Coco. Sure, it is a Disney production for a film released by Walt Disney Pictures, but this is something you would see as a television special, not on a big screen. Long story short, it doesn't detract from Coco, but it isn't really anything you absolutely need to see, unless of course you're a huge fan of Frozen. Hopefully you enjoy the following review.

I will admit that I had a fair amount of expectations from this film, likely because Pixar does have a fair (but not perfect) record with their movies, but also because it seemed particularly interesting. Admittedly, there are likely some comparisons that could be made to The Book of Life (2014), but there isn't much point in doing so in my view seeing as I hadn't seen the other film before this (one can likely search the web all they want for the comparisons they desire). In any case, Coco is a wonderful movie, achieving a great look with tremendous animation and a riveting story and cast of characters that surely makes for great entertainment for all audiences. Gonzalez does a fine job as the lead, never approaching the lines of annoyance or unlikeability, while also making his character fairly interesting to follow for the film, and he also does a fairly decent jobs for times when he sings as well. Bernal does a pretty commendable job, having some fine moments of amusements, but he also proves to be an interesting character to follow as well, with him and Gonzalez having pretty good chemistry together. Bratt is enjoyable to watch as well, having a fine amount of charisma that certainly seems believable. The rest of the cast is also fairly pretty good at their roles, each having at least one good moment throughout the film, most of the time having a pretty good effect. The animation is wonderful to watch, having a dazzling colorful effect at times that shows a good deal of creativity and imagination while not distracting one from the story itself. The movie has a fairly cohesive narrative that sticks well enough while also making sure to cover its bases splendidly. Although it has its amusing moments, the movie does manage to create some emotion without feeling fabricated nor overly sentimental. At 110 minutes, it feels like the right kind of run-time for a film like this, although some could find it to be a bit dragged in the beginning, but I'd say that the film is never boring on any level, whether on the eyes or for what the film wants to be about, saying some fairly interesting things about culture and family along with other things that should be watched and not spoiled in a review. This is an easy film for me to recommend because of the elements that make this a clear winner, from its animation to its heart.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Bardelys the Magnificent.

Review #1015: Bardelys the Magnificent.

Cast: 
John Gilbert (Bardelys), Eleanor Boardman (Roxalanne de Lavedan), Roy D'Arcy (Châtellerault), Lionel Belmore (Vicomte de Lavedan), Emily Fitzroy (Vicomtesse de Lavedan), George K. Arthur (Sainte-Eustache), Arthur Lubin (King Louis XIII), Theodore von Eltz (Lesperon), and Karl Dane (Rodenard) Directed by King Vidor (#987 - Show People)

Review: 
Based on the same novel of the same name by Rafael Sabatini, this is a light-hearted romantic movie that manages to be fairly riveting entertainment. It isn't a great grand classic kind of silent film, but it is at the very least fairly memorable, with some of that credit going to main actor John Gilbert. He comes off as fairly charming along with appealing to watch on screen, having an appeal that keeps the movie on its heels because of how he is, particularly with the climax. Boardman is fairly decent and appealing to watch, with the sequence between the two on a boat ride being particularly noteworthy. D'Arcy is an effective villain, having the smarmy and tricky expressions needed for the role, being a capable villain in his own right. The rest of the cast is also fairly acceptable. For those wanting to know more about the sequence, Vidor stated in his autobiography that the camera was mounted in the bow of the rowboat, with gliding along a corridor of willow branches that passed over the camera lens across the two actors. The inter-titles by Dorothy Farnum are also pretty effective, having some wit along with fitting the movie pretty well.

If you like silent films, this one is a fairly acceptable one to watch, with this one only recently becoming more known. After the movie had been made, the rights to the novel belonged to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) for ten years. After the rights had expired, they destroyed the negative along with any known prints of the film, and it was believed to have been lost, with only the trailer and a brief part that had been shown in Show People (1928) surviving. In 2006, a print of the movie was found in France, with all but one reel surviving. A restoration was done using stills from the production and footage from the trailer as stand-ins for the missing parts, with a release onto the markets following two years later. Ultimately, this is a movie with a fine amount of production value along with a fine pace (with a run-time of 90 minutes) that surely makes it a useful watch for audiences looking for something usefully interesting.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Dirty Dozen.

Review #1014: The Dirty Dozen.

Cast: 
Lee Marvin (Maj. John Reisman), Ernest Borgnine (Maj. Gen. Sam Worden), Charles Bronson (Joseph Wladislaw), Jim Brown (Robert T. Jefferson), John Cassavetes (Victor R. Franko), Richard Jaeckel (Sgt. Clyde Bowren), George Kennedy (Maj. Max Armbruster), Trini Lopez (Pedro Jiminez), Ralph Meeker (Capt. Stuart Kinder), Robert Ryan (Col. Everett Dasher Breed), Telly Savalas (Archer J. Maggott), Donald Sutherland (Vernon L. Pinkley), Clint Walker (Samson Posey), Robert Webber (Brig. Gen. James Denton), Tom Busby (Milo Vladek), Ben Carruthers (S. Glenn Gilpin), Stuart Cooper (Roscoe Lever), Robert Phillips (Cpl. Morgan), Colin Maitland (Seth K. Sawyer), and Al Mancini (Tassos R. Bravos) Directed by Robert Aldrich (#105 - What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and #778 - The Longest Yard)

Review: 
Admittedly, war films are not exactly my preference when it comes to what I try to watch for films, but from time to time there can be ones that pique my interest, and this is certainly one that garnered a look. The movie is based on the novel of the same name by E. M. Nathanson, which was inspired by a real-life group called the "Filthy Thirteen". The film has a big cast (as the title suggests) along with a considerable length of 150 minutes, not so much due to the action but the training of the group, although the last parts of the film contains plenty of action. It is evident to say that of the twelve members, six stand out the clearest: Bronson, Brown, Cassavetes, Savalas, Sutherland, and Walker. They have distinct characteristics that they apply well to their roles that just clicks. Marvin is fairly entertaining, having a great sense of gravitas, which could also apply to Borgnine. My favorites of the group are Brown and Sutherland, the former due to him being easily watchable and the latter due to his charm. The film has its share of amusing moments along with its scenes of fellowship with these hard-edged (but watchable) people. I especially like the sequence with Marvin and Sutherland in which the latter has to help fool a general. The war game part is also fairly commendable in its execution as well. Admittedly, the cast is perhaps a bit old to be playing soldiers (the youngest of the group is Cooper and Maitland, both born in 1942 for a film released in 1967), but it isn't too much of a detraction. It's not a movie that relies heavily on a big spectacle action scene, in part because the film isn't meant to be like that. The last sequence (with the château) is a fairly thrilling sequence, but it is one that you can also dwell on due to the characters that we have watched prior to that point. It's a gritty movie that has its shares of bleakness, but it is a well-paced and well thought-out film. Whether the film achieves its goals or not, it is at the very least a fine piece of entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?

Review #1013: The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?

Cast: 
Ray Dennis Steckler (Jerry), Carolyn Brandt (Marge Neilson), Brett O'Hara (Madame Estrella), Atlas King (Harold), Sharon Walsh (Angela), Pat Kirkwood (Madison), Erina Enyo (Carmelita), Toni Camel (Stella), Joan Howard (Angela's Mother), Neil Stillman (Barker), William Turner (Himself), Gene Pollock (Night Club Manager), and James Bowie (Night Club Comedian) Directed by Ray Dennis Steckler.

Review: 
The film was billed as the first "monster musical", and included in the film is numerous song-and-dance production numbers (such as "Choo Choo Ch'Boogie" and "Shook out of Shape"). The intended title was The Incredibly Strange Creatures, or Why I Stopped Living and Became a Mixed-up Zombie, but it was changed after a threat of a lawsuit over its similarity to the name of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, which was in production at the time (with this film being released less than half of a month after the other film's release by Columbia Pictures). In any case, the title is usually shortened to The Incredibly Strange Creatures (without the exclamation points or question mark), though I utilize the full title for this review because of the sheer absurdity of doing this film to begin with. The film, shot for $38,000, was filmed in a long-empty Mason temple in Glendale, California that was owned by Rock Hudson. It has a series of "sound stages" that were stacked floor after floor, with some of them being large enough to have the midway scenes be filmed indoors. The carnival sequences were shot at The Pike, an amusement park on the beach in Long Beach, California that ran from 1930 to 1968 (with The Cyclone Racer being featured in the film). For those who are wondering, the zombies in the film are actually people hypnotized, represented by a spinning black wheel with a white spiral on it, which is actually pretty amusing to look at.

For a movie with numerous production quirks, the performances of the people in them could be called ridiculous (along with amateur), though that is not much of a surprise. Steckler (credited as "Cash Flagg", which I did not make up) is the main star, and the best thing that I can say is that he does marginally better than the director/star in a terrible movie, Hal Warren from Manos: The Hands of Fate (#350). Watching these characters interact with each other reminds me of sandpaper, with the carnival sequences, although slightly more alluring, is only slightly better, and I use that word with the statement that nothing in this film is "good". However, one can say it has some sort of appeal even in its terribleness, because if people didn't watch movies as dreadful as this, how can one see where film goes from something awful to something laughable? I can't say it's a stupid movie, mainly because I believe that there was some sort of intelligence or common sense when making this film, with the result turning out to be horrendous. The effects reflect the budget, for better or for worse. What kind of rating is "suitable" for the movie? Is it a film that is so awful that it's on the same level as Monster A-Go-Go (#756)? Or is it on the level of Zaat (#823)? Or is it on the level of Billy the Kid vs Dracula (#463)? Would I even recommend it? My response is that if you want some trash, then go ahead.

Happy Thanksgiving, folks.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

The Invisible Boy.

Review #1012: The Invisible Boy.

Cast: 
Richard Eyer (Timmie Merrinoe), Philip Abbott (Dr. Tom Merrinoe), Diane Brewster (Mary Merrinoe), Harold J. Stone (Gen. Swayne), Robert H. Harris (Prof. Frank Allerton), Dennis McCarthy (Col. Macklin), Alexander Lockwood (Arthur Kelvaney), John O'Malley (Prof. Baine), Robby the Robot (Robby), Gage Clarke (Dr. Bannerman) Directed by Herman Hoffman.

Review: 
Based on the short story by Edmund Cooper, The Invisible Boy is certainly an interesting science fiction film that has both wit and charm at times, being a strange little adventure that certainly wins over on its charm. It was the second appearance of Robby the Robot, who had previously appeared in Forbidden Planet (#199), with his character having been brought back from the future during a time travel experiment (not joking). Yes, the film has its tongue-in-cheek moments, but it is also a film that has scenes involving a supercomputer that goes berserk with power (which for the era was a pretty new thing) and then of course there is parts with the invisible boy. Eyer does an okay performance, though it may come off as a bit bratty, and he certainly isn't as interesting as Robby, although who can really say they are more interesting to watch on screen than him? In a film as oddly plotted and as oddly thought out, the Robot is one of the best parts of the film in part because of how interesting it is to watch the Robot move around, especially with that voice, which was delivered by Marvin Miller, although he was not given credit for the role. The parents (Abbott and Brewster) are decent, and they seem to be having a decent time. The rest of the supporting cast is nothing too special, but at least they serve their purposes well, whether it be for the plot or for some amusement. Made for a budget of $384,000, it certainly is a movie that has some cheap-looking moments, but the invisible effects are at least somewhat passable; aside from that, the biggest spectacle is the robot and the supercomputer, with the latter being somewhat amusing. While the film isn't anything too special, it has a strange charm to it because of amusingly entertaining it can get to with the narrative. At best, it is neat entertainment and even at its worst it serves as mostly harmless fare. Take it for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Justice League.

Review #1011: Justice League.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Kal-El / Clark Kent / Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / Flash), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), J. K. Simmons (James Gordon), and Ciarán Hinds (Steppenwolf) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice)

Review: 
To fellow readers: I did not intend for this review to be over 700 words, but here we are. Hopefully this review is consistent enough and useful for you.

Admittedly, the DC comic book films over the past few years have a been a bit...diverse (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, #828 - Suicide Squad, #942 - Wonder Woman), with their own particular brand of taste and style (and that is putting it lightly). This remains the case with this film, which is certainly a strange movie for one that is also wildly mediocre. Sure, I enjoyed the movie, but it is easily one that won't go down as anything great (in fairness, it's not like Thor: Ragnarok will go down as a hallmark of comic book films). It's clear that this movie wants to be lighter and fun, with varying results that come off as slightly inconsistent, particularly with characters like Batman, though that is not the biggest flaw. In any case, let me start with the main six, which is certainly an interesting bunch.

Affleck pulls off a pretty decent performance, being somewhat endearing even if seems like the character shifts tone from stoic to snarky, though it isn't too awfully distracting. Gadot is the best one of the group, being quite enjoyable and graceful as she was in her prior film. Miller is fairly entertaining in the film and is likely the most amusing part of the film. Momoa is fairly decent, though I'd say it takes time for him to really grow on you. Fisher is probably the weakest of the six, feeling a bit flat (though his character is at least useful to the plot). Cavill (with accompanying CGI-erased mustache) is decent enough for the time that he appears, but he doesn't really appear as much as he probably should've appeared. The supporting cast aren't really given much to do, and that can prove to be a bit disappointing (even in a movie all about the main six). It's not so much that Hinds does a terrible job as the villain as it is the fact that his character just isn't compelling to watch. with this being the worst part of the film. He is not a character that ever inspires fear or anything other than a mild expression, with his scenes with dialogue or fighting reminding me more of cut-scenes than actual scenes. Naturally, he is a villain that doesn't take too long to take down, with the victory feeling somewhat hollow that actually feels amusing to laugh at. The action sequences prove to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, they are sometimes pretty entertaining in their spectacle. On the other hand, the CGI just doesn't hold up that well, and for a movie that was reportedly made for over $300 million it certainly seems puzzling to see how it doesn't really work in the department. The film is at least sometimes amusing, and the cast does seem to have some good chemistry with each other, although at times it can come off a bit rushed, which can also apply in some way to the plot, which isn't too special, especially when it seems to go all over the place with its characters.

The film certainly feels a bit jumbled, no doubt due to post-production efforts in which Josh Whedon  (director of #312 - The Avengers and #706 - Avengers: Age of Ultron) was hired to rewrite additional scenes. In May of this year, Snyder stepped down during this process due to the death of his daughter, with Whedon taking over for rest of post-production, serving as director for scenes that he had written. In any case, Snyder is listed as the only director, though Whedon is given a credit for the screenplay (along with Chris Terrio, who had also co-written the story with Synder). The film certainly feels like a jumbling of numerous things, trying to give time for the three characters without their own film (Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg). Subsequently, the film feels rushed when trying to deliver exposition for them.

Ultimately, this is a movie that achieves its most basic goals of being escapism and entertainment. It is ridiculous in how okay it is, but I found it to be fairly acceptable, warts and all. It isn't anything worthwhile, but it's a movie that will prove just enough for some audiences. Take this film for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Moon.

Review #1010: Moon.

Cast: 
Sam Rockwell (Sam Bell), Kevin Spacey (GERTY), Dominique McElligott (Tess Bell), Kaya Scodelario (Eve Bell), Benedict Wong (Thompson), Matt Berry (Overmeyers), and Malcolm Stewart (The Technician) Directed by Duncan Jones.

Review: 
In terms of science fiction, the genre is certainly interesting for how diverse and how thought provoking it can be with its use of imaginative and futuristic concepts. It's clear that Moon wants to be like some of the classic sci-fi films, such as Silent Running (#091) or 2001: A Space Odyssey (#093), with its own touch of humanity and intelligence. Made on a budget of $5 million, this is an efficient movie that showcases its ideas and never looks off for the most part. Rockwell is the only actor physically on-screen, and he certainly takes good advantage of that, having a fairly outstanding time with this role. If you don't find him to be all that effective to root for or care about, you likely won't have much of a good time with the film, and I will admit that it took me a while to get into the film fully, but it earns its moments with Rockwell fairly well. Spacey does a fine job with this sentient computer role, being slightly creepy but also effective.

I can't really delve into the plot details too much, because doing so would spoil the mystery and fun of seeing it for oneself, but I will say that it is interesting to watch unfold on screen, having a fine pace that certainly rolls itself coherently for my taste. I will admit that the scenes with the hallucinations are a bit odd, mainly because I feel that they don't really go that well with the rest of the plot, feeling a bit out-of-place with what the film wants to be. At 97 minutes, it is fairly paced, with some suspense that does take its time but ultimately feels worthy. The miniature model work is pretty good, having a look and feel that works while having a nice-looking quality to it that fits well with the movie. On the whole, this is a very well made movie, utilizing its human elements and fine movie-making by Jones in his directorial debut that works more often than not in being good science fiction that simply lets you wonder.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Ragnarok.

Review #1009: Thor: Ragnarok.

Cast: 
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Cate Blanchett (Hela), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Karl Urban (Skurge), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Taika Waititi (Korg), Rachel House (Topaz), Clancy Brown (Surtur) Directed by Taika Waititi.

Review: 
It is interesting to see how one will be able to compare this film to the previous two installments, Thor (#041) and Thor: The Dark World (#827), along with how it compares to the other two Marvel films released this year, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (#932) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (#966). In a way, this is a film that wins and loses with regard to comparison. On the one hand, it is likely the lesser of the three Marvel films for this year, but on the other hand, it is likely the best Thor film yet. Hemsworth had already shined in the previous two films (along with appearances that he made in other Marvel films), but he does a tremendous job this time around, having a fun flair that is energetic along with entertaining. Hiddleston also does a pretty good job once again, having a mischievous but also fairly compelling, and his scenes with Hemsworth are entertaining. Blanchett does a fair job as the villain, having a few moments where she seems menacing, though I wouldn't say it is really too memorable or great. Goldblum, on the other hand, is pretty maniacal but also pretty entertaining for such a strange role, and he takes full advantage of it that works pretty well. Elba and Thompson are fine, with Hopkins and Cumberbatch doing well in the time that they appear on screen and Ruffalo being decent as well. The end credit scenes are fairly nifty as usual.

The film certainly tries to play itself for more of a comedic angle this time around, and on some level it works but it also can seem a bit overplayed and distracting, depending on the kind of mood or tone you're looking for. It feels more earned for something like the Guardians of the Galaxy films than it does for this film, but I will say that this film at least does shine with some amusement, with Hemsworth and Ruffalo's scenes being pretty good examples of that. At 130 minutes, it seems to have a fairly coherent pace, and while the film may not work for everyone, it certainly had enough to win me over with the fun that it has.

And with that, this ends the 117th review of Movie Night for the year of 2017. It isn't exactly an accomplishment, but this review means that there are more reviews published than there were last year in total (116). In any case, it's good to see some sort of productivity from myself (heck, there were only 90 reviews in 2015), so here's to productivity and more reviews in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Racket (1951).

Review #1008: The Racket.

Cast: 
Robert Mitchum (Captain Thomas McQuigg), Lizabeth Scott (Irene Hayes), Robert Ryan (Nick Scanlon), William Talman (Officer Bob Johnson), Ray Collins (District Attorney Mortimer X. Welch), Joyce MacKenzie (Mary McQuigg), Robert Hutton (Dave Ames), Virginia Huston (Lucy Johnson), and William Conrad (Detective Sergeant Turk) Directed by John Cromwell.

Review: 
When I reviewed the original 1928 version of The Racket (#901), I described it as an efficient film that ran at a fine pace that pushed the right buttons and served its purpose as a crime drama that had originally served as a stage play the previous year. In any case, it is interesting reviewing the remake that was made just two decades later, with the man who had starred as McQuigg in the original Broadway production serving as director. In any case, this is a movie that isn't much of an improvement on the original, though it is also a movie that is at best moderately satisfying to the standard of film noir crime drama that you might expect. The best thing about the movie is the scenes involving Mitchum and Ryan, such as their first scene together, when the latter ends up having to deal with his brother's involvement with a singer and an ensuing conversation about his care for him - along with dialogue about how the other will try to pull one over the other. There isn't much going for the film that you could already see in other gangster films (or even the original version), and the characters themselves aren't really all too interesting. Sure, Mitchum and Ryan pull off fine performances, and the rest of the cast are fairly decent, but they can't really elevate these characters to anything too special or compelling, although Conrad is certainly interesting to watch even when in the background. It seems to hint at something more with the corruption element, but it never really comes off as anything too revealing nor does it seem like it wants to say something more relevant than what you might expect. Oddly, though Cromwell is the only credited director, four other directors directed supplemental scenes in the film due to re-shoots ordered by Howard Hughes (owner of the studio that released the film, RKO Radio Pictures): Nicholas Ray (director of Rebel Without a Cause (#181) and Bigger Than Life (#928), Tay Garnett (director of films such as the 1946 version of The Postman Always Rings Twice), Sherman Todd (who also served as editor of the film) and Mel Ferrer (actor/director). Notable scenes that Ray directed include the beginning scene with the the Crime Commission, a police locker sequence, and other bits and pieces.

At 88 minutes, it's not exactly a slog of a film to go through, and it is a movie that is on a basic level entertaining, but it's really hard to recommend this film over other films (The Big Combo (#934), He Walked by Night (#947), or the 1928 original). On a grading scale, this would fall along a C level, but I can't blame someone for finding it useful to watch at least once. It's a mess, but it is a fine mess that shines in all sorts of directions for everyone, for better or for worse, being a pretty good example of a toss-up.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Attack of the Crab Monsters.

Review #1007: Attack of the Crab Monsters.

Cast: 
Richard Garland (Dale Drewer), Pamela Duncan (Martha Hunter), Russell Johnson (Hank Chapman), Leslie Bradley (Dr. Karl Weigand), Mel Welles (Jules Deveroux), Richard H. Cutting (Dr. James Carson), Beach Dickerson (Seaman Ron Fellows), Tony Miller (Seaman Jack Sommers), and David Arvedon (voice of Hoolar the Giant Crab) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, and #931 - Not of This Earth)

Review: 
Giant radiation-mutated (and telepathic) crab monsters. What's there to say with a premise like that? Quite a bit, actually, although not much of it would be about the scientific accuracy of such a thing, because that spoils the fun in a movie that strives for entertainment and succeeds for the most part. This is a sci-fi horror film (released by Allied Artists) that also has injections of humor during the film, but the real star of the show is never too far behind, with action and suspense occurring at a fairly decent rate. The crabs themselves are pretty...ugly, but what does one expect other than what you get? They don't look too shabby, at least. The acting as a whole is fairly acceptable, nothing that would garner any sort of awards but also not something that would garner too much derision. It has the kind of characters you would expect, albeit with a voice of the giant crab that randomly pops up from time to time that is sometimes chilling but also sometimes ridiculous (if one thought about it too much anyway). This was made for around $70,000, with the film proving itself to be a big success that reportedly made around a million dollars, and it's not really hard to see why. It has an interesting title that it mostly lives up to while also being something you'd watch in a drive-in with company (or alternatively on the Internet on a lark). Unsurprisingly, the film has a run-time of 62 minutes, so that can make this seem like a fair breeze. It was released as part of a double bill with Not of This Earth, and while I will say they both fall under the same kind of quality, the former may be just a bit better, though they both could easily be fine films to watch for anyone looking for some good ol' ridiculous fun.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Fantastic Planet.

Review #1006: Fantastic Planet.

Cast: 
Jean Valmont (Terr), Eric Baugin (young Terr), Jennifer Drake (Tiwa), Jean Topart (Master Sinh), and Gérard Hernandez (Master Taj) Directed by René Laloux.

Review: 
Sorry for the wait for the past few reviews. It has been a while since I touched upon a film that falls under the world cinema label, particularly since this is the first review of a film from the Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993), with this being a co-production with France, which I haven't covered since the Three Colors trilogy (#601, #602, #603) back in 2014. In any case, enjoy the review.

The film (known in France as La Planète sauvage and Divoká planeta in Czech) is certainly an interesting piece of cinema, seeing as it was a co-production between companies from France and Czechoslovakia that was in production for roughly six years, with it being based off the novel Oms en série by Stefan Wul. It was the winner of the Grand Prix special jury prize at the 1973 Cannes Film Festival. In terms of animation and science fiction, this is certainly a film that stands out among others in its genre, being a unique and strange experience that certainly has more to say than it may first let on. It won't exactly fall as one of my favorite films in either genre, but it will definitely fall as one of those films that certainly deserve a curious look. It's a surreal piece of work, but it is a curious fantastical piece that certainly sticks out with its animation, which was hand-drawn while having stop motion cutouts that gives the movie an alien feel, with a rigid but focused sense of space and medium that contrasts with something that you might see in a Disney film. There is just something alive about how this alien world comes off that just makes the film shine, whether one is watching the film intently or not. There isn't much to the voice acting, though Valmont is certainly acceptable as the narrator, with the other voices fitting the alien nature fine enough. There isn't too much to the character themselves, but the story that it tells (and however one interprets it) make it worthwhile to sit through. At 71 minutes, the film isn't too hard of a sit-through, though it will certainly play better for others depending on what they are looking for in an animated film or in science fiction. It isn't exactly anything too great for me, but I can definitely find why someone else would really enjoy the film's vision, or in contrast find the film to be muddled in itself. I myself found it to be pretty good, mainly because of it having a fairly good grasp of what it aims for and having the visuals to back it up, for the most part.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Annie Hall.

Review #1005: Annie Hall.

Cast: 
Woody Allen (Alvy "Max" Singer), Diane Keaton (Annie Hall), Tony Roberts (Rob), Carol Kane (Allison Portchnik), Paul Simon (Tony Lacey), Janet Margolin (Robin), Shelley Duvall (Pam), Christopher Walken (Duane Hall), Colleen Dewhurst (Mrs. Hall), and Donald Symington (Mr. Hall) Directed by Woody Allen.

Review: 
Let's get this out of the way, the film was the winner of four Academy Awards: Best Picture, Director (Woody Allen), Actress (Keaton) and Original Screenplay (Allen and Marshall Brickman) Whether one finds the film to be deserving of its accolades or not, it's evident to see the amount of love the film received (and still receives) from audiences. For me, the turnout was almost exactly what I thought it would be: it was a good movie, but I didn't exactly find it to be anything too greatly special. I can at least appreciate it during its amusing moments. I will state that it does have some interesting techniques (such as split-screen), and it definitely is a film worth watching at least once, whether one is a fan of Allen or not (I fall into the category of "un-experienced"). The highlight of the movie turns out to be Keaton and her performance, mainly because of how charming and effective she proves herself to be, like when she sings, and she has interesting chemistry with Allen at times, which can be amusing.

It's a bit hard for me to say my thoughts on Allen's performance in the film, seeing how he also wrote and directed the film as well. On the one hand, the film is capably directed and fairly constructed. On the other hand, his character (full of neurosis and eccentric quirks) can prove grating at times, particularly if you don't have patience. I just couldn't get into (or care) about this character and his characteristics, but at least I can say that the basic story about love and memory is interesting enough that he doesn't completely make this insufferable. Others may find him or the film easier to relate to, but I can't really embrace what the film goes for, like how a Texan can't simply just be a fan of things from New York (or vice versa). This is likely a film that would work best on a second (or third) watch, but I can't really bring myself to do that as much as I probably would do for other films. That's not to say that it is unwatchable, it's just not something I think I'll find myself wanting to look over again and again (though if you do find yourself doing that, I don't blame you). Roberts is fairly interesting, and the rest of the cast (including one scene appearances from Duvall and Walken) serve their purpose well, with one notable cameo from Marshall McLuhan being somewhat amusing. By the time the film ends, there is some sort of satisfaction in having seen how the film plays itself out through its 93 minute run-time and how it works pretty well as a romantic comedy that isn't too boring or too sappy. Simply put, this is a film that I expected to be just fine, and I got what I wanted, for the most part. Take the film for what it is, and you'll probably get something out of it.

If you didn't already know, my Houston Astros won the World Series a few days ago. As a native Texan, it is a joy to say those words at long last. This was a great (if not stressful) World Series that had two great teams that pushed the boundaries of sanity in terms of fun. In the end, it was all worth it, and I finally get to see the World Series title come to Texas.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.