Creed II.

Review #1165: Creed II.

Cast: 
Michael B. Jordan (Adonis Creed), Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Tessa Thompson (Bianca Taylor), Dolph Lundgren (Ivan Drago), Florian Munteanu (Viktor Drago), Phylicia Rashad (Mary Anne Creed), Andre Ward (Danny "Stuntman" Wheeler), Wood Harris (Tony "Little Duke" Evers), Brigitte Nielsen (Ludmila Drago), Milo Ventimiglia (Robert Balboa), and Russell Hornsby (Buddy Marcelle) Directed by Steven Caple Jr.

Review: 
Creed (2015) certainly was a big surprise for numerous reasons. I certainly didn't expect another installment of the Rocky series, particularly a spin-off with Jordan in the lead role and Ryan Coogler writing and directing. The result was a film that ranks up there as one of the better Rocky films, being just as good (if not better than) as Rocky II (1979). With the resulting success that came from the film, obviously a follow-up would be expected, with a good chunk of the cast from the previous film returning alongside a few new and a few familiar faces, although Coogler now only serves as an executive producer. The writing credits certainly are different this time around, with Stallone co-writing the screenplay alongside Juel Taylor while the story was done by Sascha Penn and Cheo Hodari Coker. It certainly feels that Stallone wanted in some way to make a better sequel than the ones that had followed up the original, particularly III through V, and there are quite a few beats that seem a bit familiar. However, the best that can be said for this movie is that it is quite entertaining, with Jordan and Stallone headlining a fairly game cast that make the experience worth it. Jordan does a fine job in keeping things fresh and interesting that one would expect from a lead, handling himself in the boxing sequences fairly well. Stallone, in his eighth reprisal of the character, manages to retain the same kind of charm and quality as expected from him for the scenes he is in. Thompson also delivers a fine performance, with her and Jordan having good chemistry once again. Lundgren is fun to watch, being more of a character to watch this time around with a bit of grizzled depth - he's actually more interesting to be around with than his on-screen son (Munteanu, who does fine with the boxing sequences at least). The rest of the cast all do their parts just fine. The film is privy to a handful of cliches for the sports film (much like any of the previous Rocky films, although not as silly), being a bit predictable at times, although the boxing scenes are up to code once again, leaving a good punch. The run-time of 130 minutes is manageable, and on the whole I'm sure that this film will serve its purpose of entertainment just alright, working as a mostly solid follow-up to the first film while leaving room for the desire to want to see another one of these down the road.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Review #1164: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Cast: 
Jack Nicholson (Randle McMurphy), Louise Fletcher (Nurse Ratched), Will Sampson ("Chief" Bromden), William Redfield (Dale Harding), Brad Dourif (Billy Bibbit), Sydney Lassick (Charlie Cheswick), Christopher Lloyd (Max Taber), Danny DeVito (Martini), Dean Brooks (Dr. John Spivey), William Duell (Jim Sefelt), Vincent Schiavelli (Bruce Frederickson), Michael Berryman (Ellis), Nathan George (Attendant Washington), Marya Small (Candy), and Scatman Crothers (Orderly Turkle) Directed by Miloš Forman.

Review: 
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was originally a novel by Ken Kesey that he had done based off his time working as an orderly in a mental healthy facility, for which he wrote the novel in 1959 before it was published in 1962. In the original novel, the story was narrated through the character named Chief Bromden, who found that society was controlled by some sort of system called "The Combine". A year after the novel was released, the novel was turned into a play, written by Dale Wasserman that had McMurphy played by Kirk Douglas, who had bought the rights to make it for the stage or for film. After a decade of trying to make it into a film, he gave the rights to his son Michael, who helped co-produce the film along with Saul Zaentz, with Lawrence Hauben and Bo Goldman doing the screenplay. The film was primarily filmed at Oregon State Hospital in Salem. Kesey was not happy with how the film adaptation came out, later suing Douglas and Zaentz for a percentage of the gross and damages for “breaking our verbal agreement and ruining the book.” He objected to the fact that the film was from the perspective of McMurphy rather than the Chief, describing it as such: "they took out the morality; they took out the Combine—the conspiracy that is America.”

At any rate, it isn't hard to see why the film is fairly enjoyable, having a certain kind of energy and pull with a fine deal of craftsmanship and interesting people to follow along with. Nicholson and his rebellious presence give a great magnetic pull for the film, bemused at having to deal with the state of the people on both sides of this mental institution that he deals with, while also having a bit of humor and will to him that makes for good entertainment. Fletcher plays her insidious role with a good degree of understated manipulation, having no sense of overblown nature nor being overshadowed by the other members of the cast, having a voice and enough presence to make this battle of wills work without too many hitches. One good scene with Nicholson and Fletcher that I can highlight is the scene where his character tries to get the television to be turned onto the World Series, where he tries to get the necessary amount of votes from the submissive ones in the ward and her attempts to assert her authority, complete with an ensuing (and amusing) act of defiance - imagining the game out loud. Sampson, who had been discovered by the producers due to his 6'7 frame, does a fine job for his acting debut, doing just alright with the small amount of lines he has while playing his part in the climax without any hitches. Dourif and Lloyd (who both had done work on the stage prior to this film) shine in their own ways, with the former's fear and willingness to try and please everyone coming out fairly well and the latter being amusing when picking on Redfield. Lassick does well with conveying panic and nervousness, and DeVito (reprising his role from the 1971 revival of the play) also does fine with brief moments to talk.

The film does take some time to show the conformity and mindless automation of the people in the ward, and for the most part the film keeps itself consistent. The fishing sequence is a bit of a miss when compared to other sequences in part because it just feels a bit too silly that kind of messes with the rest of the film's tone. It should be mentioned that the fishing sequence was present in the novel, although it has a few significant differences - such as the fact that the trip is planned in the book, for example. In any case, it's a bit of a understatement to say that the film turned out to be such a great success, being a hit with audiences while winning numerous awards, winning what is described as the Big Five categories of the Academy Awards: Best Picture (beating films such as Jaws and Nashville), Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay. On the whole, the film is pretty entertaining, having an enduring spirit to it that makes it work more often than not in its 133 minute run-time. It still manages to hold up well after over forty years since its release with a game cast and an enduring spirit that makes for at least one watch.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Rocky Balboa.

Review #1163: Rocky Balboa.

Cast: 
Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Burt Young (Paulie Pennino), Milo Ventimiglia (Robert "Rocky" Balboa, Jr), Geraldine Hughes (Marie), James Francis Kelly III (Stephenson), Tony Burton (Tony "Duke" Evers), Antonio Tarver (Mason "The Line" Dixon), and Pedro Lovell (Spider Rico) Directed by Sylvester Stallone (#047 - The Expendables, #277 - Rocky II, #340 - Rocky III, and #597 - Rocky IV)

Review: 
Admittedly, the Rocky series has certainly had its share of ups and downs. The first three films are all pretty good sports dramas (with the first being the pinnacle), although I will say that it could've ended after Rocky II (1979) or Rocky III (1982) without any objection. Rocky IV (1985) was the pinnacle of ridiculousness, but again - end it there, and that's okay. Rocky V (1990) was (and still is) the worst of the bunch, and even Stallone expressed disappointment with the final product. Honestly, it really is a surprise that there is even a sixth film at all, considering that it was released sixteen years after the last film and thirty years after the original. It has been said by Stallone upon doing this film (for which he wrote and directed) that he would rather "...do something that he enjoyed badly, than feel bad about not doing something he enjoyed." In that respect, I find that the end result is a movie that is just fine. It isn't anything great, and it doesn't really have too much reason to exist, but it is ultimately a decent piece of entertainment that will prove itself to the audience it is trying to reach without too much struggle. It loves to do callbacks to previous films and hark back to the days of yesteryear from the series (particularly with flashbacks of scenes with Talia Shire), and it comes off more poignant than over-reaching in the final result. It is the kind of movie that perseveres just as much as the other films in part because of the pull from Stallone in the title role. With the pull of having to play a role now filled with loneliness and the search for having meaning, he steps up just fine to the task of making this character as compelling and believable as he can, being as entertaining as ever. The film does sometimes teeter on the edge of collapsing to the problem of self-parody, but it does manage to steady itself enough with some fine supporting performances. There are a few returning actors from the previous films, such as Young, Burton, and Lovell, and they are fine for the brief time they show up on screen. Ventimiglia and Hughes also do decent with their roles, being people worth following for short bursts with their interactions with Stallone while not being clunky or too cliche. Tarver (an actual boxer) is okay for the parts required of him; obviously he does better in the boxing sequences than the parts involving trying to pull a bit of drama with his character, but he at least isn't too wooden for the film nor does he make you wish someone else was in the role, for the most part. Much like before, the fight sequence proves to be the biggest punch the film has going for it, and it certainly comes out well, executed with a look and feel that reaches levels that the other films hadn't dared to try - namely, realistic sound effects and a fight that certainly feels up to the task. At 100 minutes, the film doesn't overstay its welcome too much, having a decent pace that builds to its final fight without leaving too much at the door. On the whole, it may have been a bit strange to have a sixth film to begin with for this aging series, but the end product justifies itself enough to make for a fine installment without too much objection or regrets.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Overlord (2018).

Review #1162: Overlord.

Cast: 
Jovan Adepo (Pvt. Ed Boyce), Wyatt Russell (Cpl. Ford), Mathilde Ollivier (Chloe), John Magaro (Tibbet), Gianny Taufer (Paul), Pilou Asbæk (Cpt. Wafner), Iain De Caestecker (Morton Chase), Dominic Applewhite (Jacob Rosenfeld), and Jacob Anderson (Dawson) Directed by Julius Avery.

Review: 
I suppose the best thing to say about this movie is that it doesn't strive for greatness (or even awards) nor demand too much from its audience. It is a war/horror film that indulges in gore that satisfies in the right ways for entertainment. It is the kind of movie that would've fit just fine with horror films like The Thing (1982) or Aliens (1986) in terms of having a fair plot besides its selection of gooey villains that make it a step above what it could've been if it was made with a different amount of craftsmanship. The story comes from Billy Ray while having a screenplay done by him and Mark L. Smith while having Avery (who previously directed one other feature in 2014 named Son of a Gun) serving as director while having J. J. Abrams as a producer. The characters aren't really anything other than cliches from war or horror movies, but the actors are game enough to make them useful to follow along with (or root against, in the case of the villain). Adepo is our eyes for most of the film, and he makes the most of it like all fine leads by handling himself with enough care to go around. Russell (the younger son of Kurt Russell) plays his role with a no-nonsense approach that goes over pretty well with charm. Ollivier and the other members of the main group of heroes are fine, serving their role and function without any bumps in the road. Asbæk proves a fair menace for the material as required. The effects are a key part of what makes the movie tick along, with a good deal of them being practical (such as one involving a face) that make for a better showing than if it was just computer generated. The action sequences are pretty decent, having just a degree of intensity (particularly with the opening sequence) that keeps the movie on its toes. With a run-time of 110 minutes, the film is never boring nor too elaborate with its execution of its climax and ending. For the most part, the film is a bit predictable, with no real big twist or anything too out there (aside from what's beyond that village for the soldiers), but there isn't anything objectionable for ones with patience or curiosity in horror. There are some intense scenes with a bit of gruesomeness, not skimping out on what it takes while having a scare or two mixed in. It takes its time to show its horror tricks, but you never feel impatient in getting there. It won't be the film for everyone's tastes (such as perhaps people who might expect better from a war flick or horror), but I found that it is a pretty enjoyable movie with a fine bit of care and guts to make a fair winner. It certainly won't be a great classic for the war or horror genres, but it certainly has a place for curiosity's sake that certainly is worth a look.
 
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The House of Fear (1945).

Review #1161: The House of Fear.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Aubrey Mather (Bruce Alastair), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Paul Cavanagh (Dr. Simon Merivale), Holmes Herbert (Alan Cosgrave), Harry Cording (Captain John Simpson), Sally Shepherd (Mrs. Monteith), and Gavin Muir (Mr. Chalmers) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, #1021 - The Spider Woman, #1040 - The Scarlet Claw, and #1056 - The Pearl of Death)

Review: 
The House of Fear is the tenth film of the Rathbone-Bruce series of Sherlock Holmes movies, released seven months after the previous installment in March 1945. It would prove to be the first of three Holmes features released in 1945 - the second (The Woman in Green) was released in July and the third (Pursuit to Algiers) was released in October. The credits state that the film was based off the 1891 story "The Adventure of the Five Orange Pips" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, although it seems the only thing the film took from it was the orange pips, which are present in letters sent to a group of men (all seven of which who have life insurance policies) living in a castle prior to their deaths, one by one. The mystery itself is a bit shaky, but at least there is some atmosphere present and a fairy game ensemble cast to push the film towards respectability, even with a collection of cliches (house on a cliff, spooky servants, secret passageways, odd villagers, etc). One wonders how to describe Rathbone playing a role that he played consistently for six years (in film and on radio) that defined him without feeling like a broken record; he does a fine job with the material he is given without feeling tired, and that's the best thing that can happen for this film. Bruce is at task to deliver the qualities expected from being the second banana to Rathbone, giving off some comic relief (most notably a bit with an owl), but at least he does play some part in the final deduction for the better. Mather plays the nervous one okay, and the other members of people in the castle are all okay, although there really isn't much of a villianous presence besides Shepherd creeping about while giving the men their letters. Hoey also does a bit of stumbling about as Lestrade in his fifth go at the role, of which he did six times, appearing in Terror by Night the following year. On the whole, it's not hard to see that the filmmakers were pretty comfortable with how they were making these mystery films as efficiently and quickly as possible (taking only a few weeks to make on cheap b-movie budgets) - with this one running at just 69 minutes. It isn't too ridiculous nor too boring to spend some time with. If you are a fan of the series of films with Rathbone and Bruce, this one will prove just fine for viewers and it works fine for anybody looking to pass some time with a film that has some good old-fashioned mystery cliches - right down to its title. The film isn't the best or worst of the series, being a middle-of-the-road kind of movie that is alright on its merits.

Next Review: Overlord (2018).

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Crow (1994).

Review #1160: The Crow.

Cast: 
Brandon Lee (Eric Draven/The Crow), Michael Wincott (Top Dollar), Ernie Hudson (Sergeant Albrecht), Rochelle Davis (Sarah), Bai Ling (Myca), David Patrick Kelly (T-Bird), Angel David (Skank), Jon Polito (Gideon), Tony Todd (Grange), Sofia Shinas (Shelly Webster), Michael Massee (Funboy), Laurence Mason (Tin-Tin), and Anna Levine (Darla) Directed by Alex Proyas (#086 - I, Robot)

Review: 
The Crow is based off a 1989 superhero comic book series of the same name created by James O'Barr, which soon became an underground success. Tasked with writing the screenplay adaptation is John Shirley and David J. Schow, who were each known for their work on writing novels (cyberpunk and splatter-punk horror, respectively), with un-credited rewrites being done due to the tragic accidental death of Lee on March 31, 1993, which occurred a few days before production was set to end. Narration (along with a few new scenes) was added to accompany stand-in actors (such as Chad Stahelski) and CGI digital superimposition. The resulting product is a movie that is pretty entertaining, mostly due to its style and some fair performances, starting with Lee (in his fifth and final appearance in a film). He shows a good deal of charm and compelling nature (complete with a nice-looking costume) that dominates the screen for most of its 102 minute run-time. Wincott, although not having as much time to make up much of a villainous presence, proves entertaining enough. Hudson is enjoyable in pulling some watch-ability out of the cop role without feeling hollow, having a bit of humor to him. Davis does a fine job as well, going along well with Lee and Hudson. Although the supporting cast of adversaries are a bit routine, they aren't detrimental to the film's credit. The climax (complete with rain, naturally) is satisfactory to help cap the film, having a decent showdown that tries to make the final result a little less than easily predictable (for a vigilante hero, anyway), which works okay to a point. After all, this is a movie with a guy back from the dead who is accompanied by a crow that flies around, but at least there isn't some sort of shoehorned explanation of the origins of the title hero. The film is dark and moody with its approach, particularly with its cinematography by Dariusz Wolski that sure makes the setting come to life with plenty of fine shots to look at, reminding me of Batman (1989) and Blade Runner (1982). The film doesn't have too much in the way of a great story at times, and it can fall prey to some cliches, but I found that there are enough enjoyable moments to make this a entertaining experience. It makes for a fine vigilante film that has some fine action sequences to accompany a movie that certainly earns a cult following and at least one watch for people curious for some style and action.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Taste the Blood of Dracula.

Review #1159: Taste the Blood of Dracula.

Cast: 
Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Geoffrey Keen (William Hargood), Gwen Watford (Martha Hargood), Linda Hayden (Alice Hargood), Peter Sallis (Samuel Paxton), Anthony Corlan (Paul Paxton), Isla Blair (Lucy Paxton), John Carson (Jonathan Secker), Martin Jarvis (Jeremy Secker), Ralph Bates (Lord Courtley), Roy Kinnear (Weller), and Michael Ripper (Inspector Cobb) Directed by Peter Sasdy.

Review: 
Oooh, a Dracula film. October already had Interview with the Vampire and Dracula vs. Frankenstein for some vampire action, but I've had a desire to go back to the Hammer Dracula films, which I last covered in 2016. With this review, there is only two other Hammer Dracula films left with Lee in the main role (Scars of Dracula and Dracula A.D. 1972), although there were two other Hammer Dracula films without Lee (The Brides of Dracula and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires). In any case, I'll try to get around to those in due time. 

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968) was a fine piece of entertainment, having a collection of cliches and flair that worked out to make it work for the franchise. It had a few interesting characters along with some compelling moments with a worthwhile climax. The development of the sequel certainly had a bit of a bumpy road to it, since the original intent was to not have Lee back as Dracula. By this point in time, Lee was not particularly interested in continuing to play the role for Hammer Films, although if he was given the right amount of salary, he certainly would come back. With a desire to not pay him (or perhaps tired of having to try and convince Lee to come back), the original script by Anthony Hinds featured Bates being the main villain, since he drinks the blood of Dracula before convulsing and beaten to death by the people who bought Dracula's belongings. Yes, right before Dracula perished in the previous film, he happened to encounter some random guy and perished right in front of him and he got the idea to collect not only the powder of his blood but also his cape and brooch. In any case, the idea to have Bates (infused with the spirit of Dracula) as the villain was vetoed by Warner Bros, the American distributor for these films, who wanted Lee back. He certainly seemed fine with the film, describing it as having "Good cast, good production, good story -- except that Dracula didn't really belong in it!". He wasn't too fond of having the films be made so closely with the others, and he felt that audiences grew tired of it, which he said could apply to him as well. In one account, he was apparently convinced to keep doing the role in part because the producers would tell him about the people that would lose work if he didn't keep doing the role for more films. In any case, 1970 was quite the year for him as Dracula. Not only did he play the role in this film, he also played the role in Count Dracula (directed by Jesús Franco that was released one month before this film) and Scars of Dracula (released by Hammer Films six months after the success of this film).

There isn't much of Dracula this time around, with bare dialogue but quite a few shots of Lee and his hypnotic eyes. Honestly, I could care less about the conflict between the elders and their offspring and the hypocrisy from the former - I'm more interested in the ridiculousness of the fact that Dracula is getting revenge for his servant (Bates) being killed by the group - as if Dracula suddenly cares about anybody other than himself. Actually, it's strange that he is brought back at all through a ceremony where someone drinks the mixed blood of himself and Dracula. Would Dracula have been brought back if the other guy hadn't been killed quickly by the elders? When I think about Dracula films, I don't think about scenes involving an old man drunkenly trying to whip his daughter for seeing her boyfriend, I instead think about the Count trying to somehow use people to get what he wants. Perhaps it is supposed to be a reflection on the times, but really it just inspires my eyes to wander for what should be a more interesting horror film. Lee (in his fourth turn at the role for Hammer) doesn't really have much to do, but he at least shines when he needs to show some presence. At least he speaks a few words more than he did when compared to the other films. Keen plays an unsavory hypocrite okay, but waiting for his character to be stalked by Dracula proves more interesting. Hayden, Corlan, and Blair make up the young group who encounter Dracula in their own respective ways, but none of them are too particularly interesting to follow along with. The ending is a bit ridiculous. This time around, it's not the sun, water or a stake that gets him, instead it is him being taken down by a church being restored to its sanctity and being overwhelmed by its power that makes him fall and crumble into dust. The film feels like a mess, feeling confused over where it wants to go as a film. It isn't too particularly scary nor over-the-top to make it other than just something to pass the time waiting for Dracula, though at least there is some moments of blood and gore through its run-time (95 minutes for the uncut edition and 91 for the cuts in the US release) that may prove fine for others. I found the movie to be pretty average and not quite as good as the other previous installments. It isn't the best or worst of the bunch, and perhaps it will serve its purpose if you're in the right mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

House of the Long Shadows.

Review #1158: House of the Long Shadows.

Cast: 
Vincent Price (Lionel Grisbane), Christopher Lee (Corrigan/Roderick Grisbane), Peter Cushing (Sebastian Grisbane), Desi Arnaz, Jr. (Kenneth Magee), John Carradine (Lord Elijah Grisbane), Sheila Keith (Victoria Grisbane), Julie Peasgood (Mary Norton), Richard Todd (Sam Allyson), Louise English (Diane Caulder), and Richard Hunter (Andrew Caulder) Directed by Pete Walker.

Review: 
Well, well, well, it's a horror-spoof film review in November. Like I said, some things just cross on over into the next month, and it only makes sense that it features four actors who are quite prolific in their appearances in films covered on Movie Night - you may be interested to know that this is the 20th film covered with Christopher Lee (the most for one actor on this show) and the 16th with Peter Cushing, which is fourth most. I hope you enjoy this review for a film that I've been interested in covering for quite some time.

I suppose it is the star billing for this film that attracted me most to watch it, and I suppose I had forgotten that Scream and Scream Again (1970) featured Price, Lee, and Cushing - and that proved a disappointment. But there are a few changes this time around: for one thing, there is also the presence of fellow horror icon Carradine alongside a bit more for the quartet to do. The ones to give us the pleasure of seeing four horror icons together is done by producers Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus for Cannon Films. This is an adaptation of the novel Seven Keys to Baldpate (1913) by Earl Derr Biggers, which George M. Cohan soon turned into a play adaptation. In any case, the original story involved characters of melodrama cliches wrapped as a mystery farce, such as crooked cops and criminals that all somehow make their way to the mountain resort named Baldpate Inn where a writer is trying to write a 10,000 word story in 24 hours to win a bet. Prior to this film, there had been six adaptations of the story, with the first being in 1916 and the last being in 1947. This time around, the bet is that an author can write a novel of the caliber of Wuthering Heights in 24 hours for $20,000.

Wrapped within its 101 minute run-time (with a screenplay by Michael Armstrong) is all of the cliches you would expect from a film like this, such as an old dark house, terrible weather, sinister secrets, and naturally, murder. In a way, the film feels like a homage to the Hammer horror films with the mood and feel, and there is a fine deal of gore to help the film go along without too many bumps. There are almost as many twists as there are deaths in this film, but there is some enjoyment to be had, mostly with the quartet. My particular favorite moment is Price, remarking to someone to not interrupt him when he is soliloquizing while in the dark house; he is neat to watch as always, having an interesting demeanor to him that endures with age. Lee remains as captivating as ever with such great imposing nature and understated charm. This was the fourth-to-last theatrical film that Cushing appeared in (along with the 24th and last appearance with Lee in a film), but he is still adept at playing his nervous role with the kind of respect one comes to expect from him. Carradine, though not given as much to do, does pretty well with his time on screen. Having these actors alone would be enough to make it a look, no matter how much the presence of Arnaz Jr and Peasgood try to mar it. Arnaz Jr isn't terrible, but I find that he isn't too particularly interesting to follow along with, having a few quips and observations that come and go as they please. Peasgood isn't too particularly better, and it doesn't really seem they have any sort of chemistry together, with their pursuit of the inevitable twists being more interesting when Price and Lee are around. While the film is pretty average at times, it never borders on boredom in part due to some of its cast keeping things afloat and a consistently decent pace. The climax is a bit of a mess, in part because it follows the tradition of the story for its main twist, complete with some sort of ham-handed lesson thrown in. In the end, the film is a decent little horror-spoof that will prove worthy enough for anyone with the patience to sit a few clunky moments that accompany the film that works in its own right to give off a few chuckles and scares. It isn't a classic by any means, but it has its own little place with horror and amusement.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Wolf (1994).

Review #1157: Wolf.

Cast: 
Jack Nicholson (Will Randall), Michelle Pfeiffer (Laura Alden), James Spader (Stewart Swinton), Kate Nelligan (Charlotte Skylar Randall), Richard Jenkins (Detective Sgt. Carl Bridger), Christopher Plummer (Raymond Alden), Eileen Atkins (Mary), David Hyde Pierce (Roy MacAllister), Om Puri (Dr. Vijav Alezais), and Ron Rifkin (Doctor Ralph) Directed by Mike Nichols (#175 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, #550 - The Graduate, and #637 - The Birdcage)

Review: 
I suppose there must have been a desire to make a new kind of werewolf film for the 1990s, particularly since this film doesn't even use the word "werewolf", as if that was somehow taboo or something. It's also clear that they really wanted to be taken seriously, since this is a romantic horror film. On the whole, the film is decent, but it doesn't really live up to the potential it could've reached, although I certainly do find some enjoyment from it, whether when trying to be a metaphor or for unintentional amusement. Perhaps this is a movie that needed more beastly nature, since the real horror that jumps out involves office politics at a publishing house. The screenplay was done by author Jim Harrison and Wesley Strick, although there were un-credited re-writes done by Elaine May. Harrison was not a particular fan of the final result of the film made by Nichols, explaining "I wanted Dionysian, but he wanted Apollonian. He took my wolf and made it into a Chihuahua. I cracked up for 10 minutes and then went out into the country and stood in front of a wolf den and apologized while my dog hid under the truck." This is a strange film to spend 125 minutes with, and it does sometimes feel a bit too long.

The acting does help carry the movie well enough. Nicholson is entertaining, being watchable as ever without overdoing anything, whether when prancing around with mutton-chops or when having more energy to him after being bit. After all, this is a movie that gives him a bunch of abilities to show off as a wolf, such as being able to read without his glasses, being able to be more active in romance with his wife, jumping in the air, or having animals hate him. Pfeiffer, in a role that occasionally delves into cliches, manages to come out as someone interesting to follow along with, having a few moments with Nicholson that makes this romance seem semi-workable. Spader is excellent at playing such a smarmy character like this one, making the art of flattery and treachery that works oozy wonders each time he's on screen. Nelligan is okay, but the real highlight in the supporting cast is Plummer, who plays his domineering rich guy role with an understated touch. The special makeup effects are done by Rick Baker, who you may recognize from his work on other films, most notably An American Werewolf in London (1981) and Coming to America (1988). His effects here are pretty good, although they certainly feel restrained in contrast to the bits involving the romance or the office scenes, although at least they are given time to shine in the climax. Honestly, the movie is more fun when it doesn't feel so restrained between either being a metaphor or being actual horror/romance. One of my favorite bits of amusement comes when Nicholson's character decides to "mark his territory" at the bathroom when he's firing Spader's character, as if this was supposed to be taken seriously. Other other fun bit comes when Nicholson's character finds out that he has been cheated on by his wife through his super-scent, so he goes up to the house where his wife and the other guy are located, and he bites the other dude on the hand before going up the stairs, taking one look at his wife, and then leaves. The climax is a bit of a ridiculous one, and it isn't as effective as it probably should've been. Maybe it's the fact that there really isn't that much buildup for its showdown between its two wolves (complete with the use of slow motion), or maybe it's the fact that the film keeps shuffling between what it really wants. This is especially apparent in the scene after involving a shot of eyes mixed in with a shot of a wolf - and that's it. If you think the film will resemble something like The Wolf Man (1941), you will likely be disappointed, but I did manage to find some strange enjoyment out of how weird and energetic it is, even if it manages to muddled in ridiculousness at times. It isn't a highlight in the horror or romance genres, but it works just enough for me to win out as entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.