Tombstone.

Review #1177: Tombstone.

Cast: 
Kurt Russell (Wyatt Earp), Val Kilmer (Doc Holliday), Sam Elliott (Virgil Earp), Bill Paxton (Morgan Earp), Powers Boothe ("Curly Bill" Brocius), Michael Biehn (Johnny Ringo), Charlton Heston (Henry Hooker), Jason Priestley (Billy Breakenridge), Jon Tenney (Sheriff Johnny Behan), Stephen Lang (Ike Clanton), Thomas Haden Church (Billy Clanton), Dana Delany (Josephine Marcus), and Paula Malcomson (Allie Earp), with narration by Robert Mitchum. Directed by George P. Cosmatos (#818 - Rambo: First Blood Part II)

Review: 
On October 26, 1881, a shooutout occurred between lawmen and outlaws near the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona, resulting in three deaths. It later became known as one of the most famous shooutouts of the Wild West, in part due to Stuart Lake's biography Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, written in 1931 that told the tale of one of the participants. Although it is now known as largely fictional by researchers, it served the basis for films such as My Darling Clementine (1946) while helping to elevate Earp into a mythic icon. In any case, Kevin Jarre was slated to write and direct this film to tell the tale of the gunfight alongside the people involved in the shootout. However, a month into production he was fired from the directing chair due to falling behind in the shooting schedule. Cosmatos was hired to replace him, while scriptdoctor John Fasano helped in trimming the story to focus more on the Wyatt-Doc dynamic. It may interest you to know that six months after the release of the film came Wyatt Earp (1994), which starred Kevin Costner that wasn't as successful. The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it has plenty of entertainment value for a Western, having a good balance of action and story to make a solid experience. The ensemble cast is up to the task of making these characters come alive without feeling generic or getting lost in the shuffle. The music from Bruce Broughton (composer of a film previously covered in Silverado) also stands to the task of swift adventure. Russell shines fairly well, being quite capable at giving his role a fair sense of depth that makes him feel more than just a lawman, particularly when conversing with his on-screen brothers (Elliot and Paxton, who are efficient) or with Kilmer. I particularly like the sequence when he deals with an unruly gambler (played by Billy Bob Thornton) without even having to shoot a gun. Kilmer (complete with a Southern drawl) is quite excellent as well, being quite watchable with plenty of charm to go around. Boothe shines well as one of the adversaries the movie presents, but it is Biehn who also proves efficient in making a worthy opponent for the final showdown. The supporting cast is fine, although the movie's key strength relies more on Earp in action than when he is sharing time with either of the women in his life. The film works well before and after the Corral gunfight, keeping interest through its 130 minute runtime with minimal moments of tedium. The film seems to have plenty of craftsmanship and effort done to make something that doesn't feel like a manufactured tale made for a cheap thrill, having a finely told story with plenty of interesting things to go around. It isn't a great Western classic, but it is a well made and well done movie that can work for anyone looking for an old legend put to film.

Happy New Year folks. Hoping 2019 is just as productive as 2018 was.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

New Year's Evil.

Review #1176: New Year's Evil.

Cast: 
Roz Kelly (Diane "Blaze" Sullivan), Kip Niven (Richard Sullivan), Chris Wallace (Lieutenant Ed Clayton), Grant Cramer (Derek Sullivan), Louisa Moritz (Sally), Jed Mills (Ernie Moffet), Taaffe O'Connell (Jane), Jon Greene (Sergeant Greene), and Teri Copley (Teenage Girl) Directed by Emmett Alston

Review: 
I suppose what the world needed was a slasher film set on New Year's Eve - after all, there exists slashers for other holidays such as Halloween (1978), or Home Sweet Home (1981), or Black Christmas (1974), so why not make one about the culmination of a new year by culling elements from slashers such as those while not having as much substance or entertainment value? What should I expect from a movie produced by Golan-Globus, although perhaps the ridicule should be directed towards the one who decided to have the villain call himself "Evil" with a ridiculous voice modifier facing off against a punk rock new wave show host who will be hunted down by a killer who hunts off a person hour by hour to reflect the changing of the year by time zone. Undeniably, the easiest problem with this movie is that there isn't really any tension or energy to the whole affair, being a horror film as bland as it gets. Kelly isn't particularly interesting to follow along with, not having much charm to go around. Niven, playing a villain that is obvious midway through (in part because we see his face when he goes around trying to hunt people down) isn't really noteworthy, with the twist in the end not helping to drive the movie to actually have some tension. The other members of the cast (such as the obligatory detective played by Wallace) aren't too useful, and there isn't even anyone trying to play for laughs or over-the-top nature, so the 90 minute run-time feels like a chore at times when there really isn't anyone with a sense of humor or a sense of interest to make this feel anything other than low-budget. The screenplay by Leonard Neubauer and story by Alston and Neubauer only manages to have a body count to drive things forward, along with some choice music picks, but there isn't anything here that you haven't really seen before (Black Christmas comes to mind for me) or really care to see. By the time you get to the climax and the film's final pull on the strings of what it calls suspenseful horror, the yearning for the credits is more preferable. On the whole, it is a pretty routine horror flick that will only serve to make its audience look for something more preferable more out of disappointment than anything.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Aquaman.

Review #1175: Aquaman.

Cast: 
Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Amber Heard (Mera), Willem Dafoe (Nuidis Vulko), Patrick Wilson (King Orm), Dolph Lundgren (King Nereus), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (David Kane / Black Manta), Nicole Kidman (Atlanna), Temuera Morrison (Tom Curry), Ludi Lin (Captain Murk), Michael Beach (Jesse Kane), and Randall Park (Dr. Stephen Shin) Directed by James Wan.

Review: 
I will admit that I did have mild expectations for Aquaman, much in the same way that I try to hold for most superhero films, where I hope for some fine entertainment along with at least some sort of storytelling or substance. It isn't an exceptional film by any means, but it does have plenty of entertainment value and a fair bit of charm to make a solid feature with enough spirit of adventure to prevail. It fits squarely in the middle with other superhero films in recent years, being just as fine as other features such as Black Panther (2018) for example but also being particularly better made than other films adapted from DC Comics such as Justice League (2017). Honestly, the best way to make a superhero film is to just have fun with the material while not making a mockery out of what makes a hero what they are, while having interesting secondary characters to go with it. In that regard, Momoa is up to the task handily enough, giving plenty of dignity and charm while handling himself just fine for the action sequences. Heard does fine with her role, although the chemistry between her and Momoa isn't too noteworthy. The others in the cast stand to do their parts just fine, although having two villains in Wilson and Abdul-Mateen II seems a bit much. Lundgren seems to be having fun with his kingly role at least. The dialogue certainly doesn't help too much with giving these characters too much life, having more splashes of delivering exposition; in that case it is no wonder the film runs at 143 minutes, which can feel a bit long at times, although at least the action scenes do help to cover some of the slack. The film also has time for humor amidst the spectacle - where else can one see an octopus do a drum solo? Undeniably, the film hinges quite a bit on the execution of its effects, since a majority of the movie takes place underwater. For the most part, it looks fairly convincing, and I can only imagine the effort it took to make the actors seem like they were in water. The action works well, not being too jerky or blurry for the eyes. The climax is fine and dandy. The film has a bunch of people pulling the strings behind its execution in writing, with David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall being behind the screenplay while Geoff Johns, Wan, and Will Beall are credited with doing the story for the film. On the whole, this proved to be a good fashioned crowd-pleaser kind of movie, doing what it aspires to do without too many bumps. The film works more often than not in trying to give its main hero a place for the big screen through good fun and a decently patched story that allows the possibility for more with this character that can only go up from here.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine.

Review #1174: Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine.

Cast: 
Vincent Price (Dr. Goldfoot), Frankie Avalon (Craig Gamble), Dwayne Hickman (Todd Armstrong), Susan Hart (Diane), Jack Mullaney (Igor), Fred Clark (D.J. Pevney), Patti Chandler (Robot), Mary Hughes (Robot), Salli Sachse (Robot), Luree Holmes (Robot), Sue Hamilton (Robot), Laura Nicholson (Robot), and Marianne Gaba (Robot) Directed by Norman Taurog (#421 - Palm Springs Weekend and #523 - It Happened at the World's Fair)

Review: 
Admittedly, I suppose the basic proposition of "James Bond meets a beach party" must have sounded pretty enticing to turn into a movie, particularly if you have Vincent Price to inject some classiness (or ridiculousness, perhaps) into the whole affair. This was made on a budget of over a million dollars by American International Pictures, who could make and release films of various kinds, such as horror or beach party movies, and I suppose there really must've been something about the latter genre that was big for the 1960s, so what better way to build on that by combining/spoofing it with another thing big for the decade - spy films. James H. Nicholson (co-founder of the studio) helped write the story, while Elwood Ullman and Robert Kaufman helped do the screenplay. Reportedly, the original intent of the film was to have songs integrated throughout the film, for which Vincent Price was looking forward to sing. However, this did not come to pass, which disappointed him. Actually, I imagine it would've been pretty interesting to hear, but Samuel Z. Arkoff (AIP co-founder) thought he sounded too "fey" - wrap your head around that.

The end product is a movie that has a bunch of cheap gags and okay acting, with Price being the only one who really seems to shine with some sort of energy. I can't say that I disliked my experience with the movie, but I didn't find this movie to have enough in terms of successful humor and gags to really make this a worthwhile film to recommend. Price is entertaining, playing this ridiculous role with a fine sense of humor, and he is the only thing to really keep the film from derailing too much into lame gags. He can't elevate the movie into anything really good, but he does save the experience from being bland at least. Avalon and Hickman are okay, but they aren't too particularly interesting to follow along with, with the bumbling and stumbling only going so far before the film seems to grow tired. I couldn't help but think of Our Man Flint (1966), which also served as a spoof of the Bond film while being pretty silly, but somehow that film ends up working much better with its gags and spy hero. At least the song in the beginning by The Supremes is charming, complete with claymation designed by Art Clokey. The sequence at the end involving the streetcar in San Francisco is pretty interesting at least. There isn't really a terrible performance, but the movie simply doesn't have enough consistent energy to make its thin plot and gags work completely. Upon release, the movie was mildly successful, most notably doing well in Italy, which inspired a sequel called Dr. Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs that was released the following year. If one is looking for something that is simply silly without needing too much investment, perhaps this will fit right up the alley.

Happy Boxing Day, folks.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Steamboat Bill, Jr.

Review #1173: Steamboat Bill, Jr.

Cast: 
Buster Keaton (William Canfield, Jr.), Ernest Torrence (William "Steamboat Bill" Canfield, Sr.), Marion Byron (Kitty King), Tom McGuire (John James King), and Tom Lewis (Tom Carter) Directed by Charles Reisner and Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, #805 - The Navigator, #877 - Three Ages, #908 - The General, #926 - Our Hospitality, #941 - Sherlock Jr, #1037 - Go West, and #1058 - Battling Butler)

Review: 
Steamboat Bill, Jr (1928) was the tenth film with Buster Keaton as its main star along with director, although he was not credited for doing the latter unlike with other movies of his. He also reportedly wrote the story for the film, although only Carl Harbaugh was given credit for it. It also served as the last of his films to be distributed by United Artists, as he signed a deal with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, who would distribute Keaton's last two starring/directorial efforts (The Cameraman, which was released a few months after this film, and Spite Marriage, which was released the following year). In any case, the film was not an immediate success upon its release, but it has received a following of its own, much like with other Keaton films. It isn't too hard to see why, since Keaton manages to cobble an entertaining feature, filled with some fine gags, a few zippy title cards, and stunts that one would expect from Keaton. He does a fine job leading the way as one would expect, having fine timing and the right kind of expressions to go alongside the effective gags. Torrence does fine with his scenes with Keaton, evoking a few chuckles. Byron and McGuire are fine counterparts when needed in the story, although neither contribute too much in laughs. The characters (for which there aren't too many of) are fairly familiar types, but the film is charming enough to roll along with itself without too much time spent doing silly things. The climax is certainly an entertaining one. A good chunk of the budget (estimated to be around $300,000-$400,000) was spent on the cyclone sequence, having breakaway sets and wind machines. The original intent of the sequence was meant to depict a flood, but this was nixed by producer Joseph M. Schenck, in part because of the Mississippi River Flood that had occurred the previous year. It's a pretty impressive sequence, with the most notable part being where an entire building facade (with only the attic window being open) collapsing all around Keaton, which he did with no camera trickery. Even after nine decades since the film's release, it is still a sight to see, and it does invite chuckles (if not a bit of astonishment) that click with the other parts of the climax. On the whole, the film is a fairly enjoyable and generally consistent one that ranks up just fine with Keaton's other features; it may not be one of his best, but it is still one worth a look.

I want to close this review off by acknowledging that today is the eighth anniversary of the beginning of Movie Night. This show has had written reviews on a fairly consistent level in the 2,922 days from 2010 to 2018, averaging a review roughly every 2.5 days (or so the math says). Although the quantity of reviews has fluctuated over time, I will say that my passion for writing about films and watching them has not declined in the slightest. I wish to express my gratitude to anybody who has had the curiosity to check out this show over the years and anyone who has stuck around to check out what somebody on the Internet has to say about some random movie, whether good or bad. I hope that the years that follow lead to a continuation of interesting films to encounter and ponder about and that you are there to read all about it. Thank you for eight fine years. I would also like to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.

Review #1172: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.

Cast: 
Shameik Moore (Miles Morales / Spider-Man), Jake Johnson (Peter B. Parker / Spider-Man), Hailee Steinfeld (Gwen Stacy / Spider-Gwen), Mahershala Ali (Aaron Davis / Prowler), Brian Tyree Henry (Jefferson Davis), Lily Tomlin (May Parker), Luna Lauren Velez (Rio Morales), Zoë Kravitz (Mary Jane Watson), John Mulaney (Peter Porker / Spider-Ham), Kimiko Glenn (Peni Parker), Nicolas Cage (Spider-Man Noir), Kathryn Hahn (Olivia Octavius / Doctor Octopus), Liev Schreiber (Wilson Fisk / Kingpin), and Chris Pine (Peter Parker / Spider-Man) Directed by Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey (#378 - Rise of the Guardians), and Rodney Rothman.

Review: 
February 25, 2019 update: Congratulations goes out to this film, which won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature last night, which is certainly well deserved. 

With the amount of superhero movies that have been released in this century (or more specifically, in the past decade), one would wonder how far these films can go before the feeling of burnout and over-saturation sits in, particularly with the structure and look of said films, particularly with this being the seventh theatrical film with Spider-Man in the main role. With that said, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a vibrant and entertaining movie that has plenty of style and exuberance to go around, being an amusing film with a story (done by Phil Lord while having a screenplay by him and Rothman) that holds itself together without tiring the eyes or senses throughout its 117 minute run-time. Moore proves charming and up to task for the role, sticking out well among the group of heroes, being relatable and easy to follow along with. Johnson takes his role and plays it with a good sense of humor and charm while being an interesting take on the hero while not having a too familiar feel for the mentor type that he plays. The rest of the heroes (Steinfeld, Mulaney, Glenn, and Cage) are also enjoyable, having just enough moments of charm and humor to go around that make the film feel fairly whole without feeling too closed in or distracted. The other members of the cast are also fine in giving the film some emotional depth, such as Ali or Henry, who help make sure the film doesn't get lost between juggling an origin story that resonates without an ounce of staleness. The villains in the film are fairly entertaining for their time on screen, with Hahn being amusing while Schreiber conveys some menace alongside recklessness. It cannot be understated how mesmerizing the animation is, as it has a look that tries to emulate a comic book that took at least a year to even get just a few seconds of good footage, with the amount of animators of over 140 being the most for a film by Sony Pictures Animation. It takes a bit of time for the eyes to get used to how active the film is, with plenty of color to go around, but it always seem to feel and look right. The music is also fairly interesting to listen to. The film is an entertaining adventure, balancing humor and action with enough sense to not indulge in one category too much while having some neat moments with its characters. The climax is executed fairly well, rewarding its audience while inviting the possibility for more films with its main hero that I would be just fine with, particularly with the possibilities that can happen with a superhero film such as this. On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie for its interesting animation, a finely built story alongside useful characters and plenty of entertainment value to go around that I recommend wholeheartedly. It definitely ranks as one of of my favorites film experiences for the year, and it sure is worth at least one watch.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Runaway (1984).

Review #1171: Runaway.

Cast: 
Tom Selleck (Sgt. Jack R. Ramsay), Cynthia Rhodes (Karen Thompson), Gene Simmons (Dr. Charles Luther), Kirstie Alley (Jackie Rogers), Stan Shaw (Sgt. Marvin James), G.W. Bailey (Chief of Police), Joey Cramer (Bobby Ramsay), and Chris Mulkey (David Johnson) Directed by Michael Crichton (#988 - Westworld)

Review: 
Runaway was the fifth film that Michael Crichton directed and wrote for, and I suppose there must've been a yearning for him to make a sci-fi action thriller film with a look at machines. It certainly invites some comparisons to the technology present over thirty years since its release, that is for sure. There certainly are some things present here that are interesting to look at, such as smart bullets or robot spiders with acid. For a movie with no real terrible performances, how does the end product manage to be just mediocre? I suppose this comes due to the fact that there also isn't too much from what the movie offers that differs from other cop movies besides occasional moments with tech, particularly with its climax in a unfinished building. It manages to have a bunch of the cliches that you might expect from something like this, such as a new partner, greedy bad guy, someone involved in double-crossing the villain, hostage exchanges, etc, having a fair bit of predictability by the time the film moves towards its climax  For a movie that is about cops taking care of wayward machines, I feel that the premise isn't really executed too well, feeling a bit too casual with its approach. Honestly, you probably could've made a comedy with this material, as if the Geek Squad suddenly became cops in the future. Selleck (playing a cop who happens to be a expert on robots) is fine and pleasant, but the material doesn't really give him much to do besides a few stiff moments trying to establish chemistry with Rhodes and occasional moments trying to play off Simmons that begs for something a bit over-the-top. The oddest scene is where he takes down a robot that shocks you without protective gear to help a woman to safety because...he just wants to impress her I suppose, although I don't know how much she'll like him beating the thing with a bat. Rhodes is fine, having a bit of charm on occasion. Simmons (in his first feature role) is somewhat interesting in this slimy role, at least. Perhaps the material needed to give him a bit more to do to make it really have more impact. His fight with Selleck at the end feels a bit lacking, but at least there's a few killer spiders to go around and plenty of heights. Alley is fine, but she isn't really in the film too much to make much of an impact. The film doesn't really have any character that sticks out too greatly, being an okay but not special action flick with occasional moments of robot stuff. In a year with hit films such as Beverly Hills Cop and The Terminator, this movie did not prove to be a hit with audiences, making just over six million at the box office on an eight million budget upon release in late December. On the whole, the movie isn't anything to point and pick at, but it also isn't anything too great to write home about either. It exists on the scale of average, teetering between interesting and forgettable. Would I recommend it? I can't say it won't waste your time too much, but I also can't say that it really will prove to be too beneficial for certain tastes and patience, seemingly fitting only when there aren't too many choices to pick from.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Futureworld.

Review #1170: Futureworld.

Cast: 
Peter Fonda (Chuck Browning), Blythe Danner (Tracy Ballard), Arthur Hill (Dr. Duffy), Yul Brynner (The Gunslinger), John Ryan (Dr. Morton Schneider), Stuart Margolin (Harry Croft), James M. Connor (Clark the robot), Allen Ludden (Game show host), and Robert Cornthwaite (Mr. Reed) Directed by Richard T. Heffron.

Review: 
Westworld (1973) was a fine and enjoyable experience, having a fine cast alongside an interesting premise and execution that has quite a bit of fun with thrilling elements alongside sci-fi and western aspects. Paul N. Lazarus III, producer of the previous film, returned to help produce alongside James T. Aubrey while having financing from American International Pictures. Michael Crichton did not have any direct involvement in this film, with the task of writing the film going to Mayo Simon and George Schenck, with the former having experience in writing films such as Marooned (1969). In any case, the only person to return for the sequel is Brynner, making his penultimate film appearance. Perhaps it is his appearance that helps best describe the whole film experience: embarrassing and not having much point, as he appears in a dream sequence midway through the movie, where he at one point twirls a character around with a scarf after saving her from some nameless villains. The rest of the film is pretty bland and ultimately serves as a disappointment in part because it never really kicks itself into high gear in terms of story or acting. The fact that the corporation in the film spent over a billion dollars in safety to re-open the park is probably the only real surprise, since I would have assumed they would have been sued out of existence, what with the whole thing about the robots malfunctioning and killing people in the park. I suppose a little bit of polish (along with having a control center with all robots) and a bit of good PR will help fix everything - and that is where Fonda and Danner come into the picture. It's amazing how two characters (one being the skeptic and the other being less cynical) who seem to fit right into a conspiracy thriller film are played so blandly; they also having the added downside of having little to no chemistry with each other, and they aren't too interesting to follow along with. Hill is okay, but the film doesn't really have any real sort of villainous presence, and the lack of any real tension makes this for a bland experience. The film has some notable effects at times, notably for the use of 3D computer-generated imagery (CGI), being the first major feature to do so, with the effects being an animated hand and face. Clips from the short film A Computer Animated Hand (1972) were used, which is an early example of computer animation that was directed by Edwin Catmull and Fred Parke, with the former later co-founding Pixar. By the time the film reveals its card involving the nefarious scheme by the people running the park, it already feels like it should have been revealed sooner, and it doesn't really have too much impact. I really thought there would be a bit more to the fact that robots run the park, but you really get more interest in Margolin and his robot buddy in the time they get on screen. The climax comes and goes without any big punches or surprises, with an ending that doesn't feel too particularly satisfactory (unless you like someone running away from the park after giving a scientist one particular gesture). Ultimately, Futureworld manages to come off as a chore to sit through at times, not having any real suspense or spectacle aside from a few interesting effects that make for a movie that just doesn't have what it takes to make for good entertainment, being a middle-of-the-road kind of feature.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

About Schmidt.

Review #1169: About Schmidt.

Cast: 
Jack Nicholson (Warren R. Schmidt), Kathy Bates (Roberta Hertzel), Hope Davis (Jeannie Schmidt), Dermot Mulroney (Randall Hertzel), June Squibb (Helen Schmidt), Howard Hesseman (Larry Hertzel), Harry Groener (John Rusk), Connie Ray (Vicki Rusk), and Len Cariou (Ray Nichols) Directed by Alexander Payne (#635 - Nebraska)

Review: 
About Schmidt (based on the novel of the same name by Louis Begley) is an interesting movie to see play out from start to finish, balancing comedy and drama in its presentation of a man who has found sudden meaningless in his existence going on a journey that ends up helping him find some sort of purpose. At the heart of what makes this an entertaining film is Nicholson, who delivers a captivating performance that is hard to resist in how he depicts someone with such an empty life and desperation that goes against type for Nicholson brilliantly. From the very beginning, one knows that they will be for an interesting type of movie, with a silent opening and some shots of the WoodmenLife Tower in Nebraska (where most of the film was shot), complete with the ticking of a clock towards retirement and the look on Nicholson's face, giving the audience something to think about without even having to say a word. There is a fine balance of humor and pathos throughout the film, never going too hard into one category while keeping itself on a steady trail throughout the numerous places the film wants to encounter. The rest of the cast do pretty well to accompany Nicholson, such as Bates. She pulls off a wonderful performance for her time on-screen in the latter half of the film, having plenty of free spirited energy to go around along with delivering some biting humor that goes well at times to contrast with Nicholson. Davis does fine with her key role, capturing a sense of alienation and frustration while trying to keep things together, and she pulls it off pretty well. Mulroney does a fine job with his role, having a fun sense of foolish nature that makes him amusing to watch with his time on screen. The rest of the cast have their moments to do fine on screen, but the film drives itself on its take on the ordinary and what it means to live in life - whether in making a difference in someone's life or finding time to appreciate the things around someone. It is evident that the screenplay (done by Payne and Jim Taylor) was given a careful amount of crafting to try and deliver a movie that wanted to touch upon its subject without going too much into easy crowd-pleasing moments. It never delves into being too sentimental or overtly harsh throughout its journey - it goes for a sense of honesty and emotional depth without straining too much to achieve said goals, complete with an effective ending to capstone the whole experience. It isn't a perfect movie, but it is at the very least an interesting one to examine that rewards anyone willing to have the patience for what it offers. With a run-time of 124 minutes, the film does take its time to get itself going, but it more than makes up for it with multiple entertaining performances, with Nicholson being a crucial and engaging part of what makes the film work as well as it does.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Firewall.

Review #1168: Firewall.

Cast: 
Harrison Ford (Jack Stanfield), Paul Bettany (Bill Cox), Virginia Madsen (Beth Stanfield), Mary Lynn Rajskub (Janet Stone), Jimmy Bennett (Andy Stanfield), Carly Schroeder (Sarah Stanfield), Robert Forster (Harry Romano), Robert Patrick (Gary Mitchell), Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Liam), Kett Turton (Vel), Vince Vieluf (Pim), Vincent Gale (Willy), and Alan Arkin (Arlin Forester) Directed by Richard Loncraine.

Review: 
Sometimes the most frustrating films to write words about are the ones that are middling and uninspired in terms of execution and action, where they aren't so much terrible to watch as they are just ones that are neither films that are just fine or just awful - they are okay to watch when bored or without many choices on a weekend, but they aren't something that will fall as anyone's version of a classic to love or mock. Trying to rip into a film like this is basically like trying to be angry at an old dog who kinda messes with how the house looks by putting a bunch of hair on the couch. Firewall passes just as quickly, having nothing too particularly interesting to note besides some mediocre action and okay acting. Supposedly the film was originally going to be called "The Wrong Element", which is certainly a bit of a ridiculous title to say out-loud, but it also seems like a title cliche enough for a film in the 1970s.

Ford is okay, but he doesn't really give too much enthusiasm towards the role besides a slightly gruff frustration, but you would be better off with other Ford movies (as long as it isn't Hollywood Homicide (2003), anyway) at least. Bettany isn't too particularly threatening, playing the villain with a bare presence of menace, particularly since he harms more of his own henchmen than the actual family he's holding in their own house. Actually, the whole group of henchmen aren't really menacing to begin with, and the fact that the one moment where a family member is in danger is because of an allergic cookie makes this especially apparent. I imagine that an actor with a bit more menace (or an improved script that gives off more suspense) would've helped make this seem better. He and Ford don't really play off too greatly together, and their fight at the end isn't really anything too special. The cliches of the tough henchman and sympathetic henchman, along with the kids, are what you would expect. Madsen (playing an architect, which doesn't really have too much impact on the plot - surprised?) is okay, but she seems more annoyed at the presence of these henchmen than anything. The other actors are okay, but no one really stands out too interestingly. At 105 minutes, it isn't a painful chore, but there are certainly better ways to use your time up than this, particularly since the climax is just okay at best. The plot goes through the typical motions one would see coming for a heist film while having a few twists that come and go just as quickly. Strangely enough, the film was slightly edited upon release to DVD. One notable edit was different angles and shots for the ending, while adding two cop cars that arrive at the end of the film. I suppose this is to make the ending seem less abrupt, although it doesn't really change that fact too much. Once the final fight happens (and ends) between Ford and Bettany, that is pretty much it for the movie - I'm sure that would've been just fine in an older film, but it just feels amusing that the film kinda just ends. It isn't the kind of movie that will inspire long rants or long defenses of where it goes, being the kind of filler film or footnote in someone's career. On the whole, the film isn't too particularly exciting nor suspenseful, but it is at the very least tolerable enough to pass without torturing the senses too much.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Ralph Breaks the Internet.

Review #1167: Ralph Breaks the Internet.

Cast: 
John C. Reilly (Wreck-It Ralph), Sarah Silverman (Vanellope von Schweetz), Gal Gadot (Shank), Taraji P. Henson (Yesss), Jack McBrayer (Fix-It Felix Jr.), Jane Lynch (Sergeant Calhoun), Alan Tudyk (KnowsMore), Alfred Molina (Double Dan), Ed O'Neill (Mr. Litwak), and Bill Hader (J.P. Spamley) Directed by Rich Moore (#386 - Wreck-It Ralph and #782 - Zootopia) and Phil Johnston

Review: 
Wreck-It Ralph (2012) was a fine film for entertainment, certainly seeming different from other Disney films, and it is not too surprising that a sequel would occur, although I imagine it wasn't supposed to take six years for said sequel to happen. I will admit that the idea of bringing these characters up to date with the Internet seemed like an interesting idea, particularly since Reilly and Silverman made for a fine duo to play off each other in the first film. The fact that the film focuses on their reactions to their encounter of the Internet and how their friendship changes accordingly is a fine centerpiece for a movie that tries to balance that with a mashup of gags and an overload of product placement that nearly collapse the experience into a big mess. It sure is strange how the film reminded me of Ready Player One (2018) with its collection of references and flashy colors, although I will say that at least this film actually aims to be funny on purpose, and it works more often than not with making jokes, along with a few songs to go with it. The animation is nice to look at, bright and colorful without overloading the senses too much, having numerous set-pieces that certainly stand out well from one another.

Reilly shines once again with big-hearted charm and some interesting moments that manage to make him feel fresh and not tired. Silverman shines again with a fun sense of humor and a curiosity that drives the film well enough, and the song she sings alongside Gadot (called "A Place Called Slaughter Race", of course) is fine to hear. Gadot is a welcome addition to the cast, showing some charm in her gritty world she occupies. Henson, playing an algorithm, plays the role with a bit of pomp and flash that makes for occasionally amusing points. It's a shame that McBrayer and Lynch don't have much time on screen, although I suppose the focus on Reilly and Silverman and their characters' story meant that anyone not on the Internet wouldn't have too many moments. Or perhaps having a B-plot would've made the film (with a run-time of 112 minutes) felt longer. Tudyk and Hader give off amusing moments whenever each is on screen, representing their parts of the Internet (for better or worse) just fine. On the whole, the movie works best when it tries to just have fun with casual gags about the Internet, or more specifically when the film isn't trying to make so many references within Disney itself. The part with the Disney Princesses are okay, but the movie as a whole feels like it nearly collapses into self-parody near the second half, where it almost falls into the trap of pandering without substance. Honestly, the fact that the film doesn't have a villain is a bit surprising, but at least the movie has a climax and a message that makes the experience worth it without becoming too ham-fisted or over indulgent. The film has enough charm and fine moments to make up for the occasional slip-up, and I'm sure kids will do just fine with it and the adults will tolerate it alright. The film isn't anything great by any means, particularly if compared to recent Disney films or the original film, but it is at the very least fine entertainment that will work just alright for its audience.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Widows (2018).

Review #1166: Widows.

Cast: 
Viola Davis (Veronica Rawlings), Michelle Rodriguez (Linda Perelli), Elizabeth Debicki (Alice Gunner), Cynthia Erivo (Belle), Colin Farrell (Jack Mulligan), Brian Tyree Henry (Jamal Manning), Daniel Kaluuya (Jatemme Manning), Jacki Weaver (Agnieska), Carrie Coon (Amanda Nunn), Robert Duvall (Tom Mulligan), Liam Neeson (Harry Rawlings), and Garret Dillahunt (Bash) Directed by Steve McQueen.

Review: 
I admit that this film came as a surprise on my radar, being something that fell right into the middle of November (right before Thanksgiving) with a bit of buzz but certainly one that probably would've benefited from being released in a different (and less busy) month, although at least it isn't one of those films that fall under limited releases. In any case, I was surprised to hear that Widows is based off a British prime-time television crime drama of the same name (written and created by Lynda La Plante), which aired as a six-part series each in 1983 and 1985 (along with a sequel series named She's Out in 1995). The show was remade previously in 2002, although the main plot dealt with theft of a painting. In any case, the film (with a screenplay from McQueen and Gillian Flynn) takes bits and pieces from the show while mixing in a political aspect (in this case, a robbery during a debate) that certainly make this film seem busy for its 129 minute run-time. Whether or not the film is fine entertainment relies on how much you invest into these characters and its buildup into its heist. For me, I thought the film worked just enough to make for some fine entertainment, having the right amount of capable thrills and a few moments of grimness and character moments to make for a solid winner. Davis pulls in a capable performance, showing strength in regard to what her character must go through with sudden events with a capability that makes her interesting to follow along with, whether when dealing with loss or dealing with having to set up a heist. Rodriguez is fine, but Debicki stands out quite well as the third arm of the heist, being charming and entertaining to follow along with as well. Erivo, the last arm of the team, does pretty fine with her time on screen, not having as much to say but doing her role without too much of a hitch. Farrell is effective in his plot-line, showing charisma alongside ooze in the fiber of his virtues, particularly when played off with his power broker on-screen father in Duvall, who plays his brief time to play it with such rude effectiveness. Henry also showcases his own degree of ambition that plays off fine, particularly when he and Farrell share a scene together involving an election for alderman. Kaluuya plays his ruthless enforcer role fairly effectively. Neeson is decent for his brief time on-screen. It has a fine deal of twists and action sequences that make for some entertaining execution, building up its characters and respective plot with a fair bit of juggling that makes for consistent (if not gradual) enjoyment. The film works better more often than not when dealing with the widows than the parts involving the election, although at least the two parts do feel natural enough to not seem too much like two different movies. I wonder how the film would have gone with a different length - would it have served better with a trim or lengthening in run-time? In any case, the movie serves its purpose of entertainment well with a fairly dynamic cast and a good amount of execution in the right places to make it something worth checking out.

Welcome to December. I meant to have this written prior to my birthday on the 1st, but time had to be spent to make sure that at least one review was done before November ended. Hopefully there will be a good amount of reviews to go around for the final month of the year, which is shaping up to have just as many (if not a bit more than) reviews as the year before.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

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.