Stealth.

Review #1089: Stealth.

Cast: 
Josh Lucas (Lt. Ben "Big" Gannon), Jessica Biel (Lt. Kara "Guns" Wade), Jamie Foxx (Lt. Henry "E-Z" Purcell), Sam Shepard (Capt. George Cummings), Joe Morton (Capt. Dick Marshfield), Richard Roxburgh (Dr. Keith Orbit), Ian Bliss (Lt. Aaron Shaftsbury), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Tim), David Andrews (Ray), and Wentworth Miller (EDI) Directed by Rob Cohen (#043 - The Fast and the Furious and #924 - The Boy Next Door)

Review: 
For a movie that is called "Stealth", the film's only real secret is that it is terrible within the first twenty minutes. From its preposterous plot to the underplayed characters that are followed up by equally underplayed acting, this film was a notable failure upon original release, making just over half of its reported budget of $135 million dollars. It would seem they put more thought into spending money for the effects than anything else, for the movie's detriment as it turns out. The effects aren't terrible, but there isn't a moment where you really feel the need to appreciate what is being shown on screen, with the action sequences being the worst offenders at this, feeling like bad cut-scenes that never cease to try and stymie the eyeballs. I was reminded of Broken Arrow (1996), a film I covered five years ago, while watching this flick - and that is not a compliment, seeing how that one was actually more riveting in comparison, where even Top Gun (1986) would be embarrassed at this thing. The movie uses the "set in the near future" excuse as a way to try and throw lingo (such as quantum computing) and the concept of AI, which is even more amusing if one has seen 2001: A Space Odyssey and its version of AI with HAL 9000, which was thought of in the 1960s as opposed to the 21st century like with Stealth, with the AI here seemingly placed to make it seem a little less like a generic action film and more like a generic science fiction action movie, but there is no way that any sane person would consider this sci-fi. This is more the kind of movie you would reject for $1 at the pawn shop than a worthwhile thing to watch.

There is something about this movie can't generate excitement beyond a chuckle at how over-the-top it presents itself that makes it a chore from start to finish. The acting is the nail in the coffin for this film, with our main trio of Lucas-Biel-Foxx being ridiculous to follow through with, in part because their characters are relentlessly generic and none of them are really up to the task of elevating them to watchability. The closest to entertainment value is Foxx, who has a few moments of amusement. Lucas and Biel have zero chemistry with each other, and they equally add zero charisma to these roles, coming off as boring people to follow that aren't entertaining even in the action sequences. Shepard doesn't do too bad, but the film seems to be beneath him, reminding me of how much more fun I had with him in The Right Stuff (1983). The most amusing voice is Miller, playing the "rogue AI", a trope that you can see coming nearly five minutes after he is first introduced. The plot is all over the place with stuff that you can readily expect and stuff that you wouldn't dare expect, but the most amusing aspect is a line of dialogue referring to the AI, in that it apparently downloaded all of the songs from the web. Yes, an rogue AI that not only goes against commands but also is a pirate of music companies. Oh, the horror. Trying to analyze the film or tear down its flaws piece by piece would be just as exhausting as watching the movie, only less time-consuming. By the time the film has the gall to end with a post-credits scene, you will have already started the process of trying to forget what you have seen, in the hope that it won't bore you to death any further than it already has in its 121 minute run-time. Even as a bad flick, it isn't enjoyably bad, managing to be a relentlessly dull and plodding piece of dreck.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Redux: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Redux Review #093: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Cast: 
Keir Dullea (Dr. David Bowman), Gary Lockwood (Dr. Frank Poole), William Sylvester (Dr. Heywood Floyd), Douglas Rain (HAL 9000), Daniel Richter (Moonwatcher), Leonard Rossiter (Dr. Andrei Smyslov), Margaret Tyzack (Elena), Robert Beatty (Dr. Ralph Halvorsen), and Sean Sullivan (Dr. Roy Michaels) Directed by Stanley Kubrick (#044 - Full Metal Jacket and #065 - The Shining)

Review: 
Greetings. The original review was 188 words long, which is the easiest thing to state why a Redux Review for this classic is in order, even after over six years since I wrote the review back in Season 2. In addition, it is the 50th Anniversary year of this film's release. I intended to make a review fitting of the scope of the film, which if you appreciate reviews of mine that go on the long side, this is for you. Enjoy.

Stanley Kubrick wanted to make a kind of science fiction film that dealt with extraterrestrial life and its possibilities that strove to not just be a good science fiction movie, but a well-known one. He started his vision to make that sort of film in 1964, soon finding a collaborator in Arthur C. Clarke. Together, over the next four years, the two collaborated together, writing the screenplay simultaneously with the novel. Kubrick and Clarke used a short story that the latter had written in 1948 named "The Sentinel", which was used an inspiration for the story of the film, along with using ideas from other stories. When it came time for credit on the screenplay, they shared the credit, while Clarke received author credit for the novel (which had elements cut out from the film), which was published after the release of the film. The novel provided elements to the story that the film did not cover, providing more details that you would likely expect, with one big difference being the planet that the characters take a journey to (Saturn in the book, Jupiter in the film), which occurred due to the effects crew could not render convincing rings for Saturn. Clarke would later write three additional novels: 2010: Odyssey Two (1982), 2061: Odyssey Three (1987), and 3001: The Final Odyssey (1997), with 2010 being the only one that was adapted into a film.

In any case, what can one say of 2001: A Space Odyssey? More importantly, what can one examine from something such as this? The best answer lies within what you see from it. There is a certain beauty in its scope of what it does in its 142 minute run-time, being something that clearly stood out among other science fiction films of the time in its style and execution. That's not to say that this film made other films of its genre look bad, it just means that this film sets a high bar for what a science film can strive to be, which you could also argue with regard to Planet of the Apes from that same year. The movie attempted to make an visual experience that connects with its audience like a painting, where you gaze upon what it says with what it doesn't. In an interview for the film in 1968, Kubrick stated this about trying to interpret the film: "You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point." Nothing in that statement is incorrect, in part because the movie succeeds in making an smart and well made experience that manages to create discussion and wonder after half of a century. It's interesting to watch something that tries to challenge the viewer with something that says something about the nature of man without being too indulgent in its tone. The pacing may prove to be a bit slow for some, but if you have enough patience to let the film sink itself in, you will get some fine entertainment and also something to think about. The Stargate sequence is one of the more notable scenes that endures from the film, done through slit-scan photography of high-contrast images while using landscape shots of places such as Monument Valley. It is a disturbing but breathtaking scene to look at, whether to look at its variety of color or to ponder over what it means. For effects such as these (along with others involving front projection), the film won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects that year, although due to Academy rules at the time (where only three people could be nominated for their work), Kubrick was nominated (and subsequently won) for the award over the four effects contributors credited in the film (Douglas Trumbull, Tom Howard, Con Pederson, and Wally Veevers).

In a movie filled with visual and audio beauty, the people that act within the film aren't as prominent (particularly with some of the dialogue), but they deliver the kind of performances that you would expect from a Kubrick film in that he controls what you receive with the lines, where people are not going to just deliver random one-liners or overtly ominous lines without warning. The main three actors of Dullea, Lockwood, and Sylvester prove to be fine every-man type of people that do what they are meant to do without much fanfare, with Dullea being useful enough to watch as our face for the second half. Prior to this film, Rain was known mostly for his stage work and his narration for the 1960 documentary Universe that showcased animation of a voyage through space that Kubrick viewed, garnering the help of some of the makers of the film, including Rain. As such, he does a fine job in making the voice of HAL9000 seem to come alive, not being overtly mechanical or too broad for Kubrick's intent; it can even be argued that Rain makes this character seem more human than the other actors, with the sequence at the end involving "Daisy Bell" being a key standout. Before he was hired for the "Dawn of Man" sequence, Richter worked as a street mime for a troupe in England, and he was instrumental in choreographing the sequence with the other actors playing ape-men, and he does a standout job in making the effect click - particularly the push cut involving the bone-club and satellite. The film utilizes classical music, which was innovative for the time as compared to the usual tradition of having a film score by a composer. The movie had a music score commissioned for it by Kubrick that was done by Alex North, who had composed music for films such as A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), Spartacus (1960), and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966). However, Kubrick decided to use the pieces that he had designated as "guide pieces" for the soundtrack instead of North's score. It's hard to disagree with the choice, particularly with pieces such as "Also sprach Zarathustra" (utilized in the opening credits) or "The Blue Danube" during the docking and landing sequences, or "Requiem for Soprano, Mezzo-Soprano, 2 Mixed Choirs and Orchestra" by György Ligeti (with "Atmosphères" also being utilized for the climatic sequence), a haunting piece that is just right for the scenes it is used in.

Simply put, there is nothing quite like watching 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film that stands out on a cosmic scale of its own in the realm of the science fiction genre that still stands out of a hallmark of great film-making. The way that it shows its technology of what people thought 2001 would look like is intriguing  to think about, aside from the other points to think about. It is a demanding movie on an intellectual level, but it isn't something that can only be appreciated by elitists only. It won't be the perfect film for everyone, but it certainly is a monument of some kind to telling an epic story of man that is ultimately worth it. This film has numerous iconic images and moments that have endured in the years that have followed its release, whether involving its music score, the monolith sequences, HAL9000 itself or the aforementioned Stargate sequence that make this movie live on in the eyes of viewers all across the world.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Sex Drive.

Review #1088: Sex Drive.

Cast: 
Josh Zuckerman (Ian Lafferty), Amanda Crew (Felicia Alpine), Clark Duke (Lance Johnson), Seth Green (Ezekiel), James Marsden (Rex Lafferty), Katrina Bowden (Ms. Tasty), Alice Greczyn (Mary), Michael Cudlitz (Rick), David Koechner (Hitchhiker), Dave Sheridan (Bobby Jo), Mark L. Young (Randy), and Charlie McDermott (Andy) Directed by Sean Anders.

Review:  
Obligatory sports comment: Oh my stars, the Washington Capitals are actually going to the Stanley Cup, and it's against the Vegas Golden Knights. I hope that all of the games of this series will be entertaining, and I will be glad to see a team hoist the Cup for the first time ever. 

Oh look, a raunchy teen comedy. If you can believe it, the film is based off a book, named All the Way by Andy Behrens. In any case, what can one expect from a movie such as this? I didn't expect much from it, and I wasn't exactly disappointed. I was reminded of Superbad (#1032) in that the two films both had nerdy leads that were driven by their desire to become men, but it became pretty obvious quickly that Superbad was the better experience, having a good cast and a consistent pace that had a heart to it with confidence in what it wants to be. This film is just as crude as the other one (with a unrated cut that ups the ante), but it isn't as funny with its lewdness because it just isn't as clever. The cast is a mixed bag. Zuckerman is occasionally funny, but he can't really elevate his character towards anything too mildly interesting to follow through, which can also apply to Crew, who feels a bit lacking at times. Their plotlines just seem a bit too routine and a bit too boring to really generate much laughs. Duke is fairly amusing, however, having a confidence and swagger that gives the film some needed laughs at times. Green is also pretty amusing, having a biting sarcasm that certainly helps give the movie some sort of edge in his brief time on screen. Marsden also a few amusing moments with his swaggering character. The payoff and climax is what you (mostly) might expect, for better or worse.

The biggest problem with the movie is that it just isn't funny enough to really justify its own existence, raunchy or not. Even if you already know what's going to happen (with it's structure, anyway), there isn't enough with these characters and the gags to make something worthwhile from start to finish. Sure, there are some moments that are pretty interesting (such as the hitchhiker / radiator trouble sequences), but a good part of the time just feels a bit like going through the motions, whether through a four letter word or through some method. There exist two cuts of the film, with the original cut being 109 minutes long, while the "Unrated Cut" lasts 129 minutes, with the latter being what you would expect, which may be more enjoyable or painful, depending on your view of the film. It isn't a terrible experience, and it will deliver some cheap thrills, but it also is just a movie that will come and go just as quickly as it came.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Deadpool 2.

Review #1087: Deadpool 2.

Cast: 
Ryan Reynolds (Wade Wilson / Deadpool), Josh Brolin (Cable), Morena Baccarin (Vanessa), Julian Dennison (Russell Collins / Firefist), Zazie Beetz (Domino), T.J. Miller (Weasel), Brianna Hildebrand (Negasonic Teenage Warhead), Jack Kesy (Black Tom Cassidy), Stefan Kapičić (Colossus), Leslie Uggams (Blind Al), Karan Soni (Dopinder), Terry Crews (Bedlam), Lewis Tan (Shatterstar), Bill Skarsgård (Zeitgeist), Rob Delaney (Peter) and Brad Pitt (Vanisher) Directed by David Leitch (#905 - John Wick and #978 - Atomic Blonde)

Review: 
Deadpool (#779) was certainly an interesting experience, particularly in its pace and its jokes, with Reynolds being a key highlight that certainly proved to be amusing enough to make a sequel easily possible. As described by Reynolds himself, "The first movie is a love story masquerading as a comic-book movie, and this one is kind of a family film masquerading as a comic-book film again." The best thing I can say about this movie is that it succeeds at being good entertainment, particularly by being a fine follow-up to the previous one without just being a "greatest hits" type of film. At 119 minutes, it is slightly longer in length than the first movie (which was 108), but it thankfully doesn't feel bloated, in part because of how fun it is with its cast and action.

Reynolds sells the part just as well (if not better) as he did in the original, having a charm to him that still manages to feel fresh and involving, which generates a good deal of the laughs. Brolin does a fine job, selling this steely role with competency and a fair sense of timing to elevate material that could've been generic in lesser hands. Dennison does a fine job, showing a fair deal of vulnerability and angst that works for his plot thread, selling it well when paired with Reynolds. Beetz does a pretty good job, being fairly charming and good with timing in a movie filled with quick zingers and nearly as quick action sequences. The returning cast-mates from the original (Baccarin, Miller, Hildebrand, Kapičić, Uggams, Soni) aren't as prominent this time around, although they do contribute to a few amusing moments. With the numerous meta gags and things that the film likes to throw at the viewer, one could be tempted to wonder if Deadpool 2 nearly goes off the deep end with trying to be fun. While I find that there are times that the movie doesn't quite sell itself too handily (applying in some part to the first half), there are an abundant amount of moments that click to pull it off. While the film doesn't really have much of a villain, there is enough in its story pursuit that makes it click decently. The movie has an adequate emotional core to where you can be reasonably be invested in what it's selling, especially because the cast looks like they're having fun while doing so while feeling believable enough to seem useful. The action sequences are pulled off pretty well, having an execution to them that maneuvers itself with good motion that you'd expect. It isn't as good as the first film, but there is enough fun and amusement along with some structure to make for a relatively satisfying sequel, and I can't wait to see what will happen next with these characters.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Kung Pow! Enter the Fist.

Review #1086: Kung Pow! Enter the Fist.

Cast: 
Steve Oedekerk (The Chosen One), Hui Lou Chen (Master Tang), Fei Lung (Master Pain aka "Betty"), Ling Ling Tse (Ling), Lau Kar-wing (Wimp Lo), Jennifer Tung (Whoa), Chi Ma (Master Doe), Tad Horino (Chew Fat Lip), and Nasty Nes (Boombox Henchman) Directed by Steve Oedekerk (#525 - Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls)

Review: 
Parody movies, when done right, can be good experiences to watch. Whether it is something like The Great Dictator (1940), or Our Man Flint (1966), or Blazing Saddles (1974), the amount of fun one can have with a spoof depends on how far the filmmakers are willing to go get some laughs and make a meaningful time for the viewer. This film certainly has its own way of trying to get laughs, doing so by parodying martial arts movies. It utilizes footage of the Hong Kong film Tiger and Crane Fist (1976), which also was directed by its main star, who in that case was Jimmy Wang Yu. In most scenes, Wang Yu was replaced by Oedekerk through post-production chroma key techniques, with every character (except for Tung's) being re-dubbed by Oedekerk. The idea of using footage from a prior film or show and adding re-dubbed dialogue or new imagery isn't too particularly new, with one big example being Power Rangers and its use of footage from Super Sentai but also films such as Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid (1982). It's easy to admit that the film has a pretty low bar when it comes to doing jokes, so can I really give a movie flak for being making jokes out of silly voices an even more silly effects? Sure, because I didn't think this movie was really that funny. While the film does have some moments that generate some chuckles, the gag does tend to wear a bit thin after a while, feeling more like something that would've worked better as a sketch, not an 81 minute feature (this rings particularly true after a gag involving The Lion King). It has the kind of quirks you'd expect, such as nonsensical dubbing (intentional, of course) and effects that certainly stick out when they need to. For the most part, it's a mild experience that certainly won't stick out as anything too dreadful, and some will likely get a real kick out of it. It is evident that Oedekerk really wanted to bring this passion to fruition, since he also wrote and produced the film, and while I don't think that the end product was successfully funny enough to merit a positive rating, I'll give him credit for getting said passion to film. I can't say I hated watching this, but I also can't say I really "liked" doing so, either. Whatever you expect from the film likely won't live up to the eventual product. What other film has a fight sequence with a cow? It is likely that the best time to watch this is with either a group of friends or to watch it when there are no real options - for better or worse. The film is absurd in every sense of the word, but there is at least some sort of entertainment one can get from what it does, and I can't fault the movie for setting a low bar and then proceeding to clear it. Can I recommend it? Well, if you want something as "inspired" as this, go right on ahead. I probably won't ever see this film again, but I won't stop someone from doing the same.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Willow.

Review #1085: Willow.

Cast: 
Warwick Davis (Willow Ufgood), Val Kilmer (Madmartigan), Joanne Whalley (Sorsha), Jean Marsh (Queen Bavmorda), Patricia Hayes (Fin Raziel), Billy Barty (The High Aldwin), Pat Roach (General Kael), Gavan O'Herlihy (Airk Thaughbaer), Maria Holvöe (Cherlindrea), Kevin Pollak and Rick Overton (Rool and Franjean), and Kate and Ruth Greenfield/Rebecca Bearman (Elora Danan) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas and #546 - Cinderella Man)

Review: 
It is strange to see this film 30 years after it came out, a high fantasy movie that certainly has its fans and detractors after all this time. The story was done by George Lucas (notable for his work on the original Star Wars trilogy) with the screenplay being done by Bob Dolman, who had done work in television such as SCTV Network 90 (for which he won two Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Writing for a Variety Series). In any case, the idea for the movie was conceived by Lucas in the 1970s that had mythical qualities that was in some of the same vein as had been done with Star Wars, with Lucas describing the similarities of his movies as such prior to making this film: "The underlying issues, the psychological movies, in all my movies have been the same...Personal responsibility and friendship, the importance of a compassionate life as opposed to a passionate life".

In any case, it is evident that there was a great deal of effort to really try to make something worthwhile as entertainment with this movie, but I don't think that it quite succeeds in its pursuit. By the time that this film came out, there had been numerous fantasy films that came and went in the decade, and I have covered a few of those in other reviews, such as Clash of the Titans (#064), Conan the Barbarian (#323), and Krull (#927), but I think that the problem with this movie is that it isn't particularly on the level of either of those films in terms of adventure. There isn't much in its story elements that hasn't been done in other movies, such as its quest and prophecy elements, but I will admit that it isn't an excruciating adventure, just one that isn't as fun as it thinks it is. Davis does a fine job with this title role, giving it some passion and usefulness that helps keep the movie on some sort of track. Kilmer, in a role that likely reminds viewers of other films with rogues, does a decent job with what he's given, having a few moments of amusement and action that come off convincing enough times. Whalley leaves a faint impression, but nothing too particularly inspiring. Marsh does an okay job as the villain, but it isn't anything too particularly notable. The others are alright, although Pollak and Overton's characters prove to a bit grating at times. The film's best highlight might be its effects, done by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), with the most notable one being when Hayes' character is changed from being an animal to human, done by digital morphing. It's an interesting effect to see the gradual change to the end result (aided by computer programs) that has a fine payoff. The film certainly has a decent look and cinematography (as done by Adrian Biddle), but I find that there just isn't enough in what the movie is trying to push in its action or its story to really make big entertainment. It feels a bit slow at times (such as in the middle), punctuated by its 126 minute run-time and a story that feels a bit by the numbers at times. It isn't anything too unique, but it also isn't anything that merits much passion beyond a mild interest. I can understand its cult status and why some may find it enjoyable, but I can't particularly give it a ringing endorsement. Take it for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Man from Snowy River II.

Review #1084: The Man from Snowy River II.

Cast: 
Tom Burlinson (Jim Craig), Sigrid Thornton (Jessica Harrison), Brian Dennehy (Harrison), Nicholas Eadie (Alistair Patton), Mark Hembrow (Seb), Bryan Marshall (Hawker), Rhys McConnochie (Patton Snr.), Peter Cummins (Jake), Cornelia Frances (Mrs. Darcy), Tony Barry (Jacko) Directed by Geoff Burrowes.

Review: 
Six years after the release of The Man from Snowy River (#032), a sequel was released, with a producer from the first film being the director this time around. It is known as Return to Snowy River in the United States and in the United Kingdom as The Untamed. The film was distributed by Buena Vista Pictures while having four companies behind it for production: Walt Disney Pictures, Silver Screen Partners III, Burrowes Film Group, and The Hoyts Group. In any case, it is safe to say that the sequel hasn't suffered any sort of breakdown in vision or spirit; it isn't as good as the original, but it is at the very least moderately entertaining enough to satisfy some sort of need that the original achieved. Kirk Douglas decided to not return for the sequel after not being allowed to direct (he had directed two other films prior to this: Scalawag and Posse, released in the previous decade), with Dennehy taking over for the role of Harrison (with no dual role playing this time around), although at least the main two actors are back once again. Bruce Rowland returns to provide the music and Keith Wagstaff is back to provide the cinematography, both of which are just as good as before.

Like the first film, there is a good deal of Australian scenery to look at, and there is a decent amount of horse action that will certainly prove a bit satisfactory to people wanting those sort of things. However, the film isn't as good as the original in part because it doesn't have all the spirit that made the previous film a neat little gem. That's not to say that it is a bad movie or a disappointment because I found it to be a decent experience, but it is pretty evident that it could have been better. The problem is that the plot feels a bit more routine, particularly when it comes to the motivations of the villain and the parts with Harrison. Burlinson and Thornton prove fine for the challenge of keeping the romance from being stale, although it takes them nearly half of an hour to meet again (I note this for a film that lasts 110 minutes). Dennehy doesn't do terrible, but I find that he doesn't live up to the performance(s) that Douglas had done in the last one, not having enough intensity to really make me invest too much in the conflict for the movie. The rest of the cast is okay if not standard for what you'd expect, although it is amusing that there is even an adversary to begin with, reminding me of someone you'd see in a TV special, for better or worse. It moves an at average pace, but it won't prove boring nor tiresome to go through. The climax is certainly acceptable enough for enjoyment. Although I recognize its evident flaws, I find the movie to pass through on the elements that work fairly well, such as its scenery, action, and a frontier spirit that persists just enough to win out. The movie can prove entertaining for family audiences, and for people who dug the original, they will accept this one pretty well even if isn't as sweetly made as before.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: The Man from Snowy River.

Redux Review #032: The Man from Snowy River.

Cast: 
Tom Burlinson (Jim Craig), Sigrid Thornton (Jessica Harrison), Kirk Douglas (Harrison / Spur), Terence Donovan (Henry Craig), Tommy Dysart (Mountain Man), Bruce Kerr (Man in Street), David Bradshaw (Banjo Paterson), Jack Thompson (Clancy), Tony Bonner (Kane), June Jago (Mrs. Bailey), and Chris Haywood (Curly) Directed by George T. Miller.

Review: 
On March 26, 2011, I reviewed this film as part of Season Two of Movie Night. Over seven years later, I have decided to do a Redux Review as part of a venture to revitalize certain reviews of the past and make them better in terms of their words and rating, which has evolved in some part since I was 14 as opposed to now. The original review wasn't even 100 words when I wrote it, so it is evident that this film deserves a re-look. Enjoy.

It is interesting to watch this film again, having not touched it since watching it with my dad in 2011. I described it as a film that had good acting (particularly from Kirk Douglas) that worked as a family film being comfortable being what it is. The film is an adaptation of the 1890 poem of the same name by Andrew "Banjo" Paterson, who is held in esteem to where he is on the Australian ten-dollar note, among other honors (including even being depicted in the film). This was the second adaptation of the poem, with the first being a 1920 film that also was an Australian production, although this movie is now lost. Obviously the film added aspects in its transition from poem to film, namely by having more characters and giving the title character a name - but that doesn't hurt the film in any sort of discernible way. This was filmed near the Victorian High Country in Australia, and the imagery is certainly beautiful to look at due to the cinematography by Keith Wagstaff. On a technical level, the film is wonderful, with the sets certainly selling themselves well. The horse action, particularly in the climax, is mesmerizing to watch, with Burlinson doing his own horse riding stunts. The most famous shot is one where he and the horse go over a cliff at a full gallop down, and that is something to behold, particularly since horse action isn't something you can't really fake. In any case, the chase at the end is exciting to watch. The main theme by Bruce Rowland is a particular standout, having a grace to it that I appreciate very much. The theme has been utilized for golf events and Rowland himself composed a special version of the theme for the 2000 Summer Olympics opening ceremony held in Sydney, Australia.

The acting performances are fairly well-done. Burlinson proves to be capable in his performance, having a fair sense of determination to him in his pursuit that comes off pretty convincingly. Thornton also proves pretty fair in her role; the romance between the two isn't too passionate, but it is at least convincing enough to make for a few interesting moments. It should be noted that Burt Lancaster and Robert Mitchum were considered for the dual role prior to Kirk Douglas signing on to portray Harrison and Spur. In any case, Douglas pulls it off pretty well, handling both characters with their own kind of personality without being too hammy. The rest of the cast do alright in their time on screen. As a Western, it has a plot structure that follows along the lines that you might expect (particularly with the romance), but the film earns its adventure and triumph through its execution and how it handles its story with enough care. At 102 minutes, the run-time is fairly paced, having a decent pace that never becomes too boring. Sometimes it feels a bit like a TV production, which makes a bit of sense given the TV background of some of the filmmakers such as Miller and John Dixon (who served as writer for the movie), but it all stays consistent enough to feel authentic enough without much distraction, whether for oneself or for families. This is a fair gem in a frontier of dramas and Westerns.

Thank you to you fellow readers who took the time to read this review. The decision to revise the rating is one made out of honesty and care for the system of doing rating decisions. Thank you for your consideration.

Next review: The Man from Snowy River II.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Vegas Vacation.

Review #1083: Vegas Vacation.

Cast: 
Chevy Chase (Clark Griswold), Beverly D'Angelo (Ellen Griswold), Randy Quaid (Cousin Eddie), Ethan Embry (Russell "Rusty" Griswold), Marisol Nichols (Audrey Griswold), Miriam Flynn (Cousin Catherine), Shae D'Lyn (Cousin Vicki), Wayne Newton (Himself), Wallace Shawn (Marty the Blackjack dealer), Juliette Brewer (Cousin Ruby Sue), Sid Caesar (Old Guy), and Siegfried & Roy (Themselves) Directed by Stephen Kessler.

Review: 
I couldn't find any time in the review to make a Vegas sports joke/reference, given that they now have a hockey team (and a particularly good one this year), with the timing of this review to their appearance in the Conference Finals against the Winnipeg Jets (a team that I like and follow a bit more than the Golden Knights, although I appreciate both being in the final four) being a coincidence. In any case, enjoy the review and enjoy a good Conference Finals.

Remember the first three films? Although each had a varying quality to them, they managed to be fairly entertaining pieces of entertainment (at least for the first and third ones, in my view), with Chase and D'Angelo being key standouts, especially in National Lampoon's Vacation (#804). This time around, I can't say that is the case. If National Lampoon's European Vacation (#1060) could be cited by me as an average film, Vegas Vacation could be cited as an awful venture that produces the least amount of returns of the four films, which is made fairly obvious by the first half of the film. It is actually strange to see how long it took to make a fourth film that followed after National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (#771), being released eight years later, by which time Chase had already passed 50 and the two Griswold children are replaced again by actors who now look like they could almost be in college. This time around, the National Lampoon moniker has been removed, with the vacation destination being just one place (as evidenced by the title). It is the only Vacation film with a PG rating, as compared to the R rating for the first film and a PG-13 rating for the other two. The humor certainly feels sanitized in some part because of this decision to go for PG, although that doesn't mean that funny films can't come from things rated PG, it just means that this film isn't funny because of its attempts to reach across the aisle for audiences.

At any rate, it is obvious that this film doesn't have much motivation to go on beyond a bunch of weak gags and a few indulgent cameos that actually seem more interesting to watch than the actual film and its plot. When the parts with Wayne Newton and Siegfried & Roy are more interesting to watch than the scenes with the Griswolds, I think you have a big problem. It isn't so much that they don't have much chemistry with each other as a group, it's just that it feels more like a mediocre sitcom kind of family than anything actually really particularly funny, dwelling in cliché levels (particularly involving Las Vegas) that aren't at all surprising. Chase looks tired in his role (grey hair included), not really making the material given to him leap off much, with the greed aspects seeming more stale than anything. D'Angelo does fine, taking her material and rolling with whatever it leads to (ridiculous as it is), whether with Chase or Newton. Quaid's bumpkin role garners a few laughs, but it isn't anything too particularly new or any too funny. Embry and Nichols deliver plain performances, but it isn't anything too particularly annoying at least. The other members of the cast aren't too terrible, but they don't contribute to too many laughs; Caesar (in his final on-screen appearance) shows up near the end of the film, which is slightly amusing in its briefness for his gestures, sad as that may seem. Newton is okay, but sometimes his scenes fall a bit tiresome, in part because the movie doesn't really have much focus besides just throwing a bunch of gags and lines (and a few visuals of Las Vegas) and hoping it sticks with him. Shawn does fine with this brief but scuzzy part, even if the gag (involving Chase who can't stop losing in bets) gets tiresome fairly quickly. Each of the four Griswolds have their own kind of story, and only D'Angelo's feels particularly interesting, cliché as it is.

The components of writing and directing for this film are a bit different than usual, with the film's screenplay was done by Elisa Bell, who had written a few teleplays for TV movies prior to this film, while Bob Ducsay (a long time editor for films such as G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - #201 and Star Wars: The Last Jedi - #1027) contributed to the story, with Stephen Kessler (in his feature film debut) as director. The blame falls in part to them, but it also falls to people who thought it was a good idea to make a film after eight years with the belief that this would be a huge hit. Instead, the result that came from this movie is a huge dud. Is it horrible? No, but it is a miserable misfire that drags its cast down just as much as it drags the audience down with its attempts at humor. I'm reminded of my actual time spent at Las Vegas a few years ago with my dad, in which I bought a snow-globe that I still have in my house to this day. The brief experience I spent there (including a bad attempt at swimming and staying at a motel) was easily better than the time I spent watching this movie.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Risky Business.

Review #1082: Risky Business.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Joel Goodson), Rebecca De Mornay (Lana), Joe Pantoliano (Guido), Nicholas Pryor (Mr. Goodson), Janet Carroll (Mrs. Goodson), Richard Masur (Rutherford), Curtis Armstrong (Miles Dalby), Bronson Pinchot (Barry), Shera Danese (Vicki), and Raphael Sbarge (Glenn) Directed by Paul Brickman.

Review: 
Risky Business is the kind of film that isn't merely just stuck to one type of genre or idea of what it is, whether that is a coming-of-age film, a romantic comedy, or look at society in the world of a teen. Whatever lens that you view the film through, it is a fairly effective experience that has enough clever moments and energy to make a solid winner. This was the film that helped launch the career of Cruise, who had starred in four other films prior to this one, and it is certainly easy to see his charisma on-screen and why he makes the film tick, including memorable moments such as the sequence with "Old Time Rock and Roll" (a fun song from Bob Seger to listen to in any context) - which is likely the most iconic thing from this film, with its own share of inspirations and parodies in the decades that have followed this film. In any case, it's an interesting part to the film. De Mornay manages to also pull off a fine performance, being quite the charming rogue that elevates a role that could've just been thankless with a sort of energy that works handily with Cruise in their scenes. The other members of the cast do fine jobs, with Pantoliano having some crudely effective zip in the scenes that he is in. The film is fairly engaging with its plot and its depiction of angst and greed that certainly make what could've probably just been a cliché teen comedy with less clever hands and instead make something a bit more sharper, with its own bits of social satire included. The cinematography by Bruce Surtees is glossy and effective, having some fine shots such as the sequence on the train or nighttime shots at times. Brickman (who also served as writer) wanted the film to end on a different note than what occurs in the film (as dictated by the studio), involving the nature of the two main characters and their future. It feels a bit more raw and it likely will touch a nerve for some, but I can't really object to the ending that ended up on-screen. Ultimately, this is a film that has enough amusing moments but also enough clever moments to make for a relatively engaging experience that is worth the 99 minute run-time - and then some.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Waterworld.

Review #1081: Waterworld.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (The Mariner), Dennis Hopper (The Deacon), Jeanne Tripplehorn (Helen), Tina Majorino (Enola), Michael Jeter (Old Gregor), Jack Black (Smoker Plane Pilot), Kim Coates (Drifter #2), Robert Joy (Smoker Ledger Guy), Robert LaSardo (Smitty), and Gerard Murphy (The Nord) Directed by Kevin Reynolds.

Review: 
Waterworld is a film that lurked on my shelf for years. My father watched this film a bunch of times when I was growing up, but I never had the idea to actually see the film until now in part because I figured it was futile not to. The film certainly seems like something made in an era with experimenting with making a sci-fi apocalyptic film with a big budget and big ambition. At the time it was made, it was the most expensive film ever made (done for $172 million), but it was plagued by production troubles (such as a hurricane destroying the set at one point and bringing in Josh Whedon as a script doctor at point), which certainly played into its reputation. It wasn't a huge success, but it isn't an entire failure, both financially along with as a film. On the one hand, it is nice to watch something based on an original idea with an effort to try and make for a spectacle for entertainment purposes, even if it does resemble Mad Max. On the other hand, I can't say that the movie is consistent enough to qualify as serviceable entertainment. The problem isn't so much with the acting as it is the writing, which at times feels uneven with its characters that gets in the way of really enjoying the action and its set-pieces, which hold up well for 1995. I feel that the film never gets itself into high gear often enough to really make its audience anything other than mildly involving. I can't even get myself to hate it, instead I just have a mild disappointment. Costner can't really elevate this main character into anything that seems compelling, being fairly bland in his gruffness - although his combative scenes with others in the first half could be construed as something to make fun of if you're in the right mood. That, or him peeing into a recycling canister to use for filtering to drink it later - which starts the film off, actually. Hopper certainly looks the part of a crazed villain, and he actually manages to be more entertaining than Costner, but it still is a fairly silly performance to watch at times - but who can blame him? This is a movie that can't find the right sense of captivating characters to go with its moments of adventure. The other members of the cast aren't terrible, but they also aren't too particularly inspiring, with Tripplehorn and Majorino contributing to a few moments that prove amusing instead of moving. In terms of comparison to other action flicks, this is likely the diet soda of action films - it's there along with other films of its ilk but it likely won't be something you go back to often.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Star Odyssey.

Review #1080: Star Odyssey.

Cast: 
Yanti Somer (Irene), Gianni Garko (Dirk Laramie), Malisa Longo (Bridget), Chris Avram (Shawn), Ennio Balbo, Roberto Dell'Acqua (Norman), Aldo Amoroso Pioso, Nino Castelnuovo, and Gianfranca Dionisi. Directed by Alfonso Brescia.

Review: 
Sometimes you just need a bad flick to truly appreciate filmmaking and movies. What can you expect of a movie featuring hypnotism, stock footage, and an assortment of other bizarre images and actions? What can you expect when the film mangles its own title sequence with its listing of actors in alphabetical order that somehow goes wrong? Star Odyssey, known as Sette uomini d'oro nello spazio (or Seven Gold Men in Space) in its native land of Italy, was directed by Alfonso Brescia, who had made three other films revolving around sci-fi in the decade, such as Cosmos: War of the Planets (1977), Battle of the Stars (1978), and War of the Robots (1978). This happened to be released the same year as another Italian sci-fi flick, The Humanoid (#930), which I covered one year ago. It's funny that I mention that film, since I actually kind of got a kick out of that film, which had a sort of charm with its mishmash of ideas and quirky casting choices. The same cannot be said for this film, which suffers from an assortment of inept and super-cheap filmmaking along with terrible dialogue. You know you've hit your peak when you show footage of an actual junkyard, complete with a crushing of a car and the rescue of a robot (resembling ducks) from said junkyard as a plot point. To mention every odd thing that occurs in this film would be spoiling the "charm" in a viewer doing it themselves, but I can't really even say that seeing this film would be worth doing that task. Just imagine the kind of film that has "robot couple bickering" and editing as haphazard as a second grader's book report. It isn't so much a Star Wars ripoff as it is just something that sure likes to take inspiration with its special effects and space battle sequences, which go as well as you'd expect. The version I am watching is the 103-minute version, which is longer than the 88-minute Italian version, since I guess I really wanted to torture myself with a version that also is dubbed. The actors look like they're doing it just for the paycheck, with a few of these cast-mates having starred in the other films by Brescia, such as Somer (who did all four) and Longo. Hilariously, I couldn't even find a cast listing that had what character they were playing, so have fun with that, although the one with the mustache is pretty amusing. In any case, the dubbing isn't so terrible, minus the editing quirks that get in the way at times.

Roughly 30 minutes in, you get to see a boxing fight between an android and a human, which I suppose was done so you couldn't call every scene a rip-off of some other sci-fi products, because nobody, and I repeat, nobody, would ever come up with that. That, or an auction for the Earth. The film is terrible enough to where ripping it off would actually prove impossible nor advisable. The film was written by Brescia, Massimo Lo Jacono (who wrote science fiction and fantasy for Italian magazines), and Giacomo Mazzocchi, with Lo Jacono having written Cosmos: War of the Planets along with co-writing Battle of the Stars with Mazzocchi. This isn't even one of those films that was made by independent filmmakers with some sort of ambitious ideas, this was a studio production that manages to be utterly terrible and utterly embarrassing to watch, being made by people who wanted to make some sort of entertainment and ended up serving up something much weirder. They can't even make a plot that's actually comprehensible, where even the final line of the movie is cut off. You would actually be better served with watching a high school play adaptation of Star Wars than this dreck. Unlike something like Starcrash or Battle Beyond the Stars, this is a pile of junk that is best laughed at, where even one's own dubbing may very well make more sense than the actual final product. Oddly enough, this world cinema film is in the public domain, but I wouldn't recommend checking the cellar for this movie, where things like Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam (Turkish Star Wars) lurk. Sometimes you just have to make sure to not look too far into the b-movie abyss, which this is a part of.

May the 4th be with you, folks.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Avengers: Infinity War.

Review #1079: Avengers: Infinity War.

Cast: 
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Paul Bettany (Vision), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Sebastian Stan (James "Bucky" Barnes / Winter Soldier), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Peter Dinklage (Eitri), Benedict Wong (Wong), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Benicio del Toro (Taneleer Tivan / The Collector), Josh Brolin (Thanos), and Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier and #796 - Captain America: Civil War)

Review: 
On May 2, 2008, Iron Man (#135) was released into theaters, being the first film in what has become known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has served to try and tell stories of entertainment with adaptations of characters from all-throughout its numerous comic book series. Eighteen films later, here we are with Avengers: Infinity War, picking up plot points from numerous movies such as the first two Avengers installments (#312 and #706) but also Guardians of the Galaxy (#626 and #932) and Doctor Strange (#874) among others. It is obvious to see the amount of effort (and money) utilized to try and make something that achieves its goal of great spectacle. As such, the film is successful in being good entertainment. While it can be argued that it may be a bit overstuffed for its own good (in numerous categories), it will ultimately prove satisfying for people invested in what it is trying to showcase, as is the case for this series in other films, which have had their own range of success. It might not go down as the best in this series or even the best comic book film ever, but it will serve as solid joyfulness for its viewers.

This is a film with a large scale and large importance to what matters, but it is the parts involving its main villain that ultimately tie the film best. For a series that likes to show off its heroes and their abilities, their depiction of villains have generally not always been their highlight, but I think that it works here because of the conviction taken to give Brolin's character a level of importance and depth, which Brolin does a good job in making entertaining and prime for what you would expect. The film manages to take what could've been unwieldy with having such a large cast and having to balance each out and makes it work just enough to keep its plots going with enough energy and commitment. It never spends too much time on one thing without sacrificing the other parts of the plot to its detriment. If you have spent time watching these characters (or care about them), you will find a good deal to appreciate in seeing certain people interact with each other, such as Downey and Cumberbatch, or Hemsworth and Cooper, filled with its moments of fun quips. The film can't be faulted for being murky with its effects or its costume look since it manages to not blur the line between wonderful and cut-scene. The action sequences are executed as you'd expect, accompanying the film with good craft and energy. The film and its impact will differ from person to person, but I found the film to be at the very least successful with telling its story without becoming a crammed exercise in over-indulgence, but I can't say that I am a staunch defender of what it does. At 149 minutes, it may prove a bit of overkill for some while being just the right kind of length for others in the mood for what it tries to sell. Its climax is fairly satisfactory, with enough pull and punch to make something worth going home to without feeling cheated or feeling sick.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Showtime.

Review #1078: Showtime.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (Detective Mitch Preston), Eddie Murphy (Officer Trey Sellars), Rene Russo (Chase Renzi), Frankie Faison (Captain Winship), Pedro Damián (Cesar Vargas), Drena De Niro (Annie), William Shatner (Himself), Mos Def (Lazy Boy), and Peter Jacobson (Brad Slocum) Directed by Tom Dey.

Review: 
Showtime manages to read out like a studio notes version of what it wanted to be. It tries to have its moments to make fun of the buddy cop structure along with its moments about reality TV, but it all crashes down to mediocrity in part because it never really takes off. The chemistry between De Niro and Murphy is better than something like Hollywood Homicide (#1075) (which also depicted a cop who wanted to be an actor, only done less funny), but it is fairly obvious that the film doesn't give them much to really do. Both of them deliver okay performances, with Murphy generating a few more laughs than De Niro, but I didn't find myself laughing too particularly hard with it. Russo does a decent job with what she's given, with the rest of the cast delivering okay performances that don't really come off as detrimental to the film, although Damian can't lift the material to make his villain role anything good. The film isn't painful or intolerable by any means, but it also isn't anything that rises to anything particularly good. It doesn't help when the movie at one point starts throwing out lines from other films (such as Taxi Driver - #990) that only serves to remind me of what I'm not watching. Its beats with the plot are a bit by the numbers, and nothing comes off as a big particular surprise with even its action sequences seeming by the numbers. The parts with Shatner playing himself end up feeling like the most amusing parts of the film in part because they seem offbeat and interesting (with a T. J. Hooker reference, of course) compared to the other parts that come off as routine and a bit sloppy. At 95 minutes, the film isn't too much of a chore, but it isn't anything that will come off as particularly rewarding for most. If you watch as something just for entertainment and nothing more, you might get a few moments here and there, but you won't find yourself particularly loving it.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.