Deathtrap.

Review #1065: Deathtrap.

Cast: 
Michael Caine (Sidney Bruhl), Christopher Reeve (Clifford Anderson), Dyan Cannon (Myra Bruhl), Irene Worth (Helga Ten Dorp), Henry Jones (Porter Milgrim), and Joe Silver (Seymour Starger) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, and #404 - The Anderson Tapes)

Review: 
Deathtrap was adapted from the play of the same name by Ira Levin, which had run from 1978 to 1982 on Broadway, holding the record for the longest running comedy-thriller on Broadway. The original play comprised of two acts with one set and five characters. and it is easy to say that the transition to film went smoothly, with the only thing added being scenes set in the theater that bookend the movie - along with a few other small changes. Quite simply, this is an effective comedy-thriller, balancing its elements handily along with having a fine pair in Caine and Reeve. The film takes its time to get interesting, but it never comes off as boring nor stale, although I find that the second half of the movie is where it really gets itself into gear. Caine excels in his role, having the right kind of frantic and resourceful nature that makes him fun to watch on screen, particularly with the snappy dialogue that works with his dry tone. Reeve delivers an entertaining performance, managing to balance a boyish charm and unpredictability quite nicely. Cannon is the weak link in the main cast, coming off a bit annoying at points, with her shrieking being a bit tiresome to hear, although she can come off as endearing for others. Worth is fairly amusing in the parts that she is in, playing her eccentric nature with the right kind of conviction and energy that never rattles too much off the deep end. The movie doesn't elicit too much in terms of scares, but it does manage to elicit excitement from its main two actors in the finale to make up for it. The movie has often been compared to Sleuth (1972), which also featured Caine; I can't say how my opinion would've changed had I seen the other film before this one, but I would hope that the viewing experience for either film isn't bent too much because of any kind of comparison-making. The movie manages to run itself fairly well at 116 minutes, never becoming tedious with its twists nor lengthening itself to ridiculous heights, having fun with the ways it moves the pieces of its jigsaw puzzle kind of plot (which you should see for yourself) handily. This is a fine gem that has some dark humor to go along with its clever nature that works in the places it needs to the most with its cast and arrangements that is interesting enough to recommend.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Jumper (2008).

Review #1064: Jumper.

Cast: 
Hayden Christensen (David Rice), Rachel Bilson (Millie Harris), Samuel L. Jackson (Roland Cox), Jamie Bell (Griffin O'Connor), Diane Lane (Mary Rice), Teddy Dunn (Mark Kobold), and Michael Rooker (William Rice) Directed by Doug Liman.

Review: 
It is only fitting that a movie like this involve teleporting, since the film seems to like getting away from itself, constantly shuffling between two modes: erratic and plain. I can't say that the idea of teleporting wouldn't make for a good film (The Fly (#710), anybody?), but I can't say that this movie succeeds, mostly because there isn't much fun delivered with its story nor its contents. The film is based of the book of the same name by Steven Gould, who also contributed to the story (with a screenplay done by David S. Goyer, Jim Uhls & Simon Kinberg), and I imagine that the novel must've had some sort of energy and life to it that must've felt appealing to try and make a movie out of. To say the film feels jumbled is an overstatement, such as the "Paladins", the villains of the film that don't really have much development besides some vague reasoning, or "jump scars", since I guess jumping leaves a trail (or something like that). This is a stunted narrative that can't make us care about what is going on; it's not so much that the film's plot is insulting in a dumb way, it's just that the plot is bland and not particularly involving, with a lack of focus.

In a way, the flatness of the characters means that you can't put all of the blame on Christensen, who delivers a stiff performance that in no way helps the movie get any sort of life, although his character isn't even easy to go for. His character never does anything that makes you really want to root for him, and if it wasn't for the hunting by the paladins, you could re-write him into a villain, complete with a bratty nature and an even more boring amorality, complete with his first lines of the film that describes how he was a normal person, a "chump, just like you" (good start). He doesn't seem to be a terrible actor, but he definitely isn't good in this film. Bilson doesn't bring much energy to a role that feels stiffer than a board, complete with no real chemistry between her and Christensen. Jackson can't really make this villain character anything other than a cliche - where his grey hair is the most noteworthy thing about him. I'd say Bell is the highlight - but that isn't giving the movie any real favors. The rest of the small cast is fairly standard, not doing anything too particularly amusing. The effects aren't terrible, but they also aren't anything that'll make the film any prettier to look at, particularly since the action sequences seem muddled and ridiculous (combined with no real stakes). Even the climax is dull, and the fact that it ends so anti-climatically and so lazily makes for a perfect capstone in this mess. You could likely have a laugh with this if you're in the mood to make fun of a paperthin plot, a cast that can't elevate said material, and 88 minutes to kill, but even re-watching RoboCop 3 (#006) over this dreck seems preferable.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Blood Simple.

Review #1063: Blood Simple.

Cast: 
John Getz (Ray), Frances McDormand (Abby), Dan Hedaya (Julian Marty), M. Emmet Walsh (Private detective Lorren Visser), Samm-Art Williams (Meurice), and Deborah Neumann (Debra) Directed by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010) and #765 - Fargo)

Review: 
Blood Simple was the directorial debut of the Coen brothers (although due to guild rules Joel was the one credited as director while Ethan was credited as producer, with both also writing the film), with future director Barry Sonnenfield serving as cinematographer. The film has its edge of darkness and amusing nature, with a fine balance that never comes off as inconsistent nor endless. It's a twisted film that also serves as a good neo-noir that pulls its devious strings of paranoia and guilt with characters that certainly accompany the movie in their own particular ways. Easily the best part of the film is Walsh, who manages to elevate the character onto a sort of legal edge that can be both ruthless and amusing - never coming off as too much of one thing while also being an interesting person to watch on-screen. Getz and McDormand prove to be a fairly decent pairing, being adept at their situations that make this escape of a romance seem right and not out-of-place. Hedaya plays his slimy role comfortably well, doing his role with a sort of relish and emotion that seems right at home for a film like this. The film certainly has a good look to it, having a feel to it that is important to making such a tawdry tale come alive without being glitzy nor overtly muddled. The climax is tense and quick to the point, with a final line that certainly closes the film out on the right note. It is clear that the Coen brothers had a good vision that they wanted to tell on-screen, and they certainly achieve that, weaving a film that succeeds as a piece of noir that manages to hit more times than it misses. They manage to build tension without suffocating the audience in too many cuts or being too long, with this film lasting 96 minutes (with a director's cut that tightens the editing along with shortening certain shots that runs slightly shorter), which feels just right for this movie. Ultimately, this is a fine piece of film-making from the Coen brothers that certainly shows a kind of ingenuity and flair that makes for good entertainment if you're in the mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Strangers: Prey at Night.

Review #1062: The Strangers: Prey at Night.

Cast: 
Christina Hendricks (Cindy), Martin Henderson (Mike), Bailee Madison (Kinsey), Lewis Pullman (Luke), Emma Bellomy (Dollface), Damian Maffei (Man in the Mask), and Lea Enslin (Pin-Up Girl) Directed by Johannes Roberts.

Review: 
I will admit, this came out of left field. Spring Break means that random things can happen, such as friends deciding to want to see some scary - how can I get in the way of seeing some entertainment? This is likely the first ever time of having two consecutive reviews being part of the Theater Saga - hence why I try to make sure and watch new (interesting) films with a bit of space between them. I hope you enjoy this review. 

I knew nothing of this film nor the fact that it is a sequel to a film named (obviously) The Strangers (2008), with the director/writer of that film serving as writer for this movie. For what I looked up, that film was inspired by the Tate murders along with a series of break-ins that happened in Bertino's neighborhood as a kid, with the same inspirations applying to this film. Admittedly, the idea of random strangers committing crimes without much reason could make for an interesting film, and I imagine that the first film likely had at least some sort of success with that idea, because I didn't find too much to really enjoy with this movie. It is not so much that the film is exactly terrible or anything, but I didn't find it too particularly scary. Perhaps it is easy to admit that the story is thinner than a cracker when the film has a 85 minute run-time and a small cast, which makes for a relatively small body count, with the film not having much in terms of energy to respond with. The fact that there are a few dumb moments (that you might expect for horror or slasher films) doesn't help too much with getting the film to click. The killers are what they are, strangers with masks, which is somewhat creepy but not enough to really carry the movie to pure fright. The secluded setting is fine and quiet for what the movie wants, and the way it is shot is also alright (with no real resorting of jump scares or anything too ridiculous), but it never seems to really click to make something that I can get with. It doesn't feel like a cash-grab or something cynical (I was surprised to note that it was made for $5 million, however), which I suppose gives the film some sort of credit.

The fact that the first half of the film feels a tad dull doesn't particularly help; it isn't that the actors are terrible, it just seems that the material doesn't spark much, with Hendricks being a decent standout with her material. Madison isn't too terrible, but the material isn't too helpful. That's not to say that there aren't other films with exposition that isn't particularly interesting (along with the fact that a film doesn't need to have much in terms of story to work), but the half that follows doesn't make up for it. At times it can be a bit creepy, but it isn't anything that could also be made fun of (and at least one or two cliche action in the middle of the pursuit), with a climax that feels a bit too stretched and an ending that just feels like it is taunting you. The fact that the film is an R helps make sure the violence doesn't get washed out, so there's that at least. The film utilizes music that you might call "ironic" for what you might expect in a horror flick, such as "Kids in America" for the opening and other music choices - which I suppose will have an effect for some, although I didn't really get much from it in terms of chills. If you like slasher/horror flicks, you could like the film. If you were a fan of the original film, chances are you might get a kick out of seeing another film with these strangers. In any case, it's up to you to decide. This is the kind of movie that I can't hate nor give much credit to, falling in the middle that will find a place in some people's minds but will likely go down for me as something that just passes through in the annals of middle-of-the-road horror flicks.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Shape of Water.

Review #1061: The Shape of Water.

Cast: 
Sally Hawkins (Elisa Esposito), Michael Shannon (Colonel Richard Strickland), Richard Jenkins (Giles), Octavia Spencer (Zelda Delilah Fuller), Michael Stuhlbarg (Dimitri Mosenkov), Doug Jones ("Amphibian Man"), David Hewlett (Fleming), and Nick Searcy (General Frank Hoyt) Directed by Guillermo del Toro (#425 - Pacific Rim)

Review: 
Admittedly, I can't tell which was more surprising: the fact that this was the winner of Best Picture (beating such films as Get Out (#909) and Dunkirk (#980) while also winning Best Director, Best Original Score, and Best Production Design) or the fact that this came to my local theater in the middle of March, different from how I usually review films in the Theater Saga. In any case, enjoy a interesting case for Movie Night.

The world of fantasy can provide an outlet for creative movies on both a visual and story lervel that can have things just be what they are while dealing with subject that other genres can have shortcomings with. While this film may not be perfect with everything that it does, it is at the very least a fine achievement. It is interesting to note del Toro's level of involvement with this project, serving as director, co-writer, and producer, which makes the seem to be a clear passion project for him, and he projects that with an abundance of visual flair and imagination that works for what he intends - for the most part. I found that the film worked best when it showed off its characters and style more so than its story. Maybe it will go down as a great classic, maybe it will not, but I think it will at least find a place in the places of fantasy and romance people's hearts.

 It is evident that del Toro wanted his film to achieve a look that would sell his film as something to care for and appreciate, with Dan Lausten's cinematography along with Paul D. Austerberry, Shane Vieau and Jeff Melvin with production design and Alexandre Desplat's music, all striking at the chords for good effect. The main cast all do a fine job, with Hawkins shining in delivering a capable performance through the way she moves her face (since she communicates only through American Sign Language) and through her physicality that shines through and through. Shannon manages to turn what could've been just a cliche adversary and manages to make it feel interesting and useful to want to keep watching in a ruthlessly effective way. Jenkins does a fine job being the counterpart to Hawkins, being useful to watch. Spencer also provides a bit of levity along with sense to the film that helps give the film focus. Stuhlbarg also proves to be fairly nice in his role, and Jones does a decent job under all that makeup. The story by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor is a bit familiar in some of its notes, but it is at the least entertaining enough to make something worthwhile, having a fairy tale involving what is essentially inspired by movie monsters or arguably Beauty and the Beast. It falls into sentimentality at times, and perhaps it takes itself a bit too seriously, but there is enough drive and spirit to push itself over the finish line and succeed with elegance, which might've felt ridiculous or weirder in other hands. Are there moments in the film that seem a bit silly? Yes, particularly some parts with Hawkins and Jones, but also a bit in the climax (which I can't really spoil), but there also manages to be enough interesting moments too with the cast that makes up for it. I find the movie fine enough to recommend, provided that you are in the mood for what it tries to tell through its passion.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

National Lampoon's European Vacation.

Review #1060: National Lampoon's European Vacation.

Cast: 
Chevy Chase (Clark Griswald), Beverly D'Angelo (Ellen Griswald), Dana Hill (Audrey Griswald), Jason Lively (Russell "Rusty" Griswald), Victor Lanoux (The Thief), Eric Idle (The Bike Rider), John Astin (Kent Winkdale), Mel Smith (London Hotel Manager), Robbie Coltrane (Man in Bathroom), Maureen Lipman (Lady in the Bed), William Zabka (Jack), Willy Millowitsch (Fritz Spritz), and Erika Wackernagel (Helga Spritz) Directed by Amy Heckerling (#982 - Fast Times at Ridgemont High)

Review: 
It is interesting to note that I finally am getting to this film, the sequel to the original to National Lampoon's Vacation (#804) but paradoxically this serves as my third review of the Vacation series, since I also reviewed National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (#771). In any case, I hope at least some of you fellow readers are enjoying Spring Break, or any sort of vacation. 

There is a certain amount of charm and amusement that sprung from the situations and the cast from the first film that made for a fairly entertaining movie, with Chase and D'Angelo being key highlights. The latter part of my statement is still true, but I can't say that this is a particularly good film. I don't hate it, but I know without much doubt that this is a fairly average movie. The biggest problem is that the film gradually feels repetitive the longer it dwells in all of these locations that the film gets itself to, feeling episodic and not always consistent. There are some famous landmarks seen throughout the film (with a few of them used for gags), which are fairly interesting to look at, such as Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, and the Colosseum, so that's a fair highlight. Chase and D'Angelo manage to generate some amusement once again, being the best part of the film due to feeling the most adept for this material and the most familiar. Hill and Lively do okay, but some of the gags with them are a bit hit-and-miss, with the jokes involving the former binging on food seeming old after a while. Throughout the four locations (London, Paris, West Germany, Rome) is a bunch of different personalities and cast members that make for okay experiences to watch with the main four, with a bunch of cliches that one would expect. It doesn't really have anything too rip-roaring aside from a few moments involving visual gags and a bit of crass humor, but it isn't anything too particularly terrible, just being a bit silly (which I don't hate, actually). At least at 94 minutes it isn't particularly a big waste, but it doesn't too particularly well when compared to the original film. I don't find this to be anything too special, but sometimes that may very well just be enough on vacation.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Big Chill.

Review #1059: The Big Chill.

Cast: 
Tom Berenger (Sam Weber), Glenn Close (Sarah Cooper), Jeff Goldblum (Michael Gold), William Hurt (Nick Carlton), Kevin Kline (Harold Cooper), Mary Kay Place (Meg Jones), Meg Tilly (Chloe), JoBeth Williams (Karen Bowens), and Don Galloway (Richard Bowens) Directed by Lawrence Kasdan.

Review: 
Admittedly, recollections about the past can tend to make for an interesting subject for a film, so it is no surprise to see that Lawrence Kasdan, writer of films such as The Empire Strikes Back (#114), Raiders of the Lost Ark (#168), and Return of the Jedi (#115), directed and wrote a film involving the reunion of old friends from the baby boomer generation (with this film along with Return of the Secaucus 7 (1980) serving as influences for the creation of the show thirtysomething). It is strange to note that there were scenes cut out that had featured Alex, the one who had committed suicide (featuring a then-unknown Kevin Costner), and I do wonder what it would've done to the pace and tone of the film. In any case, it's not hard to say that this is neither a great nor terrible movie, falling in the middle fairly easily, for better or worse. The ensemble cast is fairly enjoyable, particularly Berenger, Hurt, Kline, and Tilly. Each of them has something that stands out, such as Berenger and his entertaining type of allure that contrasts with his thoughts on having fame (and memories from the past), or Hurt and his bitter but honest nature that clicks in some way with Tilly (the lone standout in the main ensemble not part of the main generation), with Kline being a fine straight man and pillar along with Close. Goldblum is also fairly entertaining and amusing, and Kay Place and Williams are also fine. The cast manages to make what could've been a bunch of cliches seem a bit more fruitful and watchable. The movie (shot in Beaufort, South Carolina) has a fine look to it that certainly clicks with uniting these people without looking too fake. The soundtrack of the film is pretty interesting, having highlights such as "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" by Marvin Gaye and Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Bad Moon Rising", so I'll give the film credit for having a fine pick of music.

The film has its serious moments of looking at the past, but it also has a few moments for some laughs that make for a good enjoyment for most of its running time of 105 minutes. I will admit that the ending is probably a bit too neat and probably a bit too convenient for someone looking for something a bit more, although that depends on what one is expecting. Do you want something that tries to say something about nostalgia? You'll get it with this movie, although you may not get everything with it. If you want something that tries to face nostalgia with reality, this could (or could not) be for you. I can't exactly fault someone for liking films that try to throw itself back with nostalgia (after all, I am writing this review in the same year that Ready Player One is coming out, so make of that what you will), but I find that the movie is fine (if not really anything too great) with weaving a story with some depth from its recollection. For lack of a better way to say it, The Big Chill is a finely packaged film if you're in the mood for what it offers you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Battling Butler.

Review #1058: Battling Butler.

Cast: 
Buster Keaton (Alfred Butler), Sally O'Neil (The Mountain Girl), Walter James (Her Father), Budd Fine (Her Brother), Francis McDonald (Alfred "Battling" Butler), Mary O'Brien (His Wife), Tom Wilson (His Trainer), Eddie Borden (His Manager), and Snitz Edwards (Alfred's Valet) Directed by Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, #805 - The Navigator, #877 - Three Ages, #908 - The General, #926 - Our Hospitality, #941 - Sherlock Jr, and #1037 - Go West)

Review: 
Battling Butler was Keaton's eighth starring role in a feature film, and it was based on a stage play of the same name by Walter L. Rosemont and Ballard MacDonald, which had ran for 313 performances from 1923 to 1924. In any case, while I will give the film credit for having some amusing moments, I can't say that it is one of Keaton's finest pieces of work. Keaton is sharp as ever, particularly in the boxing sequences, which serve for some fine laughs along with showing his willingness to do rough stuff (such as stunts) in order to sell the scene, which works fairly well. O'Neil is fine, having the kind of energy and grace you'd expect. James and Fine prove to be fairly imposing figures, leading to a few laughs. The rest of the cast is okay; Edwards proves to be a fairly amusing character to follow throughout the film, having the kind of expressions and movements you'd expect from him. The movie goes at a fair pace of 71 minutes without any real slog, although the parts with boxing/training fare a bit better than the other parts, which are okay if not anything too special. It is fun to see Keaton play a pampered individual, and he does a decent job with making the character as likable as he can. The sequence at the end with Keaton boxing is pretty decent, serving as a good way to cap the film (that, and him walking off with the girl with a top hat and boxing shorts). The film doesn't stand out too great from Keaton's other films (such as his classics), but it is at the very least acceptable entertainment, compact with decent gags, a flowing story and just enough zip to come out a winner of sorts.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Lucy (2014).

Review #1057: Lucy.

Cast: 
Scarlett Johansson (Lucy), Morgan Freeman (Professor Norman), Choi Min-sik (Mr. Jang), Amr Waked (Pierre Del Rio), Julian Rhind-Tutt (The Limey), Pilou Asbæk (Richard), Analeigh Tipton (Caroline), and Nicolas Phongpheth (Jii) Directed by Luc Besson (#027 - The Fifth Element)

Review: 
It isn't hard to refute the film's use of the urban legend that we only use 10 percent of our brains, but I imagine you've already heard about the myth or figured that giving the movie heat for using this as a metaphor isn't worth much in the grand scheme of things. In any case, I will say that this isn't an insulting movie to watch, but I also can't say I enjoyed the film positively. It isn't an idiotic movie, but it also isn't a movie for ones looking for something too logical. It definitely doesn't ring too well as a science fiction film, but it is capable in some way as an action thriller, for better or for worse, with at least some sort of fine style to it. Johansson does okay in showing a bit of vulnerability with her character, but the other parts of the movie that involve some sort of philosophy don't click too well, although I can't imagine anyone making this feel any less wooden. Freeman serves as exposition (particularly in the beginning), with the film taking its time for him to intersect with Johansson. Although the cast is fairly decent, none of the characters are particularly worthy of investing in, since we are dealing with a person in the film that literally cannot be stopped, which means that there are no real stakes to the film. I wonder what would've happened if there had been another person who managed to obtain the same kind of abilities that Lucy had with the drug (after all, there were three others used as mules to transport it), maybe as some sort of contrast to her. It probably would've resulted in a murky and heavy-handed climax, but it might've made for something that would've made the movie seem more useful. It only makes sense that the film resembles (in small part) to 2001: A Space Odyssey, since Besson is quoted as stating that the his movie's last part resembles 2001, after having shifted from resembling Léon: The Professional (1994, which Besson directed and wrote) to Inception (2010) to 2001. I would add that his movie reminds me of what would happen if a student decided to try and learn more philosophy and science by rolling down a hill on a giant tire.

It is interesting to note that it took me over a thousand reviews to actually review another film done by Luc Besson, particularly one that is also a French film (with a primary use of English language along with some use of Korean and French), so make of that what you will. There is a certain mania that consumes the movie that can work to the film's advantage if one is the right mindset for it. The animal imagery (obviously intended as some sort of symbolism) utilized at times in the film is ridiculous, particularly when used for the opening sequences (interspliced with exposition from Freeman talking) that I suppose makes the philosophy of the film look less surprisingly ridiculous. The movie (which has a pace of 90 minutes) doesn't advocate for anything ridiculous or insulting (although I suppose one could take umbrage with some of the sequences and lines). While the climax has a decent fight sequence, it is the end that takes the cake in terms of being the capstone for such a ridiculous film, with my favorite line being "I AM EVERYWHERE", which you'd think would be something that a villain would say. At the end of the day, this is an off the wall kind of movie that I will give credit for trying to be ambitious, even if I find it to be just a bit off its mark of intent, although your mileage may vary. This is a film made to entertain, and on that it may very well succeed, but I can't say that I liked Lucy enough to really put a positive spin for.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Pearl of Death.

Review #1056: The Pearl of Death.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Evelyn Ankers (Naomi Drake), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Miles Mander (Giles Conover), Ian Wolfe (Amos Hodder), Charles Francis (Digby), Holmes Herbert (James Goodram), Richard Nugent (Bates), Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson), and Rondo Hatton (The Creeper) 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 Pearl of Death (released less than three months after The Scarlet Claw) is the ninth film in the Sherlock Holmes series with Rathbone and Bruce, with this film involving the search of a valuable pearl that is linked to a series of murders. Given that previous plots have involved supernatural terrors, pyjama murders, house murders and wartime spy plots, I can't say that this plot is any stranger or weirder than the other films. As such, this film meets the standards for fans of the series, with no real detraction or distractions. Once again, Rathbone and Bruce do their jobs with the right kind of class and mannerisms that you would expect, although it is weird that the film has Holmes inadvertently starting the main plot by exposing the security system that protects the pearl. The supporting cast is acceptable, with Ankers and Mander playing capable adversaries without any bombast. Hoey does a fine job as expected, with a bit of entertaining banter between him and Rathbone. In any case, the rest of the movie is fairly suspenseful, moving along with all the right patterns and pace (69 minutes) that will satisfy people in the mindset for it that doesn't come off as an listless retread of any tricks utilized in the other films in the slightest.

The story took inspiration from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story "The Adventure of the Six Napoleons", with the additions of an accomplice to the villain and The Creeper, played by Hatton. He became an icon of sorts due to his unusual facial features that were caused by acromegaly, which distorted his head shape along with his face that happened to him gradually after he had been a soldier in World War I and a journalist. He had appeared in small roles in four other movies prior to this one. The reception of Hatton (who delivers a decent if not briefly sinister job in his time on screen) and his portrayal of the Creeper led to Universal Pictures casting him into two other films with his as "The Creeper" (albeit unrelated to this film): House of Horror and The Brute Man, both released in 1946, the same year of Hatton's death. In any case, this is a capable film that works just as well as most of the other Holmes films.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Porky's.

Review #1055: Porky's.

Cast: 
Dan Monahan (Edward "Pee Wee" Morris), Mark Herrier (Billy McCarty), Wyatt Knight (Tommy Turner), Roger Wilson (Mickey Jarvis), Cyril O'Reilly (Tim Cavanaugh), Tony Ganios (Anthony "Meat" Tuperello), Kaki Hunter (Wendy Williams), Kim Cattrall (Miss Lynn "Lassie" Honeywell), Nancy Parsons (Coach Beulah Balbricker), Scott Colomby (Brian Schwartz), Boyd Gaines (Coach Roy Brackett), Doug McGrath (Coach Fred Warren), and Chuck Mitchell (Porky Wallace) Directed by Bob Clark (#020 - A Christmas Story and #679 - Black Christmas)

Review: 
Admittedly, I am not the biggest watcher of teen comedies. Aside from a few exceptions (Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Superbad), this is generally a genre I'm not all too big with, although I'll say that at least I went into this film with an open mind, trying to not give this movie a hard time on purpose. In any case, this is a raunchy kind of teen flick that didn't really click with me all too well, although I can at least recognize its influence for other teen comedies, for better or for worse. The characters are vaguely memorable, but I didn't really find anybody to be really that funny, particularly since nobody looks/sounds like teenagers to begin with. The standout for me is Chuck Mitchell, who (despite being billed deep into the credits) plays Porky with the right kind of intimidation and sleazy nature that works in the short amount of time he's on screen, being the right kind of pig in a farm of mild-leveled ferrets trying to make you laugh. For me, the situations didn't really click for me, whether it was the main plot or the parts with other characters because the cliches feel smarmy this time around.

The film is vulgar and gross, but it isn't something that you would be surprised by, with one or two funny gags throughout. Director Bob Clark based off incidents from his time of growing up in high school and college for the film, and while I can't say they make for very funny instances, I will at least credit him for trying to make a film that looks like something a teenager could relate to. I can't get mad at something that is low bar if it aims for it intentionally. The film was shot in Florida, but it was produced by a Canadian company, Astral Bellevue Pathe Inc, with the success of the film meaning that it is the most successful "Canadian" film of all time. Like it or hate it, Porky's manages to both attract and repel audiences based on its content and weirdness. I can't really endorse it, but I also can't condemn it for being the film it wants to be, so I'd say it is something that could pique your interest if you're in the state of mind for it.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Great Dictator.

Review #1054: The Great Dictator.

Cast: 
Charlie Chaplin (Adenoid Hynkel - Dictator of Tomania / A Jewish Barber), Paulette Goddard (Hannah), Jack Oakie (Napaloni - Dictator of Bacteria), Henry Daniell (Garbitsch), Reginald Gardiner (Schultz), Billy Gilbert (Herring), Maurice Moscovitch (Mr. Jaeckel), Grace Hayle (Madame Napaloni), Carter DeHaven (Bacterian Ambassador), Emma Dunn (Mrs. Jaeckel), Bernard Gorcey (Mr. Mann), Paul Weigel (Mr. Agar), and Chester Conklin (Barber's Customer) 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, #1025 - The Circus, and #1041 - A Woman of Paris)

Review: 
The Great Dictator was Charlie Chaplin's first true sound film, along with his first without his character of "The Tramp", which he had utilized for his silent films. In any case, the film was released a year after the beginning of World War II, with Chaplin playing a parody of Adolf Hitler and Oakie playing a parody of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, although it was noted by Chaplin in later years that had he knew about the horrors of the concentration camps, he wouldn't have made the film. The film manages to be brilliant in utilizing comedy, satire and drama without having either of its elements being lost in excess, being a funny but also brave movie that holds its principles together by finding a balance in its two environments, with credit going to Chaplin and his script. Chaplin also does a tremendous job in both of his roles, having a fine distinct nature that works well within the mistaken identity parts later on, with the dictator parts having numerous highlights with all of the gestures and posturing that definitely strikes a chord. The parts with the barber might remind you a bit of the Tramp, although he plays it more of a outsider type that certainly fits. Goddard does a fine job in her parts on screen, having fine chemistry with Chaplin at points. Oakie does a stand-out job, having the correct amount of bombast and stature that makes for amusing rapport with Chaplin when they are both on screen together, particularly one scene involving chairs. Daniell and Gardiner also do fine jobs in their parts, distinct in their roles within the dictatorship that leave room for amusement. The rest of the actors do fair jobs in their roles. There are numerous great sequences and gags involving both slapstick and language, with one of my favorites being the ballet with a globe, which is helped by the music by Meredith Willson and Charlie Chaplin, fairly brilliant in its own right that has a fine timing to them that helps contributes to the flow of the film effectively for several scenes. The cinematography by Karl Struss and Roland Totheroh (a regular for some of Chaplin's films) is acceptable for the movie and its look.

The film does run finely at 124 minutes, never feeling too long. I will state that the climax of the film feels a bit sudden, particularly since it ends with a speech, which is an inspiring piece at least, so I can't blame Chaplin for wanting to incorporate it in a film he had all control over. Since that serves as the last point for the film, it is strange to wonder what would've happened after that point in the film, although apparently a folk dance sequence was apparently going to serve as the finale, and there were also plans to include shots of people from all over the world that would accept the message of peace, but these were abandoned after a bit of shooting from Chaplin. In any case, the movie isn't ruined by the last part, so take his words for what you will. The film was nominated for five Academy Awards (Outstanding Production (now known as Best Picture), Best Actor, Writing (Original Screenplay), Best Supporting Actor (Oakie), & Best Music (Original Score), although it fell short each time. It has since been selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the National Film Registry, and it is easy to see why. This is a brilliantly made movie that serves as a fine piece of entertainment for all ages that belongs with the rest of Chaplin's classics for a look.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.