The Stepfather (1987).

Review #1103: The Stepfather.

Cast: 
Terry O'Quinn (Jerry Blake/Henry Morrison/Bill Hodgkins/The Stepfather), Jill Schoelen (Stephanie Maine), Shelley Hack (Susan Maine), Charles Lanyer (Dr. A. Bondurant), Stephen Shellen (Jim Ogilvie), Stephen E. Miller (Al Brennan), Robyn Stevan (Karen), and Jeff Schultz (Paul Baker) Directed by Joseph Ruben.

Review: 
This is a horror film that feels a bit telegraphed in certain aspects of its narrative, but it relies on the pull of its main actor and some of its thrills to carry itself to respectability, for the most part. For a movie that tries to mix psychological horror and thriller aspects together with a bit of violence, this is actually a fairly accomplished flick. O'Quinn proves to be an interesting lead to follow in that he makes this character come alive with some dimension and compelling nature, being distinct in his characterization without it coming off as out of place. He toes the line of comfortability in that there are moments when he may "seem" right at home in this family neighborhood life but he never becomes a complete chameleon or too unbelievable for his pursuits, and it is those sequences that work out just as fine as the horror stuff, such as when he makes a paper hat out of the headline containing his past crime and gives it to a kid to distract during a party or when he forgets whose identity he is momentarily. Schoelen is fairly decent, being useful to watch interact and investigate, although others may be amused at a 23 year old playing a teenager - for better or worse. Hack is also fairly decent, playing the role and motivations just as fair as you expect. There isn't anyone in the supporting cast who proves to give a great performance by any means, but they all play their roles satisfactory enough that everything clicks into place to make for something that is easy to watch, such as Lanyer and his psychologist moments that are fleeting but welcome. The climax (and how it gets there) is a bit standard, but it will likely satisfy the tastes of people in the mood for what it delivers to the table, having its share of violence and thrill without being out of left field or too much for the viewer. What could've been just another run-of-the-mill slasher movie is instead one that has a fair bit of tension and a good deal of entertainment value. It isn't a fairly scary movie or anything great of the genre, but it is a fairly interesting one with a few moments to look at and a solid O'Quinn performance that elevates this into respectability and a fairly decent curiosity piece to recommend.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Silverado.

Review #1102: Silverado.

Cast: 
Kevin Kline (Paden), Scott Glenn (Emmett), Kevin Costner (Jake), Danny Glover (Mal Johnson), Brian Dennehy (Sheriff Cobb), Rosanna Arquette (Hannah), John Cleese (Sheriff John Langston), Jeff Goldblum (Calvin "Slick" Stanhope), Linda Hunt (Stella), Joe Seneca (Ezra Johnson), Ray Baker (Ethan McKendrick), Thomas Wilson Brown (Augie Hollis), Jeff Fahey (Tyree), and Lynn Whitfield (Rae Johnson) Directed by Lawrence Kasdan (#1059 - The Big Chill)

Review: 
It is not hard to admit that Silverado is a fine Western, completely successful as an adventure (written by Lawrence and Mark Kasdan) that showcases a finely-tuned cast and capable action that shines fairly enough with its plot structuring to make a fair winner. It isn't anything that proves to be great entertainment, but it serves as good quality fun, with a spirit that makes it worth watching. With its 133 minute run-time, it certainly likes to take its time to build its characters and situations complete with everything you'd expect in a film involving cowboys, shootouts, and a variety of other things, but it does so without lingering in cliches, being something well accomplished for the tradition that you would expect for entertainment. The main four of Kline-Glenn-Costner-Glover manage to click fairly well, having a sort of watch-ability to them that makes for good adventure, and they each have their own interesting moments, whether with each other or others. Kline comes out the best in the sense that he exudes a certain energy and care that makes him interesting to view when engaged with the plot, whether with humor or charm. Glenn does just fine with his role, playing this reserved role without hesitation or any sense of dullness, playing this pretty handily. Costner (in only his tenth film appearance) plays this goofy if not immensely entertaining character pretty capably, never verging on becoming too silly for the film's taste while also proving to be a capable hero in his own right. Glover does a fine job with making this an interesting role to follow with and care for, being as sure and confident as one might expect from him. Dennehy plays his part with a fair degree of balance between his stated role and what ultimately comes on screen without becoming unsubtle or too obvious, having a quality that makes for an interesting performance. Arquette is okay, but she doesn't have too much to do within the story, particularly within the second half, where the adventure outweighs any sort of semblance of romance (whether that hurts the film at all is up to you). Cleese, Goldblum and Hunt fit their roles just fine with the narrative, each sticking well within the spirit of the film's intent in their own ways that have useful moments without seeming like sore thumbs sticking out. The action sequences are well done and capably executed, and the music by Bruce Broughton makes it all the more entertaining to sit through. The climax is fairly riveting, making up for a film that occasionally likes to build itself up with twisting its story to try and be mildly complex (for better or worse), complete with each of the main four getting their chance to shine. It won't stick out as adding anything particularly new to the genre in terms of its story quality, but what turns out on screen is something that is at the very least a finely tuned machine worth checking out once.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Birdemic 2: The Resurrection.

Review #1101: Birdemic 2: The Resurrection.

Cast: 
Alan Bagh (Rod), Whitney Moore (Nathalie), Patsy van Ettinger (Nathalie's mom), Thomas Favaloro (Bill), Chelsea Turnbo (Gloria), Brittany N. Pierce (Jessica), Thuan Luu (Will), and Aaron Pressburg (Dustin) Directed by James Nguyen (#184 - Birdemic: Shock and Terror)

Review: 
Note: Older fans of Movie Night will remember how I covered the first Birdemic back on June 26, 2012 as part of my "Tour de Worse Trilogy" (which ironically had no French films in that series. I also was 15 when I came up with that name), and the film's quality was...less than satisfactory, one might say. It has an important distinction as the first ever movie that I gave a 0/10 star rating, with six other films "achieving the honor" in the six years (and nearly 1,000 reviews) that have passed since Birdemic - The Garbage Pail Kids Movie (#442), The Magic Voyage (#467), Battlefield Earth (#704), The Beast of Yucca Flats (#744), Monster A-Go-Go (#756), and Red Zone Cuba (#876). Hopefully you will enjoy this review.

The original film had a "variety" of terrible things about it, such as its wooden acting, generic dialogue, boring pace and "memorable" bird effects. There were things that I had forgotten to talk about in Birdemic: Shock and Terror, such as the fact that the film had taken four years to make (with shooting at various locations without permits), and that the actors in the film would serve as crew members for things such as holding microphones or doing the makeup, with fake names used to hide that fact in the credits. Looking at the official website for the film is a strange thing in of itself, since it makes the site for The Room (2003) look downright normal by comparison. The film has gained some sort of cult status as a "so bad, it's good" sort of movie, although I can't really say that applies since I feel that Birdemic is simply terrible, where even Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966) is more interesting to think about as a bad flick (particularly in recent years with the discovery of the original 16mm workprint and ensuing restoration), but I digress.

The very fact that there exists a sequel is laughable, complete with the slogan on its poster being that "Hollywood is about to take a beating"...suffice to say that the only thing to take a beating after this film is the viewer. I will say that there is one true line in the whole film (emphasis mine): "I don't know much about the movie business, but I know how to read and I like your story." If you come into this movie looking to make fun of it, I suppose you will get a real kick out of going through the inane nature that encompasses its 79 minute run-time. Actually, you may get more than what you come looking for, as this is a treasure trove of awful film-making decisions. Much of the same criticisms from the first film can still apply to this one, complete with some new ones, such as having dialogue that manages to be repetitive, a bizarrely executed climax, padding to a nth degree, and other various things that makes this a slog to watch. Bagh and Moore return from the previous installment, although the real focus (in a sense) of the film is on Favaloro and Turnbo's characters, and it's interesting to see how one can't really find much difference in acting quality in any of these actors. This time around, it would seem that Nguyen wanted to make his sequel bigger in terms of its effects, and nothing summarizes this better than the scene with the "giant jumbo jellyfish", or perhaps the sequences with blood rain shooting out into the screen was intended to be the pinnacle. Honorable mention goes to the caveman and zombie sequences, which come out of nowhere in a movie with no real sort of logic. Seriously, there are sequences involving cavemen being attacked by the birds, and they actually are revived by the "blood rain", although their story isn't resolved in any sort of satisfactory way much like the rest of the plot "threads" in the film.

Nothing speaks a good movie like having a five minute opening sequence of walking, complete with blurred out faces, which is certainly a first in watching a movie. To list all of the flaws in what makes this slop of a movie would be a bad idea, since the review would end with scribbles of words that I wrote when trying to do "notes" when watching it - I did one page and that was it. The most amusing thing is the numerous references to other movies, from Vertigo (1958) to even Nguyen's own film named Replica (2005), which just goes to show that there really is no sense of irony in what goes on in watching terrible movies like this, where the movie even has a scene with A Day at the U.N. on a film marquee, which interestingly was a film that would've starred the Marx Brothers and directed by Billy Wilder - if it had been made. In a technical sense, this film made me curious to learn something - albeit something that didn't even exist. You could likely make a better film by simply drawing the events that occur on screen, or simply using shadow puppets to cover as special effects.

Can I give the film any sort of credit for its rating? As I reflected on what I saw and what it means to give a film the rating it deserves, I realized that there is only one true rating for this movie in my view. Congratulations, Birdemic 2: The Resurrection, you've earned something from me that not many films get. The film may be a waste of time, but truly this is a film that is worth every criticism it gets.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible 2.

Review #1100: Mission: Impossible 2.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Thandie Newton (Nyah Nordoff-Hall), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Dougray Scott (Sean Ambrose), Brendan Gleeson (John C. McCloy), Richard Roxburgh (Hugh Stamp), John Polson (Billy Baird), Rade Šerbedžija (Dr. Nekhorvich), and William Mapother (Wallis) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off and #336 - Broken Arrow)

Review: 
The first film was a fairly decent adventure that managed to juggle its spy elements with a decent story and a capable cast to make for a satisfactory experience, for the most part. Four years later, a sequel was created, with Robert Towne returning to do the screenplay (with the story being done by Ronald D. Moore and Brandon Braga) and Cruise and Rhames returning. It's easy to say that the sequel is not as good as the original movie, feeling like a bit of a letdown in terms of its execution. The action sequences certainly seem to be competing with the plot to see which one can go faster in pace, and it would seem that the action sequences win out in terms of effectiveness. The film seems to enjoy having scenes compete with themselves for most ridiculous, such as a rocket containing sunglasses to deliver exposition that explode into the title sequence, a car chase with reckless action and even more reckless hair, doves flying out of nowhere, and a climax complete with a game of chicken and fights in the sand. I can't really give the writing too much guff since the film at least moves moderately well - up to a point, anyway. The motivations make sense roughly 60% of the time, although the plot-line certainly jumbles itself silly at times.

Cruise does a fine job, keeping this character fairly interesting to watch around, having a degree of confidence to him - complete with the opening shot of him doing rock climbing. Newton is fine, although the writing does sometimes let her down. I find that the scenes with Cruise and Newton don't have too much chemistry with each other, not really seeming any better than what you might see in a James Bond movie, for example, although I would note that if you compared it to the three Bond films released in the 1990s, this one would probably fall in the middle in terms of quality, although it certainly wouldn't beat GoldenEye (1995). Apparently, Woo's original cut was three-and-a-half hours long, so it is evident that something was lost in the process to make the final cut 123 minutes long. I do wonder if the longer cut would've made these characters a bit more interesting than they ended up being, particularly with the villain, although I really can't blame Scott for not being up to task for such a thankless role. It sure is nice to see Rhames, albeit in a less role than the first time around, although he certainly seems more interesting than the other member of the "team" in Polson. Gleeson and Roxburgh prove to be fairly watchable as well. Even though the original one was prone to twisting itself a bit too much, I felt that there was something interesting about where it took itself that worked for the moment, but this film doesn't really to work as handily for the moment, making for a movie that is mildly entertaining but not as good as the previous one. It isn't anything to give too much criticism for, but it also isn't anything to really find loving unless one doesn't have much expectations going in.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Hereditary.

Review #1099: Hereditary.

Cast: 
Toni Collette (Annie Graham), Alex Wolff (Peter Graham), Milly Shapiro (Charlie Graham), Gabriel Byrne (Steve Graham), and Ann Dowd (Joan) Directed by Ari Aster.

Review: 
If you had not already heard, my city had quite a storm on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, with the result being that some parts of my town were flooded. As such, the review for this film (which had already been out for nearly two weeks by the time I saw it on Tuesday night) was delayed from its original intended day of Wednesday to now - apologies for doing so, but I hope that you will enjoy this review, which somehow managed to be over 700 words.

Admittedly, horror films can span numerous threads and situations, where it can be things besides just trying to get a quick scare, and there have been some recent films that showcase interesting examples of getting scares. I'm reminded of The Witch (2015, also distributed by the film studio A24), which mixed its 17th century family dynamic (and a short cast) with some creepy atmosphere to make for some fine entertainment. It had a methodical way of pacing despite being 93 minutes, but I bought into what it sold. With this movie (and its 127 minute run-time), you would not be surprised that this is a slow burn to watch, complete with family drama and occasionally creepy horror moments. For better or worse, this film sets out with ambition to tell a nightmare tale mixed with tragedy - with one result being some whiplash.

In its short cast, Collette delivers the best performance, fully committed to her role with the kind of devotion and grace that you would expect in a film (whether involving family horror or not) that certainly lends itself some attention. Wolff is fairly solid for his time on screen to watch, but it isn't anything particularly memorable aside from what you'd probably expect from a conventional role - for better or worse. Shapiro, in a role that seems in-line with creepy kids you'd see in horror films is okay, but it isn't anything too special. Byrne is fine, if not a bit unassuming. Dowd is slightly refreshing in that she's the only one in a prominent role that isn't one of these dreary family characters, even if it's a brief role. Watching this movie play out is an exercise in seeing people disintegrate in terms of emotional state that toes the line between being compelling and unintentionally amusing. The dinner room sequence in particular is an example of where the movie may gain or lose some people, in that you might find yourself either finding it to be something to think about, or something to giggle at in how these lines could almost be used ironically. The cinematography by Pawel Pogorzelski is pretty fine to look at, and it sure helps in a movie that likes to linger at times. Perhaps it is the clutter of its subplots that ultimately serves to the film's benefit or its downfall for viewers, and I find myself in the latter category. It has a few moments that are a bit surprising, but those are more offbeat than terrifying. It isn't so much that I wanted the film to bask itself in being familiar, but scenes such as the seance actually seemed more interesting than when it liked to linger on its family drama or even the reaction shots. Sometimes the cliche or the tried-and-true method really does make for an entertaining movie over just one that likes to play around with occasional intensity, complete with an ending that I'm sure will satisfy anyone looking for jarring ways to close off the family angle - but for me it was just a way to get one good laugh. Whether it is disturbing or just silly is up to you.

You might say that this is something that probably needs a second watch to really look into what makes this movie tick with its sensibilities to try and make a nightmare ride, but I can't find myself doing so. It especially suffers if you compare it to other modern horror films, such as The Witch or It, or even newer releases like Upgrade because I felt not so much less unsettled by those movies but more satisfied with where it ultimately went. Movies can be emotionally powerful things to watch, but this one felt a bit flat for me, although that's not to say it won't be for someone with more patience or more understanding, however. Perhaps it is my disappointment that influences my thoughts on the movie, which isn't terrible in any real sense. It is hard to find the right grading for a movie that certainly will work for people buying into what it is trying to sell in horror and tragedy, but it is also a film that feels hollow in the parts that mattered most to me - being compellingly scary. If you're into the sort of thing that this movie is going for, all power to you, but for me I can't do the same.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Godzilla Raids Again.

Review #1098: Godzilla Raids Again.

Cast: 
Hiroshi Koizumi (Shoichi Tsukioka), Setsuko Wakayama (Hidemi Yamaji - Koehi's Daughter), Minoru Chiaki (Koji Kobayashi), Takashi Shimura (Dr. Kyohei Yamane-hakase), Masao Shimizu (Zoologist Dr. Tadokoro), Seijirô Onda (Captain Terasawa of Osaka Defense Corps), Sônosuke Sawamura (Hokkaido Branch Manager Shingo Shibeki), Yoshio Tsuchiya (Tajima, Member of Osaka Defense Corps), with Haruo Nakajima (Godzilla), and Katsumi Tezuka (Anguirus) Directed by Motoyoshi Oda.

Review: 
Six years after doing the original film (#167), I figured it was finally time to do the sequel. Apologies for the wait.

The original film managed to evoke its share of terror and fine moments with its monster in 96 minutes, being an interesting piece of world cinema from Japan in my eyes. It had its share of human drama that I found to be moderately entertaining to accompany the narrative, and it had a conclusion that felt satisfying. Six months after its release, a sequel, going by the title of Godzilla Raids Again (whose title in Japan translates to Godzilla's Counterattack), and it certainly tried to stand out - for better or worse. For one thing, Godzilla fights another monster (this one called Anguirus), with the explanation being that the two monsters were brought back to life by the bomb that had awoken the original Godzilla, and naturally they fight each other, complete with miniature sets and destroying a pagoda. Like before with the original, Eiji Tsuburaya assisted with the special effects, serving as Director Of Special Effects for this film, and they certainly fit well for the spectacle that plays out on screen. The human drama this time isn't too particularly interesting, having its share of cliches and actions that you'd probably expect, and it borders a bit on tedious at moments but it proves to be mildly conventional enough to fit fine. Koizumi and the others (including Shimura briefly reprising his role from the earlier movie) do okay in carrying the movie to the points where it needs to go in its 81 minute run-time. The film isn't as good as the original film in the sense that it doesn't resonate so much with its action and narrative, but it does prove to be a fairly decent product of entertainment. It would be seven years until King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962) continued the series.

One year after the release of this film, the original film was heavily re-edited in order to be released into American audiences, which was released as Godzilla, King of the Monsters!, with new scenes filmed with Raymond Burr describing the action that occurs in the movie that were directed by Terry Morse. In 1959, a re-edited version of the sequel followed (after trying to make a new film with the effect footage dubbed The Volcano Monsters failed), with it being called Gigantis the Fire Monster. This version, released into U.S theaters by Warner Brothers, had numerous edits such as replacing the original music by Masaru Satō with stock music, dubbing over the voices (with such voices like Paul Frees and George Takei), and even replacing Godzilla's roar with Anguirus' roar, while being released in a double bill with Teenagers from Outer Space. It should be noted that both films in their original form had played in theaters in Japanese-American neighborhoods, with the re-edited version of the first film being released in Japan in 1957. In any case, the modern age has led to the original versions of either film (and the re-edits) being more available, and it's not hard to see why as both of these movies are fine pieces of entertainment, with Godzilla Raids Again serving as a fair sequel for any sort of audience.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Incredibles 2.

Review #1097: Incredibles 2.

Cast: 
Craig T. Nelson (Bob Parr / Mr. Incredible), Holly Hunter (Helen Parr / Elastigirl), Sarah Vowell (Violet Parr), Huck Milner (Dashiell "Dash" Parr), Eli Fucile (Jack-Jack), Samuel L. Jackson (Lucius Best / Frozone), Bob Odenkirk (Winston Deavor), Catherine Keener (Evelyn Deavor), Brad Bird (Edna Mode), Jonathan Banks (Rick Dicker), Sophia Bush (Karen / Voyd), Phil LaMarr (Krushauer and Helectrix), Isabella Rossellini (The Ambassador), John Ratzenberger (The Underminer), and Bill Wise (Screenslaver / Pizza Guy) Directed by Brad Bird (#083 - The Iron Giant, #128 - Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, #153 - The Incredibles, and #158 - Ratatouille)

Review: 
I figured that the best way to get myself prepared for a sequel after 14 years of waiting was to re-watch the original Incredibles film, and it was a refreshing choice to do so since I have fond memories of how entertaining it was. Naturally, it still held up well as as entertaining superhero film that doubled as a family movie with the styling of a retro age in terms of its heroes and spy elements that is best suited for its cast and makers that I find myself adoring each time I watch it. With the decision to follow up directly from the first movie (complete with a sequence teased at the end of the other one, drawn out to its conclusion here), this is a sequel that undoubtedly relies on nostalgia in more ways than one, but it also has enough heart and care in making a quality piece of entertainment that ultimately succeeds. It isn't as exceptional as the original, but there are enough pieces in its 118 minute run-time that fit correctly.

The family dynamic isn't lost here with the main group of five (baby included, naturally), with the group of Nelson-Hunter-Vowell-Milner-Fucile proving to be adept at having their own moments to shine, the first two especially. The structure is flipped a bit on its head from the previous one, but Nelson handles it fairly well, having some amusing moments while also still having the strong spirit that made him easily watchable all those years ago without resorting to cliches. Hunter also does a fine job in elevating her role and making her character feel fresh and interesting to follow throughout most stretches of the film. Vowell and Milner aren't as prominent, but they do manage to contribute with making their plot-lines resonate well enough to what the film wants, for the most part. The parts involving Fucile and the baby are pretty amusing and interesting to watch play out without being typical fare resorting to playing down to the audience. Make no mistake, this is a movie for any type of audience, and it is nice to see that it is a film that doesn't pander to anyone - whether to kids or adults, which the original also shone well at. It manages to rise above being just a "greatest hits" kind of sequel to something different nature.

Other returning members such as Jackson and Bird are nice to see again for their time on screen, having a few laughs that work out fine. Odenkirk and Keener round out as the most important of the new additions to the cast. With Odenkirk, he does a fine job with his character, capturing an earnest yet endearing spirit that is charming if not amusing at times. It reminds me of how the first film also had its own variation of the fanboy with regard to superheroes, and while they certainly have key differences, it is nice to see where the films have their divergences. Keener is okay, showing her differences in her style of her interaction with the plot and the heroes (in contrast to her brother), even if she sometimes feels like she falls into the background at times (which you could say about others, too however). There are a few heroes introduced here that share some time on screen, particularly around the climax, with Bush coming out the best in being pretty interesting in sticking out. Admittedly, the weakest part of the movie is the villain, although it isn't for lack of trying. The Screenslaver is sometimes interesting to see on screen (although some will likely have trouble with the flashing lights that encompass the movie at times), and there are some relevant points that come along with dealing with the nature of society and its role with what superheroes mean to that world. However, I feel that it falls a bit short (and for some a bit predictable) with where it ultimately goes, and while the basic nature of the villain can work, I just don't think it really worked as well as it probably could have. It's hard to say how that it could've worked better without spoiling the fun, but I'll just say that it is a bit hard to follow up a threat as interesting as the original film's villain was without falling prey to comparisons, as one would probably expect. While I can't say that the adversary is great, I can see why the choice was made to do so and at least see some of the motivations for said villain.

The animation and style is beautiful to look at once again, and there are enough jokes and riveting action sequences to make this good entertainment. It never gets to a point where things are too bright or dark or glossy, and there a few touches that will certainly check well with people. What we have here is a movie that manages to deliver in the right places in its characters, action, and story to be a welcome piece of entertainment for audiences in any kind of year beyond summer. In a sea of sequels over the past few years, this one manages to stick itself just fine, especially for animation standards. Maybe there will be another one, maybe not, but at the very least it is nice to say that there is more than one movie involving this interesting family of heroes. It may not be purely incredible, but it is purely worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Vampira (1974).

Review #1096: Vampira.

Cast: 
David Niven (Count Dracula), Teresa Graves (Countess Vampira), Nicky Henson (Marc), Jennie Linden (Angela), Linda Hayden (Helga), Bernard Bresslaw (Pottinger), Andrea Allan (Eve), Veronica Carlson (Ritva), Minah Bird (Rose), Freddie Jones (Gilmore), Chris Sandford (Milton), Frank Thornton (Mr. King), and Peter Bayliss (Maltravers) Directed by Clive Donner (#079 - A Christmas Carol)

Review: 
It is evident to see the success that the film Young Frankenstein (#655) had when it was released on December 15, 1974, since that was a fine piece of work in making an entertaining comedy that didn't shy away from its horror roots. In addition, it had an effect on the marketing of this movie, released just two months earlier in October. Upon seeing the success of that film, Vampira was released into American theaters under the title Old Dracula in 1975 to try and bank on the other movie's popularity. However, it is clear quite early to see the differences between the two - one is funny, and the other is not. Through its 88 minute run-time, Vampira is a boring experience that never really seems to have a grasp at what exactly it wants to be for a horror-comedy. The best thing that can be said is that Niven certainly looks game to try and make an effort, not phoning it in too hard, even for Dracula standards. The movie has two underlying problems, with the first being that the other cast-mates don't prove to be too particularly funny, and the second one is that the plot motivation (and execution) are incredibly weak. Nothing truly says compelling entertainment like weak innuendos, although it's not like the writing (done by Jeremy Lloyd of films such as The Wrong Box) isn't too awful for consumption.

Graves isn't particularly compelling, perhaps since she doesn't really sell the hipness of her role too particularly well to generate laughs. The movie likes to use slang from the decade it came from, but it certainly doesn't make it seem too particularly relevant for any sort of viewer. Henson is pretty dry, and his plot-line isn't too particularly interesting even for a Dracula. The others play their parts the way you'd might expect, looking more adept to be a dry sitcom than a funny movie, although Bayliss occasionally delivers some chuckles. I guess if there was something more interesting to drive the plot than just finding the right blood for Dracula's love intermixed with lame stuff like the parts with Henson or even the swinging sequence at the end that makes this a bore at times. The amusement level never rises above mild chuckles, with the final shot involving a "transformed" Dracula sure being a sight to see in closing out a dry failure of a movie. Ultimately, this is a misfire that can't quite hit enough times to really elevate itself to any sort of useful entertainment, and it would've likely been worse to go through if Niven wasn't the star.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Review #1095: Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Cast: 
Alden Ehrenreich (Han Solo), Woody Harrelson (Tobias Beckett), Emilia Clarke (Qi'ra), Donald Glover (Lando Calrissian), Thandie Newton (Val), Paul Bettany (Dryden Vos), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (L3-37), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), Erin Kellyman (Enfys Nest), Jon Favreau (Rio Durant), and Linda Hunt (Lady Proxima) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, and #1085 - Willow)

Review: 
Note: Gee, seems like I am a bit late to the party - if there ever was one for Solo. Honestly, timing issues was the reason for the delay in doing this film (which was also the case with Upgrade). Hopefully you will enjoy this review in any case.

Admittedly, the world of Star Wars is vast with the amount of worlds and characters it can show over the course of the numerous movies that have been released since the original in 1977, and I suppose it only makes sense to make a prequel, since this franchise loves to do that trend every so often, particularly in recent times. The fact that this is the fourth Star Wars film in the past three years does tend to inspire the idea that perhaps the franchise is suffering a bit of fatigue with storytelling. The debacle involving the replacing of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller midway into production with Ron Howard taking over directorial duties and having reshoots doesn't help matters, either. I am reminded of its prequel cousin Rogue One (#888), which mostly utilized characters we had no recollection of prior to its release, and it made the most of what it wanted to tell with a tinge of seriousness and a fair story.

With this film, there is a share of old and new characters, and the appeal of the movie depends on how much appeal they bring to something that generally hits more than it misses, but it also will depend on how you see Ehrenreich in the main role. There is no understating how Harrison Ford managed to make this charming rogue of a character come to life through the four films he appeared in, and it may not be something you can just have someone take over and have a smooth transition. Needless to say, Ehrenreich is a bit shaky at times in this role, particularly around the first half (and any sort of close scene with Clarke), but I feel that he does tend to seem a bit more comfortable around halfway through, and he manages to handle the climax fairly well. Perhaps a better actor would've served the film better, but the best thing that can be said for him is that at least the writing for the character tends to compliment him enough to where it isn't a terrible experience to see it played out. Harrelson plays his mentor role with some relish that make the part seem alive at times, sticking out fine in his time on screen. Clarke is okay, but I feel that she is slightly underdone by the writing on her character, which isn't always consistent to make her seem interesting to follow at times, with the chemistry between her and Ehrenreich not being particularly too great (although I won't say it kills the film's spirit at least). In a film about one charming rogue, it is the appearance of another charming rogue that steals the show, as Glover captures the character originally played by Billy Dee Williams without any sort of doubt, capturing the cool nature of why he is compelling to follow with from his first appearance in the movie. He's fun to watch interact with the others, and I suppose I really did need a scene with a room dedicated to all of his capes that he wears. Newton is okay in her brief time on screen, with Bettany proving to be a fair adversary. Waller-Bridge is fine, although some of her bits can prove to test one's patience with a droid with moxie - for better or worse. The rest of the cast prove just fine to watch. The action sequences and effects are finely done, as one might expect, and the movie tends to move at a fair pace, without becoming bogged by cliches or too much predictability. The writing by Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan (who had served as writer for films involving the character in The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens) has a fair amount of focus to making sure that the characters do tend to have interactions with each other that prove fruitful and occasionally amusing, even if tends to tread familiar lines, although at least it doesn't plod too much through its 135 minute run-time. Is it an entirely necessary movie? I suppose it depends on if you really wanted (or needed) to see an adventure of a younger version of a character you (probably) liked. The film likely won't win any new converts into the Star Wars mythos, but it will prove to be satisfactory entertainment for people looking for a good adventure, and I think that is likely the best hope one can have when watching a film sometimes.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Donovan's Brain.

Review #1094: Donovan's Brain.

Cast: 
Lew Ayres (Dr. Patrick Cory), Nancy Davis (Janice Cory), Gene Evans (Dr. Frank Schratt), Steve Brodie (Yocum), Tom Powers (Donovan's Washington Advisor), Lisa Howard (Chloe Donovan), James Anderson (Chief Tuttle), Victor Sutherland (Nathaniel Fuller), Michael Colgan (Tom Donovan), and Peter Adams (Mr. Webster) Directed by Felix E. Feist (#723 - The Threat)

Review: 
Independently made by Dowling Productions (with distribution from United Artists, Donovan's Brain is based off the novel of the same name by Curt Siodmak, who you may recognize as the writer behind films such as The Wolf Man (1941) and I Walked with a Zombie (1943). The novel had already been adapted into a film before by Republic Pictures as The Lady and the Monster (1944), with a radio drama adaptation on the CBS Radio program Suspense featuring Orson Welles being transmitted that same year. Another adaptation occurred in 1962 named The Brain. 

In any case, this is a movie that banks on you being invested into its concept of a megalomaniac brain for its 83 minute run-time. Unfortunately, I don't think the film is entirely successful in its goal, falling just short at both science fiction and horror, although it is certainly average enough to be harmless. The best thing that I can say is that this is a pretty competent movie, not one to insult the intelligence of the viewer with any sort of overwhelming junk - for the most part. The exposition parts are fairly familiar, but the movie doesn't bungle that up too much. Ayres plays the scientist role fairly okay, but it is his scenes under the control of the brain where the film is a bit more interesting, in part because of his mannerisms when acting as the title character. It isn't so much overacting as just a bit of scenery chewing that is certainly energetically amusing. Davis is okay for the material that she is given, but it proves to make a character that isn't too interesting to really follow with, at least for me anyway. Evans fares a bit better, albeit with a marginal amount of meaningful time on screen to make this role slightly interesting to watch and how it stands out a bit from the other two. The rest of the cast is okay, with Brodie's sneaky reporter role being a fair standout. I can't fault the movie for trying to have some faithfulness with the novel it is made from, but I really do wonder if the book was more interesting with its premise than the film presented here, particularly since that one apparently ended with some sort of mental battle. Maybe if we actually saw more of Donovan than just being told of his miserly ways (not counting the brain sequences) or even saw his offspring more often, then there would be something a bit more interesting. The shots involving the lab room and the brain are fairly nice, and the movie as a whole is decent to look at, with credit going to cinematographer Joseph Biroc. It's a film that doesn't fall too much into being corny nor too much into being creepy, falling in the middle. All in all, this is a fairly average movie that won't be a tremendous waste of your time. It won't be anybody's favorite film even for 1953 (with its quality being more akin to stuff like Cat-Women of the Moon (#668) or Spaceways (#833), basically), being hit or miss with getting enough satisfaction with its premise and execution, but if you are curious about it, I can't really blame you for doing so.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Upgrade.

Review #1093: Upgrade.

Cast: 
Logan Marshall-Green (Grey Trace), Betty Gabriel (Cortez), Harrison Gilbertson (Eron Keen), Benedict Hardie (Fisk), Melanie Vallejo (Asha Trace), Christopher Kirby (Tolan), Clayton Jacobson (Manny), Sachin Joab (Dr. Bhatia), Michael M. Foster (Jeffries), Richard Cawthorne (Serk), and Simon Maiden (STEM) Directed by Leigh Whannell.

Review: 
Admittedly, this is a film that came up on my radar of interest out of nowhere (as it had been out in America for over a week), but how could I not resist a science fiction film that also doubles as a body horror film? The end result of combining these two genres is a movie that turned out to be quite satisfying for my tastes. Within its low budget and b-movie sort of aim, Upgrade is unabashedly entertaining in its exploitation roots (with Whannell having served as the writer for the first three Saw films along with the Insidious series) without resorting to insulting the intelligence of its viewers. It feels like a cross between The Six Million Dollar Man, Death Wish, and RoboCop (1987), complete with a touch of dark humor that goes along with trying to tell a story of revenge that occasionally sprinkles itself with sci-fi. It manages to get the ball rolling around its middle parts with Marshall-Green and Maiden interacting with each other rather adeptly as man and AI, respectively. It isn't too particularly deep with its positions (aside from the occasional bit involving AI), but there is a certain enjoyment from how it moves itself without becoming too typical. The action and horror sequences are executed pretty well, looking pretty convincing with its movements for the most part without being too blurry or too gratuitous (if one is into that, anyway).

Marshall-Green is fairly effective, playing his every-man sort of role fairly handily, having a fine amount of timing when it comes to the action sequences or interacting with the other cast-mates that helps make the film (made in Australia) a pleasure to watch and elevates what could've been a generic hero role into something that works. Gabriel doesn't have as much time on screen to really make her role too particularly developed besides something you'd see in other films involving detectives pursuing the main lead, but she does a relatively fine job in making the character click enough without being too generic. Gilbertson certainly lends this inventor role a bit of closed off nature that clicks weirdly enough for his brief time on screen. The villains for the movie aren't too particularly involving, but Hardie does work well enough for what the film wants in its pursuit of bloody action. At 95 minutes, the movie has a solid pace to it that never stretches itself too artificially, knowing when and where to stop, with an ending that certainly clicks cleverly enough. It is a familiar sort of ride at times, but it is an enjoyable kind of ride most of the time to make a solid gem in my view.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Gorath.

Review #1092: Gorath.

Cast: 
Ryô Ikebe (Dr. Tazawa - Astrophysicist), Yumi Shirakawa (Tomoko Sonoda), Akira Kubo (Tatsuma Kanai - Cadet Astronaut), Kumi Mizuno (Takiko Nomura), Hiroshi Tachikawa (Wakabayashi - Pilot of Ôtori), Akihiko Hirata (Endô - Captain of Ôtori), Kenji Sahara (Saiki - Vice Captain of Ôtori), Jun Tazaki (Raizô Sonoda - Tomoko's Father), Ken Uehara (Dr. Kôno - Astrophysicist), and Takashi Shimura (Kensuke Sonoda - Paleontologist) Directed by Ishirō Honda (#167 - Godzilla and #711 - Mothra)

Review: 
Note: I watched the English dubbed version of this film, which I happened to encounter on television last night. However, I have found a source or two that have compared the original version and the English dubbed version (which features Paul Frees for some of the voices), which are slightly noticeable in its editing, and I hope that seeing the English dub doesn't affect the quality of this review, since I generally try to watch a world cinema film with its original language and subtitles. In any case, I hope you enjoy this review.

With this science fiction film (also known as Yôsei Gorasu), you get the best of both worlds (of sorts): You get your share of shots in space involving either rockets or a planet and you also get your share of scenes involving exposition and occasional story bits with characters. Whether that makes for a serviceable time is up to you, but I found it be okay if not too particularly exceptional. The actors are fairly okay, but because of how the film likes to jump around between numerous people (generally ones in some sort authority), there isn't anyone who sticks out too particularly well, although Tazaki commands a bit of attention for the brief time he is on screen. The strangest moment of the movie isn't even involving the deadly planet, it's actually a part where one of the characters (played by Kubo) takes a framed photo of someone who died and throws it out the window. A close second involves the planet apparently having the power to give someone who gets close to it some sort of amnesia - which is cured by looking at it again apparently. There isn't really too much to the story other than just the incoming planet (which you get to hear is 6,000 times the mass of Earth a few times) and some exposition on the solution to said planet: move the Earth. In a worse movie, it'd probably be easy to pick at that and probably get mad for being insulting to the mind, but in a movie as okay as this, it doesn't feel too terrible to go through, perhaps since it doesn't feel too deceptive in being entertainment - success or not.

The effects are pretty nice to look at for the time that they were created in, having some model shots that seem pretty convincing at moments, particularly during the climax with a flood, which is quite striking. At the head of the department behind the visual effects for the film along with Toho as a studio was Eiji Tsuburaya (who you may know as one of the creators for Godzilla). One interesting thing about the film is a giant walrus named Maguma that appears near the end of the movie, which was added in at the last minute due to influence from one of the producers. Most of the sequence was actually cut out of the English-dubbed version, believe it or not, with the result being a bit disjointed and probably more amusing to giggle at than the original. There exists numerous run-times for the film, with the original being 88 minutes long, the German version being 84 minutes, the American version being 83 minutes, and the American VHS release being 77 minutes. The movie doesn't try to be just one of those sci-fi movies that throw random situations at an audience, having an aim for presenting a message involving cooperation between humans and achievement against all odds, which at the very least is something worth presenting. It isn't a complete success, but it isn't a complete failure either. It won't be known as a great classic, but it is something that you could encounter late at night and probably have some enjoyment with in you're in the right mood.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Last Man Standing (1996).

Review #1091: Last Man Standing.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (John Smith), Bruce Dern (Sheriff Ed Galt), William Sanderson (Joe Monday), Christopher Walken (Hickey), David Patrick Kelly (Doyle), Karina Lombard (Felina), Ned Eisenberg (Fredo Strozzi), Michael Imperioli (Giorgio Carmonte), R. D. Call (Jack McCool), Alexandra Powers (Lucy Kolinski), Ken Jenkins (Capt. Tom Pickett), and Ted Markland (Deputy Bob) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs)

Review: 
The film is a remake of Yojimbo (1961), directed by Akira Kurosawa, with the screenplay done by Ryūzō Kikushima and Kurosawa. It featured Toshiro Mifune as a rōnin (a samurai with no master) that arrived in a town with competing crime lords vying for supremacy that was set in 1860 in Japan. An unofficial and unlicensed remake followed in 1964 with Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars, but Last Man Standing is an official remake that gives Kukushima and Kurosawa credit for the story, with Hill providing the screenplay. With all of that information, how does this movie manage to be a dreary failure? It certainly is consistent with its tone of dry entertainment, in that it has its share of brutal action sequences and a look from Lloyd Ahern II that will certainly test the eyes of how many times the color orange dominates the screens - for better or worse. Even comparing its style to the film noirs that it seems to emulate goes against the movie's favor, since it isn't as alluring as those. It isn't so much that this is a boring thing to watch, it's just that it is a disappointing thing to see play out, with one-note characters and an execution that likes to throw its situations all over the place but not have them be readily interesting. Willis delivers a performance that seems to match the film in that it shifts between mild grinning and stale wanderer type. He may seem best when doing action sequences, but he doesn't seem to feel too comfortable in making this character seem less than stale. Dern is fairly decent, although he doesn't have too much time on screen. It is nice to see Walken when he's on screen, but there is something about the character (whether due to him or the writing) that doesn't really make him as menacing as you'd probably expect, which makes the final showdown seem less interesting than it probably should've been. The other cast members come and go with their performances, for better or worse. That's not to say that the movie would've been better if it had comedy bits, but there is certainly something lacking in terms of excitement, where one can't really revel in its attempts at trying to be compelling. In its 101 minute run-time, this isn't a terribly long slog to go through, but even as a bad film it isn't fun to pick at, more of a thing to just look at and ponder in its mundane nature.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Platoon.

Review #1090: Platoon.

Cast: 
Charlie Sheen (Chris), Tom Berenger (Sgt. Barnes), Keith David (King), Willem Dafoe (Sgt. Elias), Forest Whitaker (Big Harold), Francesco Quinn (Rhah), Kevin Dillon (Bunny), John C. McGinley (Sgt. O'Neill), Mark Moses (Lt. Wolfe), Corey Glover (Francis), Johnny Depp (Lerner), and Chris Pedersen (Crawford) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street)

Review: 
Platoon is a movie that is clear in what it wants to portray and show without feeling inauthentic in its depiction of battle, showing war as only a veteran like Stone would do. After serving a tour of duty in Vietnam in 1967-68, he had written a screenplay that had elements based on his experiences in the war (which he referred to as Break). Although the screenplay ended up not being produced, it served the basis for what became this film. Prior to directing this movie, he had served as screenwriter for films such as Midnight Express (1978) and Conan the Barbarian (1982), winning an Oscar for the former work while also directing films such as Salvador (1986). In any case, this movie was made in the Philippines on a budget of $6.5 million, with the main crew going through a two week basic training under Dale Dye, who served as military adviser for the production. It is evident from the first twenty minutes that this type of dedication helped in making for an authentic experience, with the actors showing signs of burn out and weariness that aligns perfectly with Stone's intent.

Even when Platoon has narration parts with Sheen, there isn't a time when the movie seems like it is using cliche parts just to make an everyday war movie, having a tone and pace that feels consistent in its two hour length. This is a harrowing film to watch, and it is the performances from its main cast that elevates the material, particularly from Berenger and Dafoe. Berenger shows a raw intensity to his portrayal that has a ruthlessness is relentlessly compelling, right down to the major face scar. Dafoe does a fine job with lending this character some compassion and straight edged nature that makes him easy to follow through with in his time on screen. Nearly lost in the shuffle is Sheen, who delivers a decent performance that serves as our face to watch act in an environment as frenzied as this without becoming just a face in the crowd. The other actors do fine jobs in the time they are on screen, such as David and his level-headed nature, Whitaker and his big-hearted but fitting essence, or McGinley and his weariness. The cinematography by Robert Richardson is also a fine standout, looking right for the film with its depiction of battle without being needlessly bright or dark. The film has a share of music it uses for good effect, such as Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit", but also most notably Samuel Barber's "Adagio for Strings", which is used to great effect anytime it is heard on screen, such as during the iconic death sequence with the raised hands, which one can even see on DVD covers for the movie. There is a certain kind of nightmare quality to it that this film evokes that makes it captivating to watch in seeing the depiction of war through the prism of what Stone showcases that seems to burn into one's memory every minute it is on screen. The movie was winner of four Academy Awards, winning for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Film Editing and Best Sound, and it isn't hard to see why that is the case, as this is a fine piece of work that has an honest hard edge to what it depicts without any shred of cliche nature.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.