2 Days in the Valley.

Review #1212: 2 Days in the Valley.

Cast: 
Danny Aiello (Dosmo Pizzo), Greg Cruttwell (Allan Hopper), Jeff Daniels (Alvin Strayer), Teri Hatcher (Becky Foxx), Glenne Headly (Susan Parish), Peter Horton (Roy Foxx), Marsha Mason (Audrey Hopper), Paul Mazursky (Teddy Peppers), James Spader (Lee Woods), Eric Stoltz (Wes Taylor), Charlize Theron (Helga Svelgen), and Keith Carradine (Detective Creighton) Directed by John Herzfeld.

Review: 
Sometimes you just need a crime movie about people who share in common the fact that they are just a bunch of weirdos - whether you have seen this type of movie before or not. They aren't exactly winners, but they have some sort of "unrealized potential" (as described by writer/director Herzfeld) - and it all comes together to make an okay film. Herzfeld's previous experience with direction of films was primarily television specials and movies (such as his two works with ABC Afterschool Special in 1980 and 1981), with one theatrical release with Two of a Kind in 1983. Admittedly, the cast listing is likely to prove more interesting, since you have a movie that can say it has scenes with key highlight stars such as Aiello, Headly, Mazursky, Spader, Stoltz, and Theron making for a feature that probably should have been better. It won't serve as anyone's favorite film to watch for anyone's marathon, but at least there is enough here in terms of charm and occasional action to make it a fair use of 105 minutes. It sure tries to move itself swiftly with tricks and twists, some of which that work and others that mostly feel like a tap on the door rather than a big blast. It is at least sometimes present with a sense of dark humor that rolls alongside a plot connecting its dots together across people in the San Fernando Valley, which goes well enough. Its the interactions that can come from it that make this roll through the bumps, such as Aiello and Headly, or Mazursky (a director who can't go through ending it all in a cemetery because his yapping dog is with him) with Mason. Easily, the one who I revel in watching is Spader, who walks right through playing a slimy creep like this without struggle, whether acting with Aiello and a clock or with Theron. Aiello is also pretty fun to be with, wry and useful to be around with, such as when having to interact with these other nuts (including the one he thought would work fine as his other hitman partner). The time spent with Daniels and Stoltz isn't too particularly long, but it is fine to see how they act within the lines of the cop angle of the film - one with cynicism, one with ambition. Hatcher falls as the weak point, not being as interesting to follow with, minus one fight with Theron that actually is pretty amusing to see go down. Cruttwell is somewhat amusing, but he doesn't really have much to do for the second half. The best that can be said for the film is that it doesn't overstay its welcome, bookending itself with some charm and decent entertainment (with a worthy enough climax) - it isn't perfect, but there is something here worth curiosity, due to its assembled cast and where they go from there. It is a movie that finds itself on a road going 76 on a 70 limit, having a bit of movement without going off the rails or all the way still.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Incredible Hulk.

Review #1211: The Incredible Hulk.

Cast: 
Edward Norton (Bruce Banner), Liv Tyler (Betty Ross), Tim Roth (Emil Blonsky), William Hurt (General 'Thunderbolt' Ross), Tim Blake Nelson (Samuel Sterns), Ty Burrell (Leonard), Christina Cabot (Major Kathleen Sparr), Peter Mensah (General Joe Greller), and Lou Ferrigno (Voice of The Incredible Hulk) Directed by Louis Leterrier.

Review:
It feels strange to finally cover this film. In light of Avengers: Endgame serving as the culmination of over a decade of Marvel films - 22 in all, it only makes sense to review the only other film I haven't done. In any case, I hope you enjoy.

In a way, the true tragedy of this film is not so much the nature of Bruce Banner and the beast that lurks inside him when prone to anger. Really, it is the fact that this film seems to stick out as some sort of oddball (near black sheep) film within the Marvel Studios run of films. Oh sure, the Hulk has made further appearances in other Marvel movies in the years since (without Norton), but it seems striking to how a sequel did not manage to transpire for this feature while other heroes managed to inspire future solo adventures (this can be attributed in part due to the rights that Universal Studios has with Hulk in regards to distribution for standalone features). In effect, the film does seem to stick out like a sore thumb from the others in some of its approaches with its narrative that makes for a decent but not particularly standout movie. It was released a month after Iron Man while being five years after Hulk (2003). I'm not too particularly familiar with that film, nor the previous 1970s television series with Bruce Bixby and Lou Ferrigno, but I do have a basic understanding of the Hulk, and at least it can be said that one doesn't really need to worry about not knowing every little thing about a hero. The script (originally done by Zak Penn while having re-writes from Norton) certainly seems a bit jammed in exactly what it want to be - verging between a thriller/monster movie and typical comic action flair. It does okay with both tones, but it could be seen as forgettable for others with less patience. Leterrier, commenting on the film years later in an interview, stated that a movie is "...a sum of compromises until you grow into your own independence. I always try to bring the character and the actor forward. It’s very obvious in The Incredible Hulk. The first half of the movie is really mine and the second half is the studio’s expected Hulk movie — two giants kicking each other’s ass.” Make of that what you will.

It isn't exactly a crowd-pleaser type of movie (minus the big action spectacle at the end, of course), but at least it doesn't try to spend too much time on the origin story, going from Banner to Hulk in the span of 25 minutes. It certainly tries to make sure you won't be waiting for the Hulk to show up with too much impatience. The run-time served as a conflict between Leterrier, Norton, and the producers, with the former preferring a run-time of 135 while the latter and their argument won out with their time of 112 minutes (one notable omission involved an alternate opening in the Arctic, for example). Norton makes a fine Banner for the most part, but the film seems a bit lost in making him seem like an actual hero. Something just seems missing between him being the Hulk when he's angry to being someone you could see doing things as part of a bigger thing. The chemistry between him and Tyler (in a fairly subdued performance doesn't really click all together either, seeming a bit too subdued to make any real lasting drama. It is nice to see Roth, but he can't really make this adversary feel particularly threatening. The stakes just seem a bit too low even with two big beasts hammering each other, really. It didn't need earth-shaking stakes to drive up suspense, but something that inspires us to care a bit more than just the standard "gee, I sure hope the big guy doesn't lose to the other big guy". It is nice to see Ferrigno voice the Hulk, at least. Hurt is gruff for the course, which isn't exactly an insult. Nelson shows up for a limited amount of time, showing brief spurts of energy despite really being there just to further the plot a bit and not much else. It is a movie that has decent effects, and the character design on the Hulk looks right for the time. The climax (done in the night, naturally) seems a bit tacked on with its battle (owing to the small stakes), but at least it left the door open for future possibilities involving this character without feeling like an insult - which is for the best. It doesn't really compare too well to the first batch of comic book movies in Marvel Studios' run, but it has its own merits and reasons to give it a shot, edging itself into curiosity with some fair touches of drama and action to headline an imperfect but adequate movie.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Excalibur.

Review #1210: Excalibur.

Cast: 
Nigel Terry (King Arthur), Helen Mirren (Morgana Le Fay), Nicholas Clay (Sir Lancelot), Cherie Lunghi (Queen Guenevere), Paul Geoffrey (Sir Perceval), Nicol Williamson (Merlin), Corin Redgrave (Duke of Cornwall), Patrick Stewart (King Leodegrance), Keith Buckley (Sir Uryens), Clive Swift (Sir Ector), Liam Neeson (Sir Gawain), Gabriel Byrne (King Uther Pendragon), and Robert Addie (Prince Mordred) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz and #975 - Deliverance)

Review: 
The legend of King Arthur is a myth that has lived on in various forms of media for centuries, such as in prose or in novel form. Naturally it has served as something to adapt to the world of film, each having their own sort of style to tell the tale - whether involving a comedic take (A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, itself an adaptation of a novel from Mark Twain), or as an adaptation of a Broadway musical in Camelot (1967), or as a parody in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). In 1969, John Boorman had wanted to make a film about the Merlin legend. His plans to do the film with United Artists did not come to pass owing to the scope of the script (for which he wrote with Rospo Pallenberg), with the studio offering him the chance to do an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. While Boorman did not end up doing an adaptation of such material, he incorporated set design and imagery ideas from that stalled attempt for this film, which is based off the prose Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory. It is obvious that Boorman clearly wanted to make the definitive version of the legend, utilizing its 140 minute run-time to try and make a big grand story spectacle from life to death. It reads a bit like a history paper written in a fever dream by someone who really wants to get all of this information down before it flashes away - it may seem a bit long, but that's because he really wants to wow you with all that is going on. The spectacle does tend to outweigh the actual characters at times, and a lesser made film would buckle under the pressure - but Boorman manages to keep it all together to make an engaging fever dream of a movie.

The film has an interesting look to it, owing to the lighting choices (such as the forest scenes or parts involving the sword) that occurred due to production having rain fall on each day of the shoot, filmed entirely in Ireland. The result makes it seem like one is watching a otherworldly type of movie, with eerie and fitting cinematography from Alex Thomson. The aluminium on the knights glistens well at times, especially. The key highlight of the film is Williamson, who can switch from clever wit to foreboding when needed, wise and tricky as one would hope. He sells the film well whenever he pops up on screen, that is for sure. Terry (who dabbled in film on occasion when not on the British stage) has the task of trying to play the man of the myth from adolescence all the way to a withered man without seeming lost in the tale - he does just fine with that. Mirren (also known for her work in the theatre) isn't given too much depth with her conniving part, but at least she is game to have some scheming fun for her moments. Clay and Lunghi don't fare as great, each being a bit passive while not having too much chemistry of sorts with Terry, whether friend or lover. It doesn't come to the point where it undercuts the film as a whole, but it feels more haphazard than it probably should. Geoffrey ends up having to try and help carry the film a bit for the film's last half, and while he does seemingly make the role grow from when he is introduced, he can't help make it seem that the film could run out of steam when it tries to give focus on the Grail. The others of the cast fill their roles when required (including early performances on film for Stewart and Neeson, which is neat in some way). The film promotes itself on nobility and comradeship from its fabled Knights of the Round Table, where the king embodies the land he and his subjects walk on. It is a film that indulges in sets of armor, violence and a sense of hope, juggling itself amiably as an epic that merits its own place in entertainment among fantasy films. Perhaps it doesn't hold up as well as it should with some of its narrative workings, but it makes up for it with plenty of fun, spectacle and a fairly game cast that works out a quest of the legend and comes up with most of the right ideas in time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Missing Link.

Review #1209: Missing Link.

Cast:
Zach Galifianakis (Mr. Link/Susan), Hugh Jackman (Sir Lionel Frost), Zoe Saldaña (Adelina Fortnight), Stephen Fry (Lord Piggot-Dunceby), Timothy Olyphant (Willard Stenk), Emma Thompson (The Yeti Elder), Amrita Acharia (Ama Lahuma), Matt Lucas (Mr. Collick), David Walliams (Lemuel Lint), and Ching Valdez-Aran (Gamu) Directed by Chris Butler (#240 - ParaNorman)

Review: 
This is certainly a first in movie theater experiences: one without a single other audience member present besides me. As much as audiences can be weird at times, it sure is a shame to not have anybody else watching something that actually was pretty good, even if it was a 2 o'clock showing.

Admittedly, watching a stop-motion film made from Laika doesn't have too many objections from me, particularly since they have managed to craft a solid winner each time I viewed them, whether it was their first venture with Coraline (2009) or their last one with Kubo and the Two Strings (2016). They manage to make interesting movies with plenty of visual flair that works well for the eyes without reaching to bombard them too much. With this film, their attempt at adventure (done by writer/director Butler) works itself out just fine, having tinges of humor and heart and a fairly solid cast to go along with some well-done visuals. It isn't the strongest feature that Laika has made, but it fits just fine with their other works in providing some entertainment, regardless of age. Not many films can be a buddy flick with a creature like Bigfoot, that is for sure. Galifianakis is charming, making this gentle yet unwavering creature come alive with energy, helping to make for a few laughs sprinkled throughout, such as when he decides to come up with his name or such. Jackman pulls his part well enough, self-assured in a pursuit for a creature but also well enough to play a pursuit for more without too much trouble. Saldana is fine as the last part of the main trio. Fry and Olyphant make for decent adversaries, each having their own set of brashness that rolls just fine. The story holds okay for its 94 minute run-time, feeling a bit closed-in with its adventure trappings (such as when it actually reaches the Himalayas), but there isn't a sense of boredom even if it sometimes feel a bit familiar with some of its characterizations, with its beginning and climax feeling a bit more better in pace than its middle. It has a few nice designs to the places it wants to get to (such as sequences in the Himalayas or involving a fight on a ship), even if some of its landings probably don't land as hard as they could have. It at least has a decent message regarding friendship and belonging that will serve its audience well without seeming completely out of the blue or overly sentimental. It is a film that probably needs more in terms of its pursuit for its characters, but it at least serves itself well with style and some charm to make up a fair winner.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Blood and Lace.

Review #1208: Blood and Lace.

Cast: 
Gloria Grahame (Mrs. Deere), Melody Patterson (Ellie Masters), Milton Selzer (Mr. Mullins), Len Lesser (Tom Kredge), Vic Tayback (Calvin Carruthers), Terri Messina (Bunch), Ronald Taft (Walter), and Dennis Christopher (Pete) Directed by Philip S. Gilbert.

Review: 
The key tips to making a good slasher film (if there really is much of a key) is to make one that has a sense of balance, where you can find just the right amount of tension along with at least one interesting character to go along with some gore. There has to be at least something to care about for a film besides just an assortment of scenes and occasional slashes. There are plenty of slasher films out there that fit most if not all of those requirements - this is not one of them, however. This is simply a bland slasher film that coasts on a cheap narrative and characters too empty for a black hole to swallow.  The best performance is from Grahame, which was her first appearance on screen in five years. She had won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for The Bad and the Beautiful (1952), but her career had declined in the ensuing years. She proves game to play into the trashiness of the villainous role and make it stick out, doing so to the point where the killer is overshadowed near completely (saved only because of a silly mask). Grahame is okay, but the people around her aren't too particular interesting to follow with, verging from shells (the kids) to sleazy (Selzer, Lesser, and Tayback), which I suppose distracts from the fact that the film has no true scares. It never feels unsettling or shocking at any point, reading off as just a film made on the cheap, with this being done for roughly $200,000, which I suppose one could expect from production companies named Contemporary Filmakers and Carlin Company Productions - with distribution in America coming from American International Pictures. Music and sound effects were taken from free music archives. Blood and Lace served as a drive-in regular for horror double bills, but somehow it never had a release onto VHS or DVD, with a 2015 Blu-ray release being the first home media release in North America. The opening scene with the perspective of the killer is at least a bit interesting, in that it predates Halloween (1979) and its opening POV shot - although at least that one didn't have the weapon stick out in front of the camera. The lack of a big victim count, combined with a ludicrous twist at the end serves as just another nail in the coffin. Perhaps the film was aiming to be unsettling with its tone - after all, this is a movie where Grahame and Lesser try to keep the kid count at level by just taking kids back from storage in the freezer and just pass them off as sick. Honestly, it never really seems to go anywhere - the freezer stuff comes and goes while the stuff with the kids is pretty bland. One strange thing is that this is the only directorial effort of Gilbert. Writer/producer Gil Lasky served as writer/producer for three other films in the next three years - and he hasn't done anything since. On the whole, this is a fairly bland slasher film, managing to generate only the bare minimum of actual fright, seeming more of a joke than a true expression of shock.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Shazam!

Review #1207: Shazam!

Cast: 
Asher Angel (Billy Batson), Zachary Levi (Shazam), Mark Strong (Dr. Thaddeus Sivana), Jack Dylan Grazer (Freddy Freeman), Djimon Hounsou (Wizard), Faithe Herman (Darla Dudley), Grace Fulton (Mary Bromfield), Ian Chen (Eugene Choi), Jovan Armand (Pedro Peña), Marta Milans (Rosa Vasquez), Cooper Andrews (Victor Vasquez), and John Glover (Mr. Sivana), with Adam Brody (Super Hero Freddy), Meagan Good (Super Hero Darla), Michelle Borth (Super Hero Mary), Ross Butler (Super Hero Eugene), and D. J. Cotrona (Super Hero Pedro) Directed by David F. Sandberg.

Review: 
Time for a bit of story time, since I felt it seemed interesting enough in regards to Shazam and his history.

Shazam! certainly had a unique path to entering the worlds of comic books and film. The success of heroes such as Superman and Batman in their respective line of comics inspired Fawcett Comics to try and make their own respective hero, with Captain Marvel being created in 1939. Creators Bill Parker and C. C. Beck wanted to deliver a hero that would rely on folk-tales and myths more than pulp - Shazam after all is an acronym for the six figures who gave power to the hero originally known as Captain Marvel: Solomon, Hercules, Atlas, Zeus, Achilles, and Mercury. In 1941, Republic Pictures released the film serial Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941), becoming the first film depiction of a superhero. While future films did not follow in the next seven decades, a television series was done in 1974 involving Filmation. It should be noted that DC Comics did not find the hero to be particularly original, filing lawsuits against both Fawcett Comics and Republic Pictures for copyright infringement in 1941 due to what they saw as similarities between Superman and Captain Marvel. There were verdicts and appeals that followed over the next decade, but Fawcett eventually gave up publishing the hero in 1953, fourteen years after the character's birth. In 1972, DC brought back the property; by this point, Marvel had acquired the trademark and started their own series of Captain Marvel comic books. The origin that the film utilizes for Batson is from more recent publications (as opposed to the newsboy sleeping in a subway station of the original) while also having inspiration from Big (1988). In any case, it is obvious fairly quickly that this is aiming for light charm in a year surrounded by heroes and occasional origin stories.

The obvious thing to say is that this is a wonderful hero film. It doesn't fall into the trap of needing high stakes or overwrought drama but instead relies on charm and humor along with a mostly effective story headlined by Angel, Levi, and Strong. Angel is worthy enough for us to want to follow along with on his path of discovery, never seeming too distant or out-of-touch for us to care about - in essence, he's a kid we can watch grow just as the movie does. Levi has the task of acting as a kid in an adult's body (complete with a whole suit and such), and he rolls with it with ease, having as much fun as one probably would have when trying to find who they are beneath a flashy suit and self promotion. Strong is just as adept in serving as the arch nemesis in part because he seems quite creepy enough to pull his scheme to completion.  He plays the bitter yet brilliant foe with relish that makes one yearn for more from him. Grazer works just fine, serving as the one to play a bit of second fiddle "manager" to Angel that helps deliver some chuckles, such as when he and Levi both realize his immunity to bullets and proceed to want to get the would-be robbers to do it again on camera, but now targeted on the face. Hounsou does just fine with his purpose of crackling the plot along with some magic with a voice fit for a wise tiring wizard. The other members of the cast aren't given too much to really do until the climax, but nobody sticks out as a deterrent to the enjoyment, occasionally serving for a chuckle. The film spends the chunk of its first half to try and give story to both its lead character and villain. Both have a key choice they had to make as children and where they go from there. It carefully balances its act to try and not tire patience prior to the arrival of its main card of its title hero. It achieves the goals it sets out to do by not stretching itself too thin with too many subplots or characters and keeps things on a routine if not comfortable level. The scenes involving Shazam finding his powers can certainly give a jolt of astonishment. I also found the Sins to be pretty interesting to look at, and they do seem creepy enough without making the movie seem completely confused on where it is going. Watching enough of these type of films makes some of the film's turns for its resolutions come off as more familiar and expected than probably imagined, but at least there isn't anything here that tries to do a take off of ill-advised narrative decisions. The climax serves the film decently in getting some thrills and chuckles without becoming too weighted down in trying to linger for too long, although a 132 minute run-time perhaps could have been trimmed a bit. In any case, the best that can be said for this film is that it is a wildly entertaining superhero film, just as well to watch alongside other features such as Wonder Woman (2017) or Aquaman (2018) that sticks out for its abundance of light charm and energy. I certainly look forward to any future installments involving this character, that is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Bernie (2011).

Review #1206: Bernie.

Cast: 
Jack Black (Bernie Tiede), Matthew McConaughey (Danny Buck Davidson), Shirley MacLaine (Marjorie "Margate Nugent), Brady Coleman (Scrappy Holmes), Richard Robichaux (Lloyd Hornbuckle), Rick Dial (Don Leggett), Brandon Smith (Sheriff Huckabee), Larry Jack Dotson (the Rev. Woodard), Merrilee McCommas (Molly), Mathew Greer (Carl), and Gabriel Luna (Kevin) Directed by Richard Linklater (#645 - School of Rock and #1138 - Dazed and Confused)

Review: 
It could be argued that this is an oddball kind of film. After all, it is a dark comedy chronicle of a 1996 murder in a small town by a mortician that had respect from his community despite keeping his victim in a freezer for nine months. Of course, most films don't try to have gossip elements involving a mix of actual townspeople interviews and performers that likes to muddle the line of fiction and documentary. The screenplay was done by Linklater and Skip Hollandsworth, who had wrote an article about the case called "Midnight in the Garden of East Texas" two years after the murder. It is an interesting kind of film in what kind of story it wants to tell, being quick to not veer too hard into being either drama or black comedy, with the key to the film's success being Black and his performance. He plays it with a subtle edge, having the task of trying to make a person who we know killed someone from the get go be someone that we don't immediately recoil from, and he does a fine job in seeping into a kindly tactful type of guy that never seems inauthentic or too out-of-depth for Black to roll with - whether that involves trying to help a couple pick a nicer coffin or partake in singing practice for a show, being quirky without feeling like a bit being done for show. McConaughey (showing up mostly in talking-head segments) is fun to sit with for the moments he gets to show up. MacLaine is mostly utilized to show some dourness and compulsive control over things for a lady described by someone as one with a "...nose was so high, she’d drown in a rainstorm.” Perhaps the portrayal of Nugent could have certainly been expanded on in some ways, but she does play the final side of the film's triangle of main actors just fine. The other actors blend in without too much trouble when needed. It is interesting at times to see the gossip talked about in the segments involving town members that goes on long enough without choking the film's momentum or run-time of 99 minutes too much. With a budget of $6 million and a shooting schedule of 22 days, Bernie certainly stands out as quirky if not mostly effective entertainment that is given life through the portrayal of the title role from Black that proves to be a little gem that works itself out just fine in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Air America.

Review #1205: Air America.

Cast: 
Mel Gibson (Gene Ryack), Robert Downey Jr. (Billy Covington), Nancy Travis (Corinne Landreaux), Ken Jenkins (Major Donald Lemond), David Marshall Grant (Robert Diehl), Lane Smith (Senator Davenport), Art LaFleur (Jack Neely), Ned Eisenberg (Nick Pirelli), Marshall Bell (O.V.), David Bowe (Saunders), and Burt Kwouk (General Lu Soong) Directed by Roger Spottiswoode (#171 - Tomorrow Never Dies and #191 - The 6th Day)

Review: 
Perhaps this film was made at the wrong time. The film's development began with director Richard Rush in 1985 in an attempt to be the first comedy about the Vietnam War, writing a script that at one point was slated to star Sean Connery in the lead role, with various actors thought of for the other main role ranging from Bill Murray to Kevin Costner. In any case, a new direction was taken that led to the hiring of John Eskow to make changes, for which he received a co-writing credit. The film is loosely based off the non-fiction book of the same name from Christopher Robbins. As a action comedy, the only interesting thing about the movie is how it manages to flounder in two genres. This should seem surprising with Gibson and Downey Jr heading the cast, but it becomes apparent by the halfway point of its 113 minute run-time that the film doesn't have the energy to drive many laughs or thrills to carry a whole movie. The film tries to have it both ways - it has its bits of gags and oddball characters, such as ones who like to dangle sleeping people on a rope while flying or playing with coloring books while also trying to show dramatic elements (namely involving the war or the nature of their trade, including a fictionalized portrayal of an actual Laotian general), but it never truly clicks together in making something that actually seems interesting to follow along with. Perhaps the makers of this film really thought that a mish-mash of genres would serve the material well, but it just feels disconnected most of the time, where the implications never really seem to make an impact or matter. Wondering how factual the film is to real-life events is probably a bit more useful a task to do instead of giving the film too much effort. At least there is some decent plane action. It sure is nice to see Gibson at least, and he sure tries to make this maverick type seem interesting to follow along with, but he just seems to be going through the motions by the time his character arc suddenly turns up in the climax. Downey is fine with making some snide reflections, but he doesn't really seem to be interesting enough for the audience to go with when the film wants to try and present some sort of dilemma for its climax. Travis (in a role originally meant for Ally Sheedy) is fairly forgettable, with the oddball pilots somehow standing out better. Grant and LaFleur are a bit amusing for their patches of showtime, but they can't help the film gain footing because it just seems aimless with or without them. Obviously I wasn't expecting something loaded with action, but by the time it tries to reach for some sort of moral ground, it's easy to not care and lose oneself in awaiting the credits, the last thing one wants in a action comedy. It serves best as a time-waster, one that will generate a few chuckles alongside a possible yawn or two that makes this more of a disappointment than a complete disaster.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Meteor.

Review #1204: Meteor.

Cast: 
Sean Connery (Dr. Paul Bradley), Natalie Wood (Tatiana Donskaya), Karl Malden (Harry Sherwood), Brian Keith (Dr. Alexei Dubov), Martin Landau (General Adlon), Trevor Howard (Sir Michael Hughes), Richard Dysart (Secretary of Defense), Henry Fonda (The President), and Joseph Campanella (General Easton) Directed by Ronald Neame (#673 - Scrooge)

Review: 
What is a meteor? One definition (at least according to a cursory Google search) is that it is a " small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth's atmosphere, becoming incandescent as a result of friction and appearing as a streak of light." Perhaps the definition doesn't give the movie's big threat proper credit, since this is a disaster film released to ride on the popularity of films of its ilk released in the 1970s such as the Airport films (1970, 1974, 1977, 1979), The Poseidon Adventure (1972) and countless others  - with this one being distributed by American International Pictures and funding from Hong Kong studio Shaw Brothers. This was one of numerous AIP films in the 1970s that differed from the usual fare they had delivered in previous decades, with less focus on horror and more focus on other genres (whether it involved kung fu, blaxploitation, or something else), with an increase in budgets. This film, unlike others released by the studio, proved to be a failure, making less than $10 million on release with a budget over $15 million. This led to the demise of AIP, which soon merged with Filmways, Inc and stopped distributing films by 1980. In any case, the hands that attempted to guide the film might have seemed promising. Stanley Mann and Edmund H. North were the writers for the film, with the latter being responsible for writing films such as The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) and Patton (1970). Much like the disaster films mentioned already, this one also boasts a collection of big-name actors of its time to supplant the roles.

With all of that in mind, it sure is strange that this film turns out to be a dud. How does one make a film racked with only the bare minimum of suspense and mild special effects? How does one make a film where the energy of the cast and the people they are playing fight blandness? By the time the actual meteor shows up for its climax, the level of excitement jumps up a percentage point, since it means it's almost over, even if the tension levels by this time are nearly non-existent. This probably would've fared better as a comedy, actually. Imagine a bunch of people flailing around talking about a giant rock hitting the Earth in your driest voice, and you have this movie basically summed up. As nice as it is to see Connery be pulled into this ridiculous mess, he isn't too particularly interesting - whether that it is due to the script or due to being on autopilot waiting to get done with this mess (and the check to clear) is up to you. Him and Wood don't have much chemistry with each other, but it really is more because it just feels like filler before scenes of exposition/meteor stuff take the stage again. Keith is fine, and he does provide a bit of humor to a film that is practically begging for some action. Malden proves okay with his gruff if not stock kind of role. Landau goes over-the-top for a role without any real sort of depth to it besides being adversarial to the others. The other members of the cast make brief appearances that come and go as they please. The effects are okay, but they don't really elevate this material to any real sense of enjoyable spectacle, with one sequence utilizing footage from Avalanche (1978) alongside tons of artificial snow for background shooting. The sequence involving the subway and the mud surely must've proven interesting to think of as effective in concept - but it just seems more of a waste of money and time (along with a pain for any actor having to act in mud). This mish-mash in quality for the effects can be attributed in part because numerous visual effects teams came and went during production due to being fired for the quality of effects delivered on a small budget (no doubt due to the budget focus on the actors) - the shots involving building collapsing near the end was actually just re-used footage from building demolitions. Ultimately, it is the lack of any interesting characters or situations that prove fatal to the film. It becomes evident quickly that there isn't much in the way of tension, since the idea of the meteor actually hitting the Earth never really seems all that likely. The film actually ends with a notation about a report named "Project Icarus", a student project done in 1967 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that involved students in a systems engineering class to make a plan to use rockets to deflect or destroy an asteroid in the event of a possible collision with Earth, which led to a book release the following year. One would likely be better off reading the report than watching the film, actually. It disappoints on a basic level as entertainment with its actors and it disappoints on a level of spectacle that makes this a chore for all but people with nothing better to do.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.