War of the Satellites.

Review #1042: War of the Satellites.

Cast: 
Dick Miller (Dave Boyer), Susan Cabot (Sybil Carrington), Richard Devon (Dr. Pol Van Ponder), Eric Sinclair (Dr. Howard Lazar), Michael Fox (Jason ibn Akad), Robert Shayne (Cole Hotchkiss), and Jered Barclay (John Compo) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, and #1039 - Five Guns West)

Review: 
Today happens to be the 60th Anniversary of the launch of Explorer 1, the first satellite launched by the United States. As such, I figured that it would make sense to a science fiction film involving space from that year, and thus this came up for viewing. Enjoy!

It is interesting to see how many space films one can encounter that attempted to benefit from the Space Age, with this one being an independent film (distributed by Allied Artist) from Roger Corman (who also has a small part in the film as a Ground Control member), who certainly makes films worth talking about, for better or worse. This was released on May 18, 1958, four months after the launch of Explorer 1 and seven months after the launch of Sputnik 1. This time around, the plot revolves around a mysterious group of aliens trying to stop humans from exploring space through exploding their satellites by some sort of space barrier. The title of the film is a bit strange considering that the film doesn't have any sort of war between satellites, but I digress. As a science fiction film, it isn't anything too special for the genre, but it isn't anything too patronizing nor anything too ridiculous, with a villain that has a few interesting moments. The characters aren't anything too developed, although the actors at least make them see fairly passable and useful to watch. Miller and Cabot make for a decent pairing, but a good part of the film utilizes Devon to a satisfactory effect. There isn't too much with the special effects, but they are fairly passable when on screen, such as the effect that is utilized for the healing of a hand wound that seems fairly clever. The sets (such as the ship's interior) are also fairly serviceable, making for something that doesn't come off as anything too cheap. The film doesn't go for anything too ridiculous or too schlocky, having a concentrated feel that is somewhat intriguing. It may have some of the cliches you might see in other sci-fi movies, but it at least makes an effort to gel those together to make something worth watching at least once. At 66 minutes, this is a fairly quick movie that will certainly satisfy anyone with tastes for some science fiction or something with a bit of entertainment to it, which this one does fairly well. If you're a fan of Roger Corman movies, or a fan of sci-fi in any kind of form (low budget or not), this one will fit fairly well for your standards.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Woman of Paris.

Review #1041: A Woman of Paris.

Cast: 
Edna Purviance (Marie St. Clair), Clarence Geldart (Marie's Father), Carl Miller (Jean Millet), Lydia Knott (Jean's Mother), Charles K. French (Jean's Father), Adolphe Menjou (Pierre Revel), Betty Morrissey (Fifi), and Malvina Polo (Paulette) Directed by Charlie Chaplin (#353 - Monsieur Verdoux, #599 - The Kid, #600 - City Lights, #759 - The Gold Rush, #775 - Shoulder Arms, #820 - Modern Times, #923 - The Pilgrim, and #1025 - The Circus)

Review: 
The film (sometimes referred to as A Woman of Paris: A Drama of Fate) begins with a preamble: "To The Public -- In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I wish to announce that I do not appear in this picture. It is the first serious drama written and directed by myself. Charles Chaplin." This was the first film that Chaplin distributed through United Artists, which he had founded with D. W. Griffith, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks in 1919; the film was released seven months after the release of The Pilgrim (#923) through First National Pictures. The film was meant to help boost Purviance's career, although this did not happen. This was her last starring role prior to her retirement from acting in 1927. At the time, Chaplin was well known for his comedic works, and despite Chaplin's statements over how one should enjoy this film as a drama, it didn't prove too appealing for audience and thus it was not a success. The film was re-issued in 1976 by Chaplin with a new musical score along with having a shorter run-time due to cuts, which shortened the run-time from 82 minutes to 78.

With all of that history that I mentioned, how is the film? I think that the movie is fairly well-made, much like other Chaplin-directed films that preceded and followed this film, being constructed fine enough within its drama. I wouldn't consider it any too great, but I'd say that it would likely fit as a hidden gem. The film doesn't fall prey to too many cliches with regard to its characters, having a bit of originality along with some clever touches. Purviance does a fine job with what she's given, having a bit of alluring nature to her while not falling prey to being too obvious with her movements. Miller does an okay job, giving a performance that isn't anything too special, but it isn't anything that ruins the mood. Menjou is the one who stands out the best, having an air of sophistication that works to his advantage in making an entertaining performance. The other cast members do fine jobs for what they are meant to do, with the parents being interesting contrasts to their offspring. It's a bit of a morality play, but at least it isn't any too overblown or too out of the bend, for lack of a better phrase. It may take a bit of time for the film to really get itself going, but it manages to have some sort of impact by the time it gets to its climax.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Scarlet Claw.

Review #1040: The Scarlet Claw.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Gerald Hamer (Alistair Ramson), Paul Cavanagh (Lord William Penrose), Arthur Hohl (Emile Journet), Kay Harding (Marie Journet), Miles Mander (Judge Brisson), David Clyde (Sgt. Thompson), Ian Wolfe (Drake), and Victoria Horne (Nora) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, #1021 - The Spider Woman, and #1040 - The Scarlet Claw)

Review: 
The Scarlet Claw was the eighth film in the Sherlock Holmes series (and sixth released by Universal) that featured Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Although the film is not an adaptation of any of the stories by Arthur Conan Doyle, the film has some similarities with The Hound of the Baskervilles, which had already been adapted into a film (#583) with Rathbone and Bruce five years prior. Qualities that the two share involve a terror that is painted with phosphorescent but also a terror of the supernatural that inspires fear, an escaped convict on the loose, and drawing the killer out through making the villain believe that Holmes has left. In any case, the earlier film (and novel) are both better than this film, although this movie is actually fairly entertaining in its own right. It is usually cited by some critics as the best of the twelve Sherlock Holmes films released by Universal, and I can't really doubt that assessment. John P. Fulton provides the "special photography" for the movie, and the effect used to show the glowing figure that menaces in the mist for the first half of the film is fairly clever. The sets (meant to evoke a Canadian village) for the film do a fine job in making for a somewhat moody feel that feels a bit different from other prior films to the film's advantage. It's hard not to like Rathbone and Bruce in their roles as they just blend in fairly seamlessly. Hamer proves to be a decent villain for the film, and Cavanagh and Hohl also provide fair performances. The plot seems to be constructed well, managing to not have anything too out of the bend. At 74 minutes, this is an easy one to recommend for people, particularly for people wanting more adventures with Sherlock Holmes. It isn't anything too groundbreaking or great, but it will prove satisfactory for viewers on the whole.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Five Guns West.

Review #1039: Five Guns West.

Cast: 
John Lund (Govern Sturges), Dorothy Malone (Shalee Jethro), Mike Connors (Hale Clinton), Robert Wright Campbell (John Candy), Jonathan Haze (Billy Candy), Paul Birch (J.C. Haggard), James Stone (Uncle Mike), and Jack Ingram (Stephan Jethro) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, and #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters)

Review: 
Admittedly, Five Guns West does not stand out too particularly well from other Roger Corman productions, but it does have the distinction of being Roger Corman's first film as director. Prior to this film, he had been involved in the production of three other films: Highway Dragnet (1954), which he contributed the story to, Monster from the Ocean Floor (1954), which he served as producer, and The Fast and the Furious (1955), which he provided the story and served as producer. Corman served as producer and director for this film, with Robert Wright Campbell providing the story and also starring in the movie, which was filmed in nine days for a sum of $60,000. The plot shares some similarities with The Dirty Dozen (#1014), involving outlaws being pardoned in order to perform a dangerous mission set near the end of the American Civil War. There isn't anything too terrible in this Western, although it definitely doesn't stand out much. This is a B-movie through and through, although it is fairly well-made and fairly competent, despite not having much in terms of big entertainment. It feels a bit talkative at times with its dialogue, but at least the words that are used aren't too wooden. Lund and Malone prove to be fairly useful leads, having a bit of chemistry with each other, although it isn't anything too special. The rest of the main group (Connors, Campbell, Haze and Birch) are not too bad, with their own little conflicts that aren't too shabby, although I can't say they really are much in terms of villainy, but I digress. The action is fairly decent stuff, having some gun action that works alright for the intent of the film. The look of the movie isn't too bad, either. At 78 minutes, the movie doesn't feel too long, so in that way it helps the movie feel a bit worthy for watch. There isn't anything that is great about the movie, but there also isn't anything that is terrible about the movie either. It falls in the middle in terms of quality, for better or for worse. It won't win any kind of honor, but it is a fairly okay film for people wanting to see something from Roger Corman, even if it is formula entertainment such as this.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Cloverfield.

Review #1038: Cloverfield.

Cast: 
Michael Stahl-David (Robert "Rob" Hawkins), T.J. Miller (Hudson "Hud" Platt), Jessica Lucas (Lily Ford), Odette Yustman (Elizabeth "Beth" McIntyre), Lizzy Caplan (Marlena Diamond), Mike Vogel (Jason Hawkins), Ben Feldman (Travis), Billy Brown (Staff Sergeant Pryce), and Chris Mulkey (Lieutenant General Graff) Directed by Matt Reeves.

Review: 
I suppose it makes sense to review this film today on January 18, since it is the 10th anniversary of the film's release in theaters, so it is a perfect time to get to it along with giving you fellow readers a new review after a week since the last one. 

When asked about the film prior to its release, J. J. Abrams (who served as producer for the film) stated that he was inspired to make an American monster after seeing Godzilla toys in stores in Japan with his son, one that would be "insane and intense", which is certainly interesting. I was eleven years old when the film came out, but I don't particularly remember the marketing for the film, although I imagine that it must've been interesting for people on the Internet to focus a bit of time on (take that statement as you may). In any case, how is the movie itself? I find the movie to be fairly decent, although I can't say I really thought it was that scary or all too special. It is an interesting idea to make a monster movie that doesn't intend to go for only big entertainment spectacle destruction and instead goes for something that plays on fears and anxiety that people would have if a situation like this actually did arise; one scene in particular stands out, involving people taking out their phones after seeing the head of the Statue of Liberty fall right near them. I wish I could say the plot or the characters are as intriguing as the concept for the film, but that it is not the case here. The performances aren't terrible, but they aren't too particularly interesting. I will state that Miller does a pretty decent job, however. I found him to be more interesting to follow than the plot around the other characters, even if most of the time he is just the guy filming the things happening. Caplan also comes off a bit interesting when she is on screen.

The film has a look intended to resemble hand-held camera filming, including jump cuts that make it feel a bit like a home movie, although I will admit that the effect can feel a bit disorientating at times. Apparently, some viewers of the film during its release experienced motion sickness due to the film's cinematography, to the point that some theaters posted warnings about the film that stated it may "experience side effects associated with motion sickness similar to riding a rollercoaster". Sometimes the shots (and the shakes) worked in my view, but other times it felt a bit tedious. I imagine seeing this in a theater would be a significantly different experience than seeing it on a normal TV set. The visual effects were incorporated after filming, so the cast had to react to an unseen creature during their scenes, which I suppose is an achievement on their part in imagination. The monster (of what we see, anyway) is not too terrible, and it generally is one that feels pretty creepy and menacing. It doesn't have much of an origin, but that doesn't really feel too surprising. The film runs at 84 minutes, which feels alright considering the plot matter and the shaky-cam stuff. Ultimately, Cloverfield has an interesting premise that it plays around with a bit to fine effect, but on the whole it is a fairly decent monster/horror flick that stands alone as a curiosity if one has the patience for it.

Oh yeah, I probably should refer 10 Cloverfield Lane (#784), released eight years after this film. That film, while not a direct sequel, was a fairly interesting thriller that certainly played itself as a thriller neatly enough. Cloverfield doesn't exactly pale too badly in comparison with 10 Cloverfield Lane, but I felt that this needed to be mentioned in any case.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Go West (1925).

Review #1037: Go West.

Cast: 
Buster Keaton (Friendless), Howard Truesdale (Owner of the Diamond Bar Ranch), Kathleen Myers (His Daughter), Ray Thompson (The Foreman), and Brown Eyes (Herself) Directed by Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, #805 - The Navigator, #877 - Three Ages, #908 - The General, #926 - Our Hospitality, and #941 - Sherlock Jr)

Review: 
Go West was the seventh feature film starring Buster Keaton, who also served as director (doing so for all except the first feature film that he starred in). This one features Keaton working at a cattle ranch, where he does things such as bronco-busting, cattle wrangling, and dairy farming, which go about as well as you'd expect, with Keaton forming a friendship with a cow. Admittedly, it is easy to say I enjoyed the movie, in part because it is a warm experience that has enough orchestrations and humor to make a relatively useful movie. It isn't a classic like some of Keaton's other works (such as The General or Sherlock Jr), but I will say that it is a fine little gem that serves its purpose of entertainment. Oddly, it is the dynamic between Keaton and the cow that drives the film forward, with numerous sequences between them are fairly useful and sweet in some way. The highlight of the film is the cattle stampede at the end, mostly because of how well it is orchestrated, from the reactions of the other actors to the way that the cattle move about, particularly with some of the sight gags that occur. The rest of the cast isn't too developed, but they serve their purposes well for the movie's standards. Keaton makes for a bumbling but always endearing lead, with a face made for silent era comedies like these, even if it may not fit the usual formula for his films. There isn't any sort of stunt-work that stands out too much, but I will say that there is some fun to be had with the movie and its goofiness with the premise that works out alright, with nothing too ridiculous or overdone. It takes its time to get rolling, but it sure feels worth it in the end. It has a runtime of 69 minutes, which I'm sure is nice enough for people to get a quick enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Gymkata.

Review #1036: Gymkata.

Cast: 
Kurt Thomas (Jonathan Cabot), Tetchie Agbayani (Princess Rubali), Richard Norton (Zamir), Edward Bell (Paley), John Berrett (Gomez), Conan Lee (Hao), Bob Schott (Thorg), Buck Kartalian (The Kahn), and Eric Lawson (Colonel Cabot) Directed by Robert Clouse (#587 - Enter the Dragon)

Review: 
You may be wondering to yourself the following question: "What is Gymkata?" Well, it is a mix of the skill of gymnastics with the kill of karate, as stated in the poster for the film, which apparently was based off the novel The Terrible Game by Dan Tyler Moore. Knowing either of those facts doesn't make the movie any much better, considering that this is a by the numbers terrible flick. The plot of the film is as follows: A gymnast is approached by special forces to participate in some sort of ancient game (called "The Game", naturally) in a fictional country in order to see if he can win this athletic competition that no outsider has won in over 900 years. The winner is granted a wish, and they want him to wish...for a US satellite monitoring station to be installed in the country in order to monitor all satellites in space so the "other side" can't. Yes, that is the premise. If you were shaking in your boots in anticipation for the movie, then all power to you. Honestly, this is a movie made to show off action sequences, and it does so with the scenery of Yugoslavia and no sense of energy aside from a few laughs at the film and its plot. The film is essentially something you'd see from someone who wanted to showcase action and take a bunch of cliches together, such as the jealous rival, the monarchy that the hero familiarizes with, the long-lost father, and so on. Nothing dates this film better than mentioning the "Star Wars" program, but then again who's surprised by this?

It may interest you to note that Kurt Thomas (with a size of about 5-4.5, which is a bit shorter than my size) was a world champion in numerous categories in gymnastics in 1978-79, with two gymnastic moves (the Flair and the salto) being named for him. In the sense of his sequences on the mat and in action, he does a fine job in his first (and only) film appearance. He doesn't do too great performance-wise, but that can apply to pretty much everyone else in the film, who don't exactly seem to have too much enthusiasm for the story, although I will admit that Norton certainly fits the bill as a silly villain for the hero to defeat. If you don't really care too much for characters, story, or general competency, then this is probably the movie for you. I can't really say I was surprised that this turned out to be a stinker, so how can I be mad? How can I be mad that this is an absurd and goofy piece of film when I knew that it was coming? As dated as the film is, I will date this review further by stating that I watched this on Turner Classic Movies (TCM), who showed this film (and the film reviewed earlier yesterday) on Saturday night as part of their "Underground" series. I will say that they certainly fit the bill as an example of a terrible pairing that also works well for their series, along with Movie Night, obviously. Sometimes you just need some bad flicks to truly remember what makes for good and bad films, and Gymkata is one of those films.

Let's not forget the ending where (spoilers) the first satellite monitoring station was installed after our hero wins the game. Truly it was important enough to note on the epilogue. I tried to check if there were many quotes for the film on IMDb and it turns out that there was one that was more than a whole sentence: "There are many sounds around us, each is slightly different. So small as to go un-noticed by the person who is unaware. Do not hear the wood split. Hear the only sound of axe, cutting air. Read the air itself. It has much say to you." Basically, the movie stinks. But it is the kind of stinker that you may get a kick out of, particularly if you dig movies that aim for cheap pulp action without any sort of illusion about what it wants to be. For all that I said about the movie, it is up to you the viewer to see what your interests are for this odd little flick...if you dare.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Never Too Young to Die.

Review #1035: Never Too Young to Die.

Cast: 
John Stamos (Lance Stargrove), Vanity (Danja Deering), Gene Simmons (Carruthers / Velvet Von Ragner), George Lazenby (Drew Stargrove), Peter Kwong (Cliff), Ed Brock (Pyramid), John Anderson (Arliss), and Robert Englund (Riley) Directed by Gil Bettman.

Review: 
The best way to describe this movie is to call it a tacky 80s cliché, complete with ridiculous villains and even more ridiculous situations. It's a b-movie through and through, so at least I can say it is consistent in being odd, although that isn't saying much. Is it worth it for me to write many words on why this movie isn't good? No, but I will try to make a meaningful review that expresses some of why this movie is pretty terrible. Stamos (in his film debut) isn't particularly impressive in this lead role, likely because he just doesn't look like the kind of person right for the action adventure comedy that the movie wants to go for, although the acting isn't too wacky. His scenes with Vanity don't go as badly, although I can't say that they are anything too special. Vanity (real name Denise Matthews) does a bit better, although she is best suited for the action sequences (doing a bit better with that than Stamos). Easily, the one who stands out is Simmons, most likely because of how odd this villainous role is. I suppose if you ever wanted to see Dr Frank N. Furter as the villain in a mish-mash of James Bond and action-adventure, this is the one for you (I haven't seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show, but then again that statement isn't exactly a truthful compliment either). The action sequences aren't too bad, although it isn't anything too noteworthy. The climax is ridiculous, but it is entirely unsurprising if you give in to the movie's game that it plays, for better or worse. It is nice to see Englund and Lazenby, even if neither has much to do in the movie. Kwong is in the film briefly as a sort of "Q" figure, although that isn't saying much. There is nothing particularly impressive about anything in this movie, but there also isn't anything too awful about it either. This is ultimately a film that is best watched as something to laugh at, with nothing that is good to highlight but also nothing that is horrifying to note either. It's junk, but it's junk that is digestible for most people. Take this film for what it's worth...pennies or not.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Bright Lights, Big City.

Review #1034: Bright Lights, Big City.

Cast: 
Michael J. Fox (Jamie Conway), Kiefer Sutherland (Tad Allagash), Phoebe Cates (Amanda Conway), Swoosie Kurtz (Megan), Frances Sternhagen (Clara Tillinghast), Tracy Pollan (Vicky Allagash), John Houseman (Mr. Vogel), Charlie Schlatter (Michael), David Warrilow (Rittenhouse), Dianne Wiest (Mrs. Conway), and Jason Robards (Mr. Hardy) Directed by James Bridges.

Review: 
Based on the novel of the same name by Jay McInerney, Bright Lights, Big City is a movie that seems to want to bask in going for the bottom with desperation and ambition mixed in with a film that can't exactly get itself all the way to the finish line. It's not a big disappointment, but it isn't anything too special, and part of that is likely due to the film's structure. It feel a bit aimless at times, and the fact that there isn't much energy in the cast doesn't help the movie grow. Fox is the main grab for the film, and its quality may very well depend on how you view his performance. For me, it's hard to not like Fox, but I don't think I can really say that he sells this performance as someone disillusioned enough with events in his life to turn to certain substances. At the very least, the movie isn't a Saturday school special kind of film with some sort of overbearing message, but it also isn't the kind of film that seems to show much passion for what it aims for.

The film seems to never really get itself down to some sort of rock bottom with its main character, nor does it ever become a movie with anything to tie itself together. It goes all over the place, from scenes with his job to scenes with his wife to scenes with his "party friends" to scenes with a potential love interest, and none of it ever really seems to click with enough energy. Sutherland does a decent job as the friend to all of this mania with substances with his own kind of responses, but I wonder if the film might've worked better if Fox and Sutherland had switched roles. Cates' role doesn't really seem to have much substance, minus the parts that exposits about her from dialogue, so it really isn't fair to say that she doesn't do a good job due to what it given to her. The rest of the cast isn't terrible, but they certainly don't give the movie much meat to work with. Robards stands out in his brief time on screen due to the way he towers over Fox in both mannerisms and demeanor. It isn't a boring movie, but I can't say it is a meaningful film, and that likely goes down to the dialogue, which seems to feel flaky at times, edging the lines between seriousness and cheese. There is some fine music in the movie (such as "Pump Up the Volume" by M|A|R|R|S), and I will say that the film does have a decent look to it, but that can't carry the movie to success. I can't imagine how the novel dealt with its subject matter, although it is interesting to note that the novel was written from the second person point of view (with the first line of the film being the first line of the book). On the whole, this is a movie with a fuzzy look on the dark side of nightlife in the fast lane of New York that is mildly entertaining to watch, but it just can't work itself to be a drama with much substance to be a clear winner.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

$ (Dollars).

Review #1033: $ (Dollars).

Cast: 
Warren Beatty (Joe Collins), Goldie Hawn (Dawn Divine), Gert Fröbe (Mr. Kessel), Robert Webber (Mr. North, Attorney), Scott Brady (Sarge), Arthur Brauss (Candy Man), Robert Stiles (Major), and Wolfgang Kieling (Granich) Directed by Richard Brooks (#871 - Cat on a Hot Tin Roof)

Review: 
Admittedly, the title sticks out pretty easily, because how many movies have a symbol as their title? In any case, $ (also known as Dollars and The Heist in the United Kingdom) is an interesting heist movie that certainly has its moments, along with having a fairly dynamic cast that makes for good entertainment, starting with Beatty and Hawn. Both of them do a fine job in the roles they have within the heist, rolling off each other with a kind of energy that is compelling in how they work off each other. Beatty does a fine job in selling this role with angles and cons throughout, being quite clever and quite charming to follow for the film. The same can be said for Hawn, who has a magnetic appeal that resonates with any scene that she is, whether when acting against any of the crooks or with Beatty. The film doesn't dwell much on how these two came together nor much on the specifics of the plan, but the way that it focuses on their approaches for getting this money and how much fun it is to see them do it is more than enough. Fröbe does a fine job as the bank president, showing some authority and class to the role that fits just neatly with the film. The adversary crooks also do a fine job, particularly Brauss, with a fine pair of shades and a voice to go along with his ruthlessness. Brady also does a fine job, showcasing some greed in his portrayal that has a fine payoff. The heist sequences and the climax are fairly satisfactory, having their respective high points, such as the chase sequence (filmed in Hamberg, Germany), quiet but effective. It is interesting to note that the Kunsthalle, the city's principal museum of art was utilized as the exterior for the bank. The film certainly has a good look to it, never coming off as anything too fake nor too unrealistic for the time. The soundtrack was composed by Quincy Jones, with performances by Little Richard, Roberta Flack and Doug Kershaw, featuring the Don Elliot Voices as well. It gives the movie a bit of a groovy kick that is certainly welcome for the movie. On the whole, this is a colorful kind of film that takes its time to get rolling, but it has a fine payoff that makes the two hour run-time worth it in the final result.

Welcome to 2018, the ninth year with at least one review by me, with this being the first review of what I term "Season 8". Hopefully there will be a fun amount of reviews throughout the year for all of you folks to enjoy. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.