Superman Returns.

Review #1077: Superman Returns.

Cast: 
Brandon Routh (Clark Kent / Superman), Kate Bosworth (Lois Lane), Kevin Spacey (Lex Luthor), James Marsden (Richard White), Parker Posey (Kitty Kowalski), Frank Langella (Perry White), Sam Huntington (Jimmy Olsen), Eva Marie Saint (Martha Kent), Marlon Brando (Jor-El), Kal Penn (Stanford), and Tristan Lake Leabu (Jason White) Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men, #010 - X2, and #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past)

Review: 
In honor of the 80th anniversary of Superman's debut in Action Comics #1, I figured that this would be the best time to finally cover this movie. I hope you enjoy this review, which I didn't try to stretch too long.

In 1978, Superman (#547) graced the big screen with an epic scale that had a collection of fine actors and a look that still manages to shine through after four decades, with this serving as a pioneer for comic book films. The sequel (#785) continued the good fortune of scope and a bit of amusement, having enough charm and magic to work, even if it was not as good as the first one. The two films that followed (#786 & #787) were terrible in their own right, having ridiculous plots along with bad execution and substance, and it would be nineteen years until Superman returned to the big screen. The film was a mild success at the box office, but it would be seven years before a new Superman film was released, which resorted to being an origin story. This film ignores the latter two films in an attempt to channel the energy of the first two films and make for great entertainment. Does it succeed?

I will first state that on the surface it is certainly an interesting idea to try and emulate the first two Reeve films, as some sort of attempt to pass the torch from the first two films onto this. After all, footage of Marlon Brando from the first film (with some help from some CGI) is utilized in the film, with John Ottman's music being a homage to the music from John Williams from the first one. For all the attempts of the film to follow the same beats, the best thing that can be said for Superman Returns is that it plays itself safe enough to at least feel like it wants to be a winner. The problem is that it doesn't really do much to prove that it is a winner beyond all doubt. It has a fine look to it at points with the cinematography by Newton Thomas Sigel, and the effects are at least satisfactory for the expectations one would expect for the film, but other times it might seem more like it is going through the motions.

Perhaps it is the length of 154 minutes that undercuts the film and makes it feel a bit of chore, but I never hated the experience for being so long. The film rests upon Routh and his shoulders, and at times he does seem like he can live up to the task with some of the sequences. However, he never really clicks into full gear to where we really want to connect with him, particularly when paired with Bosworth. You might say that the gap that the film establishes between the last time the two characters had met (roughly five years) means that the awkward exchanges between the two makes sense, but the real problem is that they don't seem particularly interesting to watch in said exchanges. You could say that they seem a bit too young for the roles (after all, both actors were under 30 when cast), but it really seems more a problem of execution that does them in. After all, it's not like Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder were old when they portrayed their roles, but they had a certain charm and care to them that sold itself in each scene they were in, as opposed to this film. The fact that the film wants to channel the first two films makes the comparisons between those and this film hurt the latter upon examination.

Spacey proves to be fairly sour in his role, and he seems to relish in his lunatic role that actually manages to pull the film toward some sort of gain for most of his scenes, especially when paired with Posey, a fairly good charmer. I think the film probably could've done a bit better with some more scenes between Spacey and Routh, since it takes them nearly two hours to meet. However, that would likely mean having to try and make the film shorter with cuts, since I don't think making it longer would help it at all. Marsden doesn't really make too much of an impression for me, not so much a dull performance as it is just a slightly thankless role. Langella is fine for his time on screen. The film tries to go through so many motions with its plot that it just feels like it is trying to not bloviate itself into oblivion. From its parts with the scheme (which is amusing to ponder about) to its part with Lois and her son to a fairly okay climax, the movie likely has too much going on to really make a good focus. I never hated the experience with the film, but I also never found myself believing in what the film was trying to sell me. I feel that the film probably should've tried to be a reboot (much like Batman Begins (#062), released the year before) instead of trying to play itself a bit too safe with its homage of what had worked better decades prior. Can I recommend the film? I can in the sense that it will likely work just fine for people who are willing to buy into its homage attempt and willing to let the entertainment roll through without skepticism.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Thelma & Louise.

Review #1076: Thelma & Louise.

Cast: 
Susan Sarandon (Louise Sawyer), Geena Davis (Thelma Dickinson), Harvey Keitel (Detective Hal Slocumb), Michael Madsen (Jimmy Lennox), Christopher McDonald (Darryl Dickinson), Stephen Tobolowsky (Max), Brad Pitt (J.D.), and Timothy Carhart (Harlan Puckett) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, and #739 - The Martian)

Review: 
Thelma & Louise is an engaging road movie that has its shares of laughs and tough moments that belies itself on the strength of its two main characters. It manages to serve as great entertainment full of self-discovery and sharp honestly that resonates even after over two decades since its release. Sarandon and Davis make for a capable duo in part because of how their distinct personalities mix and match. Sarandon plays her role with a roughly honest type of viewpoint that never seems too cynical nor too out-of-place in any scene. Davis does a great job in making her dependably energetic character seem the perfect match to play with Sarandon, and her chemistry with Pitt is fairly well-done if not quick. Pitt has a slinky hustler charm to him that makes him watchable each scene that he is in, having a magnetic pull that served to be his breakthrough role. Keitel does a good job, evoking honestly in his authority role that never comes off as distracting. Madsen sells his casual rocker role fairly adeptly, quick to charm and care. McDonald plays his character with the right sense of control and inflated self-importance that fits the movie pretty well. The film has numerous particularly emotions in its scenes, whether shocking or amusing, and it manages to never veer itself too much in one direction that would come off as distracting. The screenplay by Callie Khouri is a tightly packed one that was rewarded with Academy Award and Golden Globe honors. The film has a controlled look that feels fairly authentic, having an execution to it that is surely captivating - particularly since it doesn't betray its principles. It doesn't ever comes off as just a road movie without much substance, with these main characters becoming memorable ones to follow. It has some turns and cliches that seem par for the course for this type of genre, but it doesn't detract from its value as an adventure too much. Even at 129 minutes, this is a film that never feels like it is wasting any moment with these characters and the tale that it is weaving. The movie has an ending that certainly serves as a symbolic and memorable capstone to something that clicks at the right times with the right kind of people behind and in front of the camera. It makes a leap for entertainment - and it succeeds at that quite well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Hollywood Homicide.

Review #1075: Hollywood Homicide.

Cast: 
Harrison Ford (Detective-Sergeant Joseph "Joe" Gavilan), Josh Hartnett (Detective K. C. Calden), Lena Olin (Ruby), Bruce Greenwood (Lieutenant Bernard "Bennie" Macko), Isaiah Washington (Antoine Sartain), Lolita Davidovich (Cleo Ricard), Keith David (Leon), Master P (Julius Armas), Gladys Knight (Olivia Robidoux), and Martin Landau (Jerry Duran) Directed by Ron Shelton (#381 - Cobb)

Review: 
If you have a film with two actors who seem to want to make the best of their time on screen and elicit some sort of chemistry with each other, you'll likely have a good time. It's a shame that is not the case with this movie, however. Ford and Hartnett manage to star in a film where they don't seem to share any kind of chemistry with each other, not eliciting many particularly amusing moments nor anything that seems remotely connecting. Ford does a decent job performance wise, but he doesn't seem to be the best type for this role, seeming a bit out of place that might've been better suited for someone like John Travolta (who originally was meant to star in the role), particularly with the real estate "dealmaking" parts. Hartnett doesn't fair much better, somehow looking too young to play this detective role while also seeming to be the wrong fit to go along with Ford, seeming a bit too relaxed for this part - and the parts with him playing a would-be actor also not hitting the notes correctly either. In any case, they don't make for a particularly inspiring duo. Washington doesn't particularly inspire much as the villain, mostly because the plot-line doesn't give him much room to actually seem compelling (especially with the climax), whereas Greenwood sells his adversarial role and scenes with Ford. Olin does a kooky but serviceable job, with her parts with Ford being nothing too special. The other members of the cast are all okay at best. It might interest you to note this was written by Shelton and Robert Souza, a former homicide detective in the LAPD Hollywood Division who also happened to moonlight as a real estate broker in his latter years. I'll give the film credit for having some sort of semblance of reality, but I didn't find the end product to be too particularly effective. The numerous subplots and how things seem to just connect out of thin air makes for a convenient but somewhat tiresome pace, complete with a somewhat long but somewhat effective climatic chase sequence. There isn't too much to the action, but it will likely be pleasing enough. The film never seems to get itself into high gear, seemingly stuck in a loop of a mediocre story and a buddy duo that doesn't live up to carrying the movie. The end product is something that can be mildly enjoyable as a late night flick watch, but it won't be anything regarded as anything too good in its action or comedy. Take this misfire for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Whole Nine Yards.

Review #1074: The Whole Nine Yards.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (James "Jimmy The Tulip" Tudeski), Matthew Perry (Dr. Nicholas "Oz" Oseransky), Rosanna Arquette (Sophie Oseransky), Michael Clarke Duncan (Franklin "Frankie Figs" Figueroa), Natasha Henstridge (Cynthia Tudeski), Amanda Peet (Jill St. Claire), Kevin Pollak (Janni Gogolak), and Harland Williams (Special Agent Steve Hanson) Directed by Jonathan Lynn

Review: 
This is the kind of film that will linger on a movie shelf for years that you notice one day, and it inspires you to ponder on how it sat there - and the question pretty much remains prevalent even if you watch it. This is an easygoing kind of film, not having anything too particularly funny, but also nothing too particularly awful to it either, having a fine cast for a black comedy that will elicit some laughs.  At 98 minutes, it doesn't come off as a tiresome dredge, so there's that going for it. The story has its bits of turns, blurring the lines of cliche and clever at times in its execution. I did find it amusing that it's set in Montréal, though. Willis does a fine charming job with the slick role he is given, exuding a manner that is fairly amusing. Perry does a decent job, garnering a few laughs and making for a fairly watchable one to pair off Willis at times that doesn't get too grating. Arquette is fairly grating, as per the script, and the French accent does tend to border a bit on Inspector Clouseau at times - but I can't say I'm too surprised at that, so annoying or not, she is an okay adversary I suppose. Duncan does his enforcer well fairly well, complete with a bit of charm. Henstridge is fairly intriguing, having slight chemistry with Perry.  Peet delivers a fairly charming performance for the time she is on screen, managing to elict some laughs with a charm and style that makes her irresistible to watch. If you find the film something that engages you with its good intentions of dark-ish humor, you will find something worth watching; on the other hand, if you find the humor to be a bit like a sitcom without much bite, you might see the film as an afterthought. I didn't feel bored all too often, and I felt it was at least an okay crime comedy, so take that for what it's worth. It isn't a classic in any sense, but it will probably satisfy the curious tastes of most of the people picking it out. For me, it's just okay. It isn't a classic in any sense, but it is at least entertainment that succeeds - for the most part.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Quiet Place.

Review #1073: A Quiet Place.

Cast: 
Emily Blunt (Evelyn Abbott), John Krasinski (Lee Abbott), Millicent Simmonds (Regan Abbott), Noah Jupe (Marcus Abbott), Cade Woodward (Beau Abbott), and Leon Russom (Man in the woods) Directed by John Krasinski.

Review: 
In horror films, the best way to elicit scares is generally to use certain movements or certain imagery to get a reaction that will hopefully be effective consistently enough to deliver good entertainment. With this film, it utilizes its selective choice of sound and atmosphere to deliver a tense but successfully suspenseful horror film that I readily enjoyed. Its reliance on sound as a form of raising tension is effective, in part because the movie knows exactly what it is striving for with its sound, not making needless sound for the sake of a cheap thrill. This is the kind of movie that doesn't become just a gimmick without any sort of substance to it, having a heart to it. The film's emphasis on the family is fairly watchable, resonating well in a way that feels authentic, where you care about these characters and aren't just wanting to get a glimpse at the creature. It's interesting to watch a film that has more American Sign Language than English, where you can count the amount of scenes of dialogue between characters with their voices on probably one hand. In any case, the actors do a good job, being interesting to watch in their story and carrying their emotions on their sleeve with fair ease. The film's structure is fairly well done, and while it may have some slight distractions at times with some of the choices made, the basic outline is sound enough. Blunt, and Krasinski have fine chemistry with each other that is neatly natural, and Simmonds and Jupe do fine jobs in selling their roles without much hesitation. The film is shot well, having a clean and calculated look by Charlotte Bruus Christensen, with a fairly effective music score by Marco Beltrami and satisfactory direction from Krasinski (who helped with writing the screenplay along with Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, who are credited for story). The effect for the creature are fairly decent,  The movie runs at a fairly coherent pace of 90 minutes, managing to be entertaining at the right moments along with having enough charm to power itself a winner.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

48 Hrs.

Review #1072: 48 Hrs.

Cast: 
Nick Nolte (Jack Cates), Eddie Murphy (Reggie Hammond), James Remar (Albert Ganz), David Patrick Kelly (Luther), Sonny Landham (Billy Bear), Brion James (Ben Kehoe), Annette O'Toole (Elaine Marshall), and Frank McRae (Captain Haden) Directed by Walter Hill.

Review: 
Admittedly, the buddy cop genre is not something that came out of thin air for entertainment. Pairing two people together with differing personalities to work together has been done numerous times over the past few decades, whether involving cops paired with each other in some sort of mismatch (such as the Lethal Weapon series or the Rush Hour trilogy), or even parodying the genre (such as in Last Action Hero). In any case, 48 Hrs is considered one of the films that formed a blueprint for the genre that manages to succeed due to its chemistry between its main two leads, Nolte and Murphy. Whenever they are on-screen together, they just click together in their raw quirky nature, contentious but compelling to watch. Nolte sells his rough and cynical character well, a grouch that isn't grating as it could've been. This was the screen debut for Murphy, who had been starring on Saturday Night Live since 1980, and he manages to do a great job, selling this confident and clever role with the right sense of conviction and timing (interestingly, he was nominated for a Golden Globe for New Star of the Year in a Motion Picture, although he lost to Ben Kingsley in Gandhi). They are a fun duo to watch mess around with each other, with my particular favorite being the scene in a bar in which Murphy intimidates the rowdy customers in order to get some useful information, mostly because of how amusing he plays his hand to the patrons. Remar is a decent villain, fairly slimy and not too much of an evil cliche, and Landham makes for an adequate second-fiddle. The other members of the cast aren't too involved with the plot much, but they are at least decent sidepieces for the film. The action sequences are neatly done, riveting in their execution and satisfactory for ones looking for excitement. The plot isn't anything revolutionary, but the film goes at an energetic pace that makes for quality entertainment that never really drags itself out at a brisk length of 96 minutes that will click at the right moments (such as with its action and main duo) to make it all worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

13 Ghosts (1960).

Review #1071: 13 Ghosts.

Cast: 
Charles Herbert (Arthur "Buck" Zorba), Jo Morrow (Medea Zorba), Rosemary DeCamp (Hilda Zorba), Martin Milner (Benjamin Rush), Donald Woods (Cyrus Zorba), Margaret Hamilton (Elaine Zacharias), John van Dreelen (Van Allen), William Castle (Himself), David Hoffman (Messenger), and Roy Jenson (Dr. Plato Zorba's ghost) Directed by William Castle (#369 - House on Haunted Hill)

Review: 
Oh my, look what today is. So why not do a film with "13" in it? Also, I figured that it was time to do a William Castle film again, seeing how it was in April of 2013 that I last reviewed one of his films. Enjoy Friday the 13th, and if you miss out it won't be too bad since the next one is in July. 

What is there to say about a haunted house horror film? Quite a bit, actually. This is the kind of movie that tries to have fun with its premise with a few frights and a charming nature that permeates throughout its 84 minute run-time. Who can give this movie criticism for wanting to showcase a tight story and a few thrills that doesn't lie about its intent? One of my favorite lines in the film happens nearly an hour in: "I met a lion". Said line is stated by Herbert, who provides a fairly sincere performance for a twelve year old, being fairly adept in his environment that never cloys over the others. The rest of the cast prove to be fairly decent, never overplaying their hand nor going too much toward ridiculousness, with DeCamp and Woods being fairly useful parents for the film. Milner does fine, never too assuming or obvious in his role. Hamilton is also pretty fine to watch, having a strange aura around her that is watchable without being overt. On the whole, the movie is never boring, mostly because the cast plays along with the plot without being tongue-in-cheek or too serious, having a fine line of energy to it. The movie doesn't have too much of a great plot, but it manages to have a few twists and moves that actually seem riveting.

This was Castle's fourth film (with the others being Macabre (1958), House on Haunted Hill (1959), and The Tingler (1959)) to utilize a gimmick to promote the movie, with this gimmick being dubbed "Illusion-O". As stated by Castle himself in the beginning, whenever there were scenes involving ghosts, the viewer had a choice (through a cardboard square with blue and red tint celluloid) to see the ghosts, since the footage for the ghosts was shot so that the viewer would see them if they saw through the red lens, while the blue would result in not seeing the ghosts. It takes roughly a third of the film for the first ghost to appear, and it's certainly an interesting gimmick - sure you can see the ghosts even without the glasses, but it doesn't detract too much from what is an interesting idea to see play out. It may not be very scary, but it at least is somewhat interesting to watch play out. This is a movie with vast showmanship, never betraying its principles of entertainment for a cheap force-out, having a fine time with its thrills (and gimmick) that will certainly prove satisfactory for most.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Speedy.

Review #1070: Speedy.

Cast: 
Harold Lloyd (Harold 'Speedy' Swift), Ann Christy (Jane Dillon), Bert Woodruff (Pop Dillon - Her Grand-daddy), Byron Douglas (W.S. Wilton), Brooks Benedict (Steve Carter), and Babe Ruth (Himself) Directed by Ted Wilde (#1044 - The Kid Brother)

Review: 
Speedy was the eleventh feature film starring Harold Lloyd, along with being his last silent film, released during the early transition from silent to sound features, with his next film Welcome Danger (1929) being filmed in both silent and sound but released in the latter. In any case, this is a fairly interesting film that manages to have its own share of charms. The plot involves Lloyd's character trying to save his love's grandfather from losing his business of operating a horse-drawn streetcar in New York City. Lloyd plays this carefree role convincingly enough, being quite charming and as useful as ever in his work with selling the gags. Christy and Woodruff are fairly decent, showing a bit of charm in each of their scenes with Lloyd. The other members of the cast are decent enough, although there isn't any particularly memorable adversaries or companions this time around, though the gags manage to make up for it enough.

There are numerous scenes showing the landscape of New York City, such as the scenes at Luna Park at Coney Island, or parts with Yankee Stadium, with the credit going to the filmmakers for not resorting to sets to try to simply have the film all filmed in sets, although a street of the Lower East Side was constructed on property that Lloyd owned on Westwood, California to complete the film. In any case, it's certainly interesting to look at this film as a time capsule of the city 80 years ago. The sequences on Coney Island are pretty entertaining, particularly the dollar-bill gag. Over halfway through the film, Babe Ruth (along with Lou Gehrig, appearing for a few seconds) shows up in an extended cameo role, being one of Lloyd's passengers on the taxi, which is pretty amusing. It may interest you to know that Wilde was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director of a Comedy for this film, awarded at the 1st Academy Awards, although he lost to Lewis Milestone for his work on Two Arabian Knights (1927). This was the only Oscar ceremony in which there were separate categories (in this case, "Dramatic" and "Comedy") for Best Director. Naturally, the film ends with a big spectacle chase, filled with laughs and amusement that will surely prove charming to watch. On the whole, this is a fine piece of film-work that will certainly charm fans of silent films or fans of Lloyd - with me falling into both categories. It isn't as great as something like Safety Last! (#758), but it will fall under the line of an acceptable gem to focus 86 minutes on - take it for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Lady of the Night (1925).

Review #1069: Lady of the Night.

Cast: 
Norma Shearer (Molly Helmer / Florence Banning), Malcolm McGregor (David Page), Dale Fuller (Miss Carr), George K. Arthur ("Chunky" Dunn), Fred Esmelton (Judge Banning), Lew Harvey (Chris Helmer, Molly's father), Gwen Lee (Molly's friend), and Betty Morrissey (Gertie) Directed by Monta Bell.

Review: 
I will admit that the concept of someone playing dual roles for a movie is pretty interesting, particularly in the era before CGI such as silent films like this, and it also helps if the actor or actress playing both roles manages to make the roles distinct. The story done to set up the two is a bit sketchy in setting them up, but it isn't anything too harmfully contrived. Shearer plays her two characters with enough contrast and believability to make for a fairly interesting pair of performances. It may interest you to know that Joan Crawford made her film debut in this movie, doing so in a uncredited role, serving as the body double for Shearer for the climax of the film involving Shearer's two characters, which is handled well. Her portrayal of Molly is more interesting to watch on screen than her portrayal of Florence, but the fun is seeing her presence and her grace that seems very believable for the time. McGregor is fairly decent, showing some carefulness and ready nature. The rest of the cast is okay, with Arthur being slightly amusing. The film is a fairly pleasant one, showing its characters and a decent little romance that has the hallmarks that you would expect from a love triangle. It manages to achieve its basic goals of entertainment without resorting to anything overtly ridiculous or anything boring. I won't say that it's a hidden classic or a hallmark of romance, but it is at least a decent experience. The color hues utilized in the film (such as blue or purple) are fairly pretty to look at. With the performances by Shearer, the film doesn't manage to overstay its welcome with its 62 minute run-time. This is a movie that you might find to be a neat little gem if you're in the mood for what it offers and what it shows.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ready Player One.

Review #1068: Ready Player One.

Cast: 
Tye Sheridan (Wade Watts / Parzival), Olivia Cooke ( Samantha Cook / Art3mis), Ben Mendelsohn (Nolan Sorrento), Lena Waithe (Helen Harris / Aech), T.J. Miller (i-R0k), Simon Pegg (Ogden Morrow), Mark Rylance (James Halliday / Anorak), Philip Zhao (Akihide Karatsu / Sho), Win Morisaki (Toshiro Yoshiaki / Daito), and Hannah John-Kamen (F'Nale Zandor) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, and #958 - Always)

Review: 
Hello fellow readers. I did not intend for this review to go a bit over 800 words, so forgive the increase in length for once. I hope you enjoy this review.

What can be said of a movie that basks itself in nostalgia and pop culture so deliberately? Can one really criticize said movie for pandering, particularly a blockbuster like this? The film is adapted from the novel of the same name by Ernest Cline, who contributed to the screenplay for the movie alongside Zak Penn. It may serve overwhelming (or obnoxious) for some, but I can't really blame someone for getting some sort of enjoyment out of a popcorn movie, much like I can't really blame someone for liking a Transformers movie or even something terrible like The Room (#185). I will state that this is a better film than either of those examples, but being a thrill ride can't excuse the movie entirely. There is a considerable amount of thrills and action that can shine through most of its shortcomings. One particular shortcoming proves to be its narrative, a collection of cliches and contrivances that comes to the surprise of no one, whether involving its main character or even his chemistry with "Art3mis", and so on. To get angry at the movie for being exactly what it seems like seems fruitless to me.

With its approach to the OASIS, I found that there were times that felt mesmerizing, but there were also moments that felt ridiculous and nearly amusing to see, and having some of the references get explained didn't exactly help. I did find parts of the film that were pretty fun, such as the dance sequence and one particular sequence involving a homage to a certain horror film that is fairly clever, along with a few other references, such as one to The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (#776). The film certainly has a fine look to it, and the CGI doesn't come off as too particularly distracting, for what it's worth. I never myself hating the film, but I also found myself laughing at parts I probably shouldn't have, such as some of the moments in the OASIS or the ending in particular. The climax isn't too bad, for an action film I suppose. If you find VR headsets cool, I'm sure you'll enjoy it in the film; if you find it to be a bit ridiculous, you might get a laugh, like I kind of did when seeing a scene in which people were using and acting out with the headsets in public. I was surprised to see that the film runs at 140 minutes long, so take your pick on if that is time worth using.

Although it can be said that the characters aren't too particularly developed, I will state that the acting is at the very least fine enough to carry the movie. I find that Sheridan does an okay job, in part because he has a role that doesn't really have much in terms of motivation besides a basic hero type (this can be signified by the speech given during the climax), but he isn't painfully annoying. Cooke does the best with what she is given for a role that also isn't too particularly developed, but she is slightly interesting to watch. I can't really say the chemistry between the two of them is particularly good, mostly going through the motions as if clicking boxes on the checklist. Mendelsohn does a fine job in making a character as generically evil as "corporate businessman" can be and turning it into something that is at the very least entertaining. There's is just something about him and the way that he interacts this environment, reminding me of Paul Gleason, particularly his role in The Breakfast Club (#046). Waike proves to be fairly endearing, providing a few laughs that help the film gain a bit of levity. Miller is also pretty amusing in his henchman role, for the most part. Pegg is fine for the time he is on screen. Rylance proves to be worthy to play this strange character that reminds me of Willy Wonka, albeit with random riddles. The other members of the cast don't have much time on screen, but they serve their parts well.

The film is never particularly moving, but it is at the very least a ride that won't make you too sick to your stomach. I can't give this movie much of an endorsement, but I also won't stand in the way of people who want to enjoy some sort of escapism. It isn't as good as some (or most) of the things that it references, but it is at the very least someone's version of a good time. Will it be some sort of cinema touchstone for pop culture or science fiction? I would say no, but I will conclude that it will just be a movie that comes and goes without leaving something obnoxious behind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters.

Review #1067: The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters.

Cast: 
Steve Wiebe, Billy Mitchell, Walter Day, Robert Mruczek, Brian Kuh, Steve Sanders, Dwayne Richard, Roy Shildt, Todd Rogers, Greg Bond, and Doris Self. Directed by Seth Gordon (#772 - Four Christmases)

Review: 
This happens to be a rare occasion for Movie Night, a documentary film. This is only the second time I've done a documentary review, with the first being Life Itself (#690). The fact that it has been over a decade since this film was released has meant that there has been a few developments in the lives of some of the people in this movie (along with some bonus footage) - but I'll try to focus on the product as it was originally done in 2007.

How does one talk about a documentary like this, where at one point one person talks about how one has to pay to price in order to etch their name to a world record, particularly one such as Donkey Kong, which is a fairly interesting game in its own right? One particular favorite moment of mine is when Wiebe's daughter comments on the Guinness World Record Book and the people in it: "Some people sort of ruin their lives to be in there." Stuff like that helps define the film into more than just a blind pursuit. In a world where any type of thing can be a competition (spelling bees, bagging contests, and even sudoku), I suppose that this film can fit the bill of stories that merit a watch - with the enjoyment level depending on how invested one gets in the subject matter of Donkey Kong. I can say that I found some enjoyment from it, as it managed to present itself in an entertaining but useful manner that made itself seem necessary to exist and not something made for laughs. It presents an assortment of interesting people - whether it's a teacher and would be musician and challenger for the record (Wiebe), or a man who in his day job owns a restaurant chain and sells hot sauce while parading his fame for his Donkey Kong record, among other records (Mitchell), or even a man that (I kid you not) goes by a nickname of "Mr. Awesome" (Shildt, in a minor role). Whatever the case, the film shows the strange nature of what it really means to go for as weird as the high score on Donkey Kong. The film certainly runs well enough at 79 minutes, managing to not feel boring or stretching its material out for too long. The movie isn't one that will work for everyone (mostly because of the fact that it is about a video game record, which seem like low stakes), but it manages to have a compelling entertainment value that certainly fits the mold for watchability, because the people showcased are useful enough to want to follow their story, for the most part. Wiebe seems to a fine humble guy to follow, and Mitchell's self-serving but confident manner is also useful to watch, with Day also seeming to be interesting to listen to. The rest of the people in the movie are also useful to watch in their own ways, such as Self, who was the world's oldest video game champion, with her record high score being on Q*bert and her attempt to try and get the record back. Shildt is a strange yet memorable highlight that certainly invites questions over what it means to pursue fame. There is something to be watched in a movie that sparks emotion of anxiety, along with a touch of jealousy in something as odd yet compulsively entertaining in its obsession that certainly makes for an interesting product. Is it anything great? I wouldn't say that necessarily, but I would say that it is at least a thing worth mentioning. No matter how you watch the movie (or play the game), this is one that I can recommend.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Longest Yard (2005).

Review #1066: The Longest Yard.

Cast: 
Adam Sandler (Paul "Wrecking" Crewe), Chris Rock (James "Caretaker" Farrell), James Cromwell (Warden Rudolph Hazen), Nelly (Earl Megget), William Fichtner (Cpt. Brian Knauer), Burt Reynolds (Coach Nate Scarborough), Bob Sapp (Switowski), Michael Irvin (Deacon Moss), Terry Crews ("Cheeseburger Eddy"), Bill Goldberg (Battle), Bill Romanowski (Guard Lambert), Brian Bosworth (Guard Garner), Kevin Nash (Sgt. Engleheart), and Steve Austin (Guard Dunham) Directed by Peter Segal (#466 - Nutty Professor II: The Klumps and #826 - Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult)

Review: 
Remember the original 1974 film (#778)? The film managed to generate a good deal of laughs that is finely aware of what it wants to be, complete with a fairly entertaining and brutal game of football, with Reynolds being a key highlight due to his charisma. It may interest you to note that this is the second remake of the original film, with Mean Machine being done in 2001, revolving around soccer. In any case, this is a movie that is mediocre in its approach, not doing anything too new with its material nor being anything too terrible to sit through, but it also isn't anything too noteworthy either. Sandler can't compare to Reynolds in terms of his portrayal of Crewe, not having too much energy nor being particularly funny, but it isn't anything that becomes loathsome to watch, at least. Rock has a bit of wisecracking energy that makes for a few amusing moments. Cromwell does okay with the material he's given. The other inmates are all okay for their moments on screen (such as Nelly and Sapp), even if they are used at times for some cheap gags - for better or worse. The guards don't have much time on screen, but at least they provide themselves to be the necessary foil. There weren't many moments that I got any big laughs from, just a few mild chuckles from time to time, but I can't say that it was consistently funny. It is strange to see Reynolds in the film, who looks a bit tired while serving as a reminder of the contrast between him and the other Crewe; it's just weird to see him star in a remake of a film he did, and I can't imagine that would be the case for something like Deliverance (#975) or even The Cannonball Run (#034). I didn't really get much enjoyment from the gags, but at least the football action is fine to watch. I can't hate the movie nor really give it a ringing endorsement, because it just feels like a middle-of-the-road type of film, where the gags can hit or miss depending on the kind of mood you are in. It won't top the original in any real discernible way, but it also won't be anything offensive to someone's sensibilities. If you're up to watching it, I suppose 113 minutes isn't too much of a chore. For others, I would just suggest the 1974 film.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.