Saturn 3.

Review #1194: Saturn 3.

Cast: 
Farrah Fawcett (Alex), Kirk Douglas (Adam), Harvey Keitel (Captain Benson; voiced by Roy Dotrice), and Ed Bishop (Harding) Directed by Stanley Donen (#137 - Bedazzled (1967), #227 - Singin' in the Rain, #346 - On the Town, and #1029 - Charade)

Review: 
Whether a film is good or not, even the terrible ones can have an interesting story to tell about how it came to be. John Barry was a production designer for hit films in the 1970s such as A Clockwork Orange (1971), Star Wars (1977), and Superman (1978). He had expressed an interest in making a film of his own, and he approached Stanley Donan with an idea that would be presented as a Gothic sci-fi thriller. Although Donan was not interested in directing the feature due to not having much interest in science fiction, he encouraged Barry to develop an outline, which he developed into a draft that he showed to Donan. He felt that the idea could work for Barry's directorial debut, albeit with a need for help with developing the screenplay. Martin Amis (writer of novels such as Dead Babies but who had no prior experience with screenplays) was enlisted to develop a draft, which was presented by Donan to Lord Lew Grade (producer of shows such as Thunderbirds and The Prisoner) in 1978 for consideration. While having the script in his possession on an airplane trip, Grade happened to be seated next to Fawcett and her representative; he showed her the script (under the working title The Helper), and she expressed interest, which led to her making a deal with Grade to be in the project. After signing Douglas and Keitel, the film had their prime trio and began production in late January 1979. Donen described the film at one point as “...both sensuous and sensual, full of chills, fright and horror. It’s science fiction, but not ‘comic strip’ SF....It’s something of a Frankenstein story, and meant to frighten audiences in a very unusual way.” Colin Chilvers dealt with the construction of the robot, which cost over $1 million to make, while Stuart Craig was charged with production design, such as the interior of the Titan research station - it should be noted that the Saturn 3 set took over four months to build while running a distance of 280 feet for a film with a final budget of $10 million, with production overruns from Raise the Titanic (ITC Entertainment's other big production at the time) resulting in cutbacks for this film.

As much I do not like to emphasize age when it comes to a film, it certainly is a bit odd to see Fawcett and Douglas as a couple, in part because of the 30 year age difference between the two. Originally the idea was to have Sean Connery cast in the role of the older male lead, but plans fell through for that, leading to Douglas being cast. Douglas had strife with Barry, whose time as director proved short. Two weeks into production, he left the production, with Donan stepping in as director. Donan stated that Barry's departure was due to Barry's lack of experience on a film set in dealing with actors and staging scenes (as said by Donan, while calling him a "terrific talent"). It should be noted that the film has a run-time of 88 minutes; at least fifteen minutes were cut out of the movie (reportedly due to Grade's objection to them), with one notable scene being cut out involving a dream sequence of Adam killing Benson after the two try some sort of space pill. It should be mentioned that there also existed a television cut of the film that was 96 minutes long that included extensions and additions while toning done some of the film's violence. The final little nugget of weirdness came when Keitel refused to post-synch his dialogue, leading to a re-dubbing of his character by Roy Doctrice. Imagine making a film relying on three main characters and having one of them not even use their own voice the whole time - it sure is a strange thing.

With all of that background, it is no wonder that this did not turn out to be a great film. It is a tremendous exercise in ridiculousness for the science fiction genre, having a hodgepodge of cliches that make the movie seem like a strange blend of numerous movies, such as Alien (1979), Forbidden Planet (1956), but also Demon Seed (1977) while being worse than all three. It is a strange little movie, having no real sense of tension or wonder while having one of the stranger love pursuits - this time with a nutty creep and his lumbering Frankenstein robot (powered by baby brains). It is pretty evident that this script must have gone through numerous revisions, which reminds me of the Infinite monkey theorem (a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text) and if it was like that, but with script doctors. How can anyone make dialogue such as "Your body is very beautiful. I'd like to use it" or scenes such as Douglas (wearing no clothes) choking out Keitel work without making someone cringe (or giggle)? Fawcett seems to come out of it with the least lost, in part because her warmth and charm works just fine that fits the horror type okay. Douglas is simply not the right guy for the part, but at least he is hammy enough to enjoy in his attempts to have chemistry with Fawcett. Keitel (or more specifically, Doctrice) is creepy, but he isn't too particularly interesting to go along with, not having enough menace to really make this seem worthy of chills. By the time the film tries to pull a shocker for a climax (at least I assume its supposed to be surprising), the film already has run out of air. At least the robot seems interesting, but it seems as if they really wanted to make something different involving this robot as some sort of innocent Frankenstein's monster type, but really it is not much more than a killer robot that inhabits passion for Fawcett. The effects are decent, and the sprawling set is interesting - but it can't elevate the movie and its material to anything captivating. What we have here is a movie that is occasionally weird to point and look at while perhaps having a laugh, but what we don't have is something that is actually any good. It is a middle-of-the-road kind of film that can't be trashed as all-around terrible (despite some efforts on the part of the film) nor one that merits much of a following. It could be worth it as a curiosity for someone looking for a ridiculous failure piece - or some groans.

Next Review - Raise the Titanic.
 
Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Alita: Battle Angel.

Review #1193: Alita: Battle Angel.

Cast: 
Rosa Salazar (Alita), Christoph Waltz (Dr. Dyson Ido), Keean Johnson (Hugo), Mahershala Ali (Vector), Jennifer Connelly (Dr. Chiren), Ed Skrein (Zapan), Jackie Earle Haley (Grewishka), Jorge Lendeborg Jr. (Tanji), Lana Condor (Koyomi), Eiza González (Nyssiana), Idara Victor (Nurse Gerhad), Jeff Fahey (McTeague), and Rick Yune (Master Clive Lee) Directed by Robert Rodriguez.

Review: 
It is astonishing to see the amount of time that it took for a film to progress from concept to product. James Cameron was attracted to the idea and wanted to write and direct a film adaptation (with a domain name for the film being registered as early as 2000), although he held off doing the film for other projects such as Dark Angel and Avatar (2009) before deciding to focus his energy on making sequels to the latter. Cameron wrote a screenplay that was accompanied by hundreds of pages of notes, and he shared the script (which he co-wrote with Laeta Kalogridis) with Robert Rodriguez (director of films such as Desperado and Sin City) in order to see if he could help condense it into a working shooting script. Satisfied with his result, Cameron hired Rodriguez to direct the film, while serving as producer (along with Jon Landau). The film is based off the cyberpunk manga series Gunnm (also known as Battle Angel Alita) that was created by Yukito Kishiro that was run in Business Jump magazine from 1990 to 1995. I suppose the enjoyment level is much like when watching a comic book movie, complete with story beats that will occasionally feel familiar but still manages to generate excitement and entertainment. Sometimes you just need a movie with cyborgs beating each other to shreds (including one fighting with a legendary martial arts style), bounty hunters named Hunter-Warriors, and a gladiator sport in Motorball that feels like a hyper version of Rollerball (1975). It's a fun piece of spectacle that never really stumbles in its aspirations, even when its attempts at setting up further adventures can seem a bit clumsy. It feels just fine at 122 minutes, having a fine pace and balance.

Salazar (utilizing a motion-capture suit alongside big CG eyes) delivers a capable performance, being an interesting hero to follow in her journey, and she pulls off a well-done job in showing the growth of her character throughout the film without testing the audience's patience or feeling too sudden. Waltz, essentially playing the wise old man type, does fine with dealing with tech-spewing and such. Johnson is fairly effective in keeping up with the quickness of the film while also having a bit of chemistry of Salazar alongside some offbeat moments that eventually prove itself for its climax. Ali and Connelly play their conniving parts with relish when needed; Skrein and Haley are quite entertaining in their menace when playing off against Salazar that makes for some well-done action sequences together. Undeniably, the film is a winner in the visual department, with Weta Digital doing a great job in engineering a product that manages to balance itself into not abusing CGI into a crutch or being too glossy. The Motorball sequence is a clear fun example of that, being dazzling without feeling like a distraction or an excuse to show off without reason. The punches that the film tries to pull within its climax (or more specifically where it is trying to go) work just fine, particularly if you are into what the movie is trying to sell you on (again, much like a superhero movie trying to do some world-building). The film certainly has enough action to go around, with plenty of (blue) blood being spilled in its cyborg showdowns that prove one can really do anything with cyberpunk action if the budget (roughly over $150 million dollars) is right. On the whole, I wasn't at all familiar with the material that the film is based on, but it didn't interfere with what I found to be a pretty entertaining experience, filled with action and spectacle to go along with a neat little story that will prove a winner for people looking for something packing with action and science fiction in one package. Whether there is further adventures about Alita coming or not, I can say that it is one that certainly will merit an audience that appreciates the effort to bring itself on screen.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Vampire and the Ballerina.

Review #1192: The Vampire and the Ballerina.

Cast: 
Hélène Rémy (Luisa), Walter Brandi (Herman), Maria Luisa Rolando (Countess Alda), Pier Ugo Gragnani (Professor), Tina Gloriani (Francesca), Isarco Ravaioli (Luca), and Gino Turini (Giorgio) Directed by Renato Polselli.

Review: 
It isn't often I cover an Italian film. This is the sixth one I've covered as part of the World cinema run and the first since Star Odyssey last May (with this one having subtitles instead of dubbing). I hope you enjoy.

I suppose there really is no better way to show your appreciation (or influence) to vampire films than to make one that seems like a patchwork of other movies, such as Dracula (1958), for example. Granted, that movie didn't have multiple scenes of dancing (including a vampire dance), but it is clear to see where they may have gotten the idea to make a spooky little film with a bit of romantic appeal, one might say. The film may be too average to live up to that expectation, but it has its occasional moments. The film was written by Polselli, Giuseppe Pellegrini & Ernesto Gastaldi, with production being done in the span of three weeks in late 1959 in the castle of Artena. The best thing that the film has going for is the atmosphere, with cinematographer Angelo Baistrocchi managing to have some nice-looking shots that give off a creepy soothing tone (no doubt helped by being in black-and-white) that do help make some scenes seem interesting to go along with, even if the effects (such as the prosthetics on the vampire) can seem a bit hokey. Any vampire film can't be complete without a dynamic involving vampires and lust, with this one having some sort of master-slave dynamic between Brandi and Rolando (involving retaining youth through biting on the other), which is somewhat thoughtful to look at, at least.

The vampire action is brief and not too particularly inspiring, but it passes for basic entertainment. The story as a whole isn't too great, however, in part because the actors don't make these characters too particularly interesting to go with. Nobody does a terrible job in the film, but nobody really makes much of an impression without much too energy to them. You are basically waiting for the horror elements to show back up, where they may be, such as a buried-alive funeral with a window in the coffin, or the first appearance of the Countess. At 83 minutes, it isn't a complete chore, going through the cliches one might expect from a horror film along with some cursory moments involving dancers that is at least amusing, if not too particularly necessary. The ending is a bit abrupt, with the effect of a deteriorating face almost making up for the swift way the movie ends (with no sort of resolution even with a parting line). The effect was said by Polselli to be one where "We made a face cast with plaster, then the make-up artist and I molded an adhesive rubber mask over it. Our trick was to put a layer of ash between the plaster and the rubber." I felt the film was average and probably not seasoned enough to be quite a gem, but it is at least watchable without being interminable for someone looking for a bit of a horror thrill.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Payback (1999).

Review #1191: Payback.

Cast:
Mel Gibson (Porter), Gregg Henry (Val Resnick), Maria Bello (Rosie), Lucy Liu (Pearl), Deborah Kara Unger (Lynn Porter), David Paymer (Arthur Stegman), Bill Duke (Detective Hicks), Jack Conley (Detective Leary), John Glover (Phil), William Devane (Carter), James Coburn (Justin Fairfax), Kris Kristofferson (Bronson), and Trevor St. John (Johnny Bronson) Directed by Brian Helgeland (#372 - 42)

Review: 
The strangest thing about films can be the ways that it can sometimes transition into numerous forms before a final shift into the form that goes to audiences. This film is a particular example of where a director's vision can verge differently from ultimately made it to the screen. Brian Helgeland was making his directorial debut after meeting up with Gibson on the set of Conspiracy Theory (1997), a film that he had written for. During the post-production stage for that film, Helgeland happened to have the script with him when Gibson inquired about the pages he had with him, for which he read the first act of. A few weeks later, Gibson agreed to finance the film with his production company Icon Productions provided they could shoot within 12 weeks. The film is as adaptation of the 1962 novel The Hunter by Richard Stark (pen-name for David E. Westlake), the first of 24 novels from 1964 to 2008 with the character Parker as the main lead. It had already been adapted a movie in 1967 as Point Blank, featuring Lee Marvin, and other novels had been given film adaptations.

Before I talk about the circumstances that led to Helgeland's dismissal from the film, let's talk about how the movie is first. For a neo-noir, it certainly is a decently entertaining one. It maybe a bit routine in terms of its story and action, but it is a road worth walking onto in part because of its dark charm, which in some ways feels like a guilty pleasure. Gibson is certainly up to task in delivering a character worth following with a subtle grin in a film with oddball people basked in noir types. Henry is fairly adept at showing menace for his time shared with Gibson. Bello does fine with her material, sharing her time with Gibson quite well. Liu (playing a dominatrix) is quite quirky. Paymer plays his role with a good deal of sleazy ooze that is pretty amusing. It is amusing to see Coburn briefly, but interesting to see Kristofferson all of a sudden in the film appear; he isn't really too menacing as the big bad but he is at least neat to watch. The movie moves with a dynamic pace to try and garner up excitement along with a chuckle, and it works out fine for the most part, playing to the noir type handily. It is sometimes a bit wobbly with its plot motivations (and its action violence on occasion), but the final product works out mostly because it manages to distract itself enough to where while you can see where "producer's notes" may have stepped in, you can at least find something to watch without too much disapproval. It has a bit of fun with its aspects of revenge without being too demanding.

Helgeland's version of the film was felt to be too dark for a mainstream audience in terms of story, tone, and look. he was fired from the project, which occurred two days after winning an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for his work for L.A. Confidential (1997). Thirty percent of the film was re-shot (with new material written by Terry Hayes), with John Myhre (production designer) doing un-credited directorial work. Helgeland would have his version of the film (referred to as Straight Up: The Director's Cut) released on DVD in 2007. His version differs from the theatrical version in several ways, such as a shorter length (90 minutes as opposed to the 101 in the theatrical), a female Bronson un-seen by the audience that is voiced by Sally Kellerman, the removal of the narration by Gibson, and the restoring of the look of the film from a bleached tone to one more normal. Honestly, the look is okay as is (even if sometimes it may seem better in black-and-white by simply taking the color out of the screen manually), but at least there exists two versions to compare. I don't have too much interest in watching the other cut, but if you are curious about what makes a movie go in different directions, I'm sure it is right up your alley. The film as is just fine, not being any kind of big statement as a neo-noir action flick, but it will serve just alright for the tastes of people wanting some entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part.

Review #1190: The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part.

Cast:
Chris Pratt (Emmet Brickowski / Rex Dangervest), Elizabeth Banks (Lucy / Wyldstyle), Will Arnett (Batman), Tiffany Haddish (Queen Watevra Wa'Nabi), Stephanie Beatriz (General Sweet Mayhem), Charlie Day (Benny), Alison Brie (Princess Unikitty), Nick Offerman (MetalBeard), Jadon Sand (Finn), Brooklynn Prince (Bianca), Maya Rudolph (Mom), Will Ferrell (President Business), and Richard Ayoade (Ice Cream Cone) Directed by Mike Mitchell (#209 - Shrek Forever After, #890 - Surviving Christmas, and #1107 - Sky High)

Review:
The first film was an interesting film experience when it first came out five years ago. Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (who return to co-write the screenplay and the story) managed to deliver something that had plenty of humor alongside a charming story and captivating look that certainly made for a clear winner that kids and adults could enjoy (particularly if one was into playing with their bricks). In the years that have passed since its release, two spin-offs have followed (The Lego Batman Movie and The Lego Ninjago Movie) alongside a sequel at last to the original. Most of the cast returns to portray their characters while playing off the last scene from the previous one (involving Duplo blocks). The easiest thing to say is that the film is interesting to look at, with Animal Logic (provider of the animation for the four Lego Movie films) continuing to make for something that has a fun pallate, where nothing seems to be out-of-step while helping to make for some big ideas try to come to life, such as a dystopian wasteland (appropriately named "Apocalypseberg") or the big birthday cake. When it wants to be colorful, it looks pretty good with doing so, and it never feels unnecessary to look at. For the most part, the cast do a solid job, with no real weak element. Pratt does well with playing dual roles, continuing to make the former one have plenty of charm and being as lively as ever while making the latter role (based on roles played by Pratt in recent years) rugged and amusing. Banks also does a fine job, generating a few laughs while playing well with Pratt at times. The group of returning actors from the first film (Arnett-Day-Brie-Offerman) don't have as much to do aside from a few choice scenes (namely involving a song or two), but they do their parts just fine. Haddish is alright, giving a few laughs when needed. The brief moments in the real world with Sand, Prince, and Rudolph are fine (having one neat joke involving feet on a brick), even if Farrell only appears as a voice.

The film aims for more singing than before (including a take on the "Everything is Awesome" song from before), such as about a character not being evil or one about a song that will get stuck in your head; while I can appreciate the time and effort done to orchestrate musical-style numbers for these songs (and the others), I feel that their attempt to out-do themselves in the music department goes a bit too overboard at times, where it almost feels like noise instead of something really pleasurable. The jokes and gags work adequately enough, even if it isn't as funny as before, being goofy as ever but not quite executing as consistently with the lines. Perhaps it is the fact that it is a sequel that harms it more than anything, where they are trying to capture the magic again. Since the previous one had a twist that as executed in a pretty clever way (to where the second film builds on that by changing it from father-son to brother-sister), this one attempts to have its own kind of narrative shift, although it comes off as one that is a little easier to figure out, not having as much depth. Both films are driven on imagination (as a good film usually is), but I feel that this one is a bit more shaky with its message, particularly during its final act. In going for some goofy fun alongside its message of playing together, the ultimate result is something that is fine and dandy for its target audience with a fine 107 minute run-time. Perhaps it isn't as interesting as the previous one, but it will serve just fine for someone looking for some entertainment alongside their toys.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Gor.

Review #1189: Gor.

Cast: 
Urbano Barberini (Tarl Cabot), Rebecca Ferratti (Talena), Jack Palance (Xenos), Paul L. Smith (Surbus), Oliver Reed (Sarm), Larry Taylor (King Marlenus), Graham Clarke (Drusus), and Janine Denison (Brandy) Directed by Fritz Kiersch.

Review: 
You may be wondering what exactly is Gor? Well, it refers a planet on the other side of Earth's orbit from the Earth that serves as the setting for sword and planet adventure novels written by John Norman, the pen name of John Frederick Lange, Jr (who serves as a professor of philosophy. Since writing the first installment of the series with Tarnsman of Gor in 1966, there have been 34 books that Norman has written and had published. In a decade with fantasy films like Conan the Barbarian, Willow, and several others, this manages to be just as laughable as one would expect from something that manages to make Red Sonja (1985) seem tolerable by comparison. Simply put, this is a miserable little movie to sit through, flailing around with ridiculous production value and actors that aren't too particularly interesting to follow along with, particularly with its lead. This is especially apparent in the first scene with a cheap-looking ring that serves important to the plot (for the beginning and ending, anyway) while having a socially awkward professor make his way to Gor by a car crash and lightning strike. Barberini would at first seem like the kind of guy suited more for action sequences than anything dealing with plot. This is erased by the fact that no one really is too particularly good with making convincing (or at least interesting) fight scenes. The character type of him having to learn to become a hero is done pretty silly, since he gets his training in one quick sequence. I barely noticed that he was supposed to have chemistry with Ferratti, honestly. The only one worth looking at is Reed, who mostly understates his lines (for better or worse) while having to wear a ridiculously framed costume that doesn't help him at all; his flailing for his death scene with an arrow to the neck is amusing, and he's the only sort of highlight in this clunker. Palance is given a high billing despite being in the film for less than five minutes in an attempt at sequel-bait (there was a sequel the following year named Outlaw of Gor released on video). The screenplay from Rick Marx and Harry Alan Towers (under the pseudonym Peter Welbeck) never feels epic in any sort of way, particularly when faced with a low budget and locations in South Africa that has a bunch of sand to it and not much else. It has the cliches from other, better movies, but it is a tiresome kind of movie that makes one aspire for any other kind of film, whether released by Cannon Films or someone else.

You would actually be better off watching plastic sword fighting in the neighborhood jungle gym (complete with sand doubling as fire) with a bunch of random music blaring in the background than this. There are movies that can use a low budget or modest cast to make an interesting adventure, but this is not one of them. It fails people looking for fantasy and it fails people looking for something daring with adventure.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Blade II.

Review #1188: Blade II.

Cast: 
Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks/Blade), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Ron Perlman (Dieter Reinhardt), Leonor Varela (Nyssa Damaskinos), Norman Reedus (Scud), Thomas Kretschmann (Eli Damaskinos), Karel Roden (Karel Kounen), Luke Goss (Jared Nomak), Matt Schulze (Chupa), Danny John-Jules (Asad), Donnie Yen (Snowman), Marit Velle Kile (Verlaine), Darren "Daz" Crawford (Lighthammer), Tony Curran (Priest), and Santiago Segura (Rush) Directed by Guillermo del Toro (#425 - Pacific Rim and #1061 - The Shape of Water)

Review: 
Special Note: In an error best described as "counting sheep wrong", the review count for Movie Night had been miscounted since review #1168, which was Firewall (2006). Somehow, it was never properly cataloged into my records (which I keep for things such as ratings of each film, release year, etc), while the reviews that followed were. The numbering was done correctly for #1169 (About Schmidt), but the next review of Futureworld was mislabeled as #1169 instead of the correct #1170. This means that the reviews that followed up to now were the wrong number. The review numbers have been corrected and things are fixed, but I wanted to make sure that there is no confusion. Enjoy.

The cheapest way I think I could describe the film would be that if you liked the first film, you'll be fine with the sequel. It isn't wrong, however. It's a movie that has plenty of loud action, ridiculous moments, and a continuing winning combo of Snipes and Kristofferson. Its plot and some of its characters may be a bit shaky, but in the long run there is just enough here to make something worth a watch for entertainment. It isn't a particularly great comic book film, but it tries to have a balance of action and horror that makes it stick out a bit, not being too much of a copy from its predecessor, which was also written by David S. Goyer. I can't really say it is a better film, in part because of the story, which is okay in getting to its spectacle parts but sometimes ridiculous when giving deep thought to some of its motivations. The initial idea of the film (which sounds like Blade crossed with the Dirty Dozen but with vampires that call themselves the Bloodpack) is a curious one, although it is amusing in execution, since if this so-called pack were trained to supposedly terminate Blade at some point in time, I imagine they would've probably been beaten senseless in less than a hour. Obviously the movie doesn't reply on the ability of this pack to be able to beat Blade, but their lack of characterization besides Perlman and Varela, with the others feeling like fodder. Even though they do fine jobs, they are characters who can sometimes feel one-note, with the former being a bully with watchable qualities and the latter being okay but not invoking as much interest when it comes time to the plot or when with Snipes. Reedus is okay and charming, and Kretschmann is occasionally creepy, but these are cursory moments. Even Goss can't really deliver too much as a villain, perhaps because he doesn't really have much to say (which doesn't help when compared to Stephen Dorff and his villain from the original), and the Reapers (as interesting as they look) seem a bit muddled when compared to Blade; the action is fine and dandy, but after a while the film can't quite find a way to wring itself to anything other than just going through the motions between going from one dialogue piece to another before an action sequence comes in. At least it doesn't feel like an endless cutscene (although the CGI can be a bit dodgy sometimes). The climax is alright for spectacle, although it doesn't really have too many surprises. The film suffers a bit when comparing it to the first film, which felt more flexible with balancing its action and mythology without too much trouble. As okay as the film is with its execution, it still invites curiosity for anyone looking for some vampire action horror that can deliver in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Leatherheads.

Review #1187: Leatherheads.

Cast: 
George Clooney (Jimmy "Dodge" Connelly), Renée Zellweger (Lexie Littleton), John Krasinski (Carter Rutherford), Jonathan Pryce (CC), Stephen Root (Suds), Wayne Duvall (Coach Frank Ferguson), Keith Loneker (Big Gus), Malcolm Goodwin (Bakes), Matt Bushell (Curly), Tim Griffin (Ralph), Robert Baker (Stump), and Nick Paones (Zoom) Directed by George Clooney (#851 - The Monuments Men)

Review: 
Perhaps the appeal of football is all spectacle. You really do have to be a bit crazy to play a game where the point is try to score points and avoid getting tackled and suffer injury - although you could probably apply that to other sports (namely, hockey). Still, the amount of hype for professional football gets from its stars to its halftime shows can be a bit absurd, depending on the amount of patience one has with football. While football has evolved over the past decades, this can apply to films as well, where now there exists a screwball comedy with 1920s football in the background. The original script was done by Duncan Brantley and Rick Reilly (of Sports Illustrated fame) in the early 1990s, languishing for over a decade before Clooney re-wrote the material to fit as a screwball comedy (going un-credited for the work). The story took inspiration from the exploits of John "Johnny Blood" McNally and the signing of Red Grange to the pros in 1925. One thing that the movie does do well is capture the look of the decade it wants to portray with plenty of production value, and the music from Randy Newman is a fair standout. However, the film feels a bit too muddled into trying to be funny that it never really takes off, falling along the lines harmlessly. You would be better off with The Freshman (1925) when it comes to football and comedy, honestly. The film relies on the trio of Clooney-Zellweger-Krasinski to try and deliver laughs, and they do provide a few chuckles, but after a while you are essentially waiting for the movie to move along, as if watching quirky 20s football (and the offbeat people playing it) would actually serve for more of a focus. While the film may feel a bit too bloated in length in 114 minutes when it gets to its climax with the football game, it is somewhat of a relief.

Admittedly, the best person in the film is Clooney, who seems to be having fun with a role reminding me of a buccaneer for football, not being above using tricks to try and win (or have fun), which I can certainly go along with to a point. Zellweger is fine, and Krasinski is okay as well, but they don't really have much to go on in terms of personality that makes them resonate beyond a cursory glance. The football supporting cast (along with Pryce) seem to generate more interest than the love story, having more energy to it while going through its own type of routines. One film I did think about when watching was Slap Shot (1977), which embraced its old-time approach to its sport while having a charismatic lead that led to better laughs and overall a more entertaining time without needing to try to have it both ways (screwball and sports). The football stuff might have made for a TV miniseries or maybe even just a sketch, but as is this is simply just an average movie that doesn't quite fufill all of its aspirations but will prove just okay if you're into what it tries to sell you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.