Toy Story 4.

Review #1238: Toy Story 4.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Woody), Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Annie Potts (Bo Peep), Tony Hale (Forky), Keegan-Michael Key (Ducky), Jordan Peele (Bunny), Madeleine McGraw (Bonnie), Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Keanu Reeves (Duke Caboom), Ally Maki (Giggle McDimples), Jay Hernandez (Bonnie's dad), Lori Alan (Bonnie's mom), Joan Cusack (Jessie), Bonnie Hunt (Dolly), Kristen Schaal (Trixie), Emily Davis (Billy, Goat and Gruff), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Hamm), Blake Clark (Slinky Dog), June Squibb (Margaret the Store Owner), and Carl Weathers (Combat Carl) Directed by Josh Cooley.

Review: 
I do admit to having feelings of trepidation when I heard that this film was announced. The first three films are great movies, filled with plenty of entertainment, charm, wonderful animation with a solid foundation that would be expected from Pixar. Next year will be the 25th anniversary of the release of the first film, so one would wonder exactly how long can a saga like this can really last, particularly one about sentient toys and the actors that accompany them (there are even cameos from Mel Brooks and Carol Burnett at one point). One would've thought it would've ceased after the last one nine years ago, and one could even make the case that it could've just ended with the second one with no hesitation. Each of those films close themselves out leaving the audiences (and corporate overlords, if one is to be cynical here) satisfied for the time - these films are accessible for everyone, young and old. With this film, the best thing that can be said is that I can't really fault the filmmakers for wanting to make another story with these characters - the result is not a disturbing cashgrab (unlike certain productions of the past decade), but it is a compromise that works hard at trying to justify its existence with quality cast, animation, and a fairly competent foundation to make it mostly worth it. After all, there are plenty of writing credits to go around, such as a screenplay by Stephany Folsom and Andrew Stanton but eight credited for story (John Lasseter, Rashida Jones, Will McCormack, Josh Cooley, Valerie LaPointe, Martin Hynes, Folsom, and Stanton), so that sure makes for plenty of hands to go around.

It isn't so much the worst of the Toy Story films as it happens to be the one that doesn't have as many flawless features - this makes it harder to say it is entirely necessary to view, which reminds me more of Pixar's recent sequels such as Finding Dory (2016) or Incredibles 2 (2018) - both fine follow-ups that don't soil the memory of the original, and this likely falls in the middle between those in scale of quality (the less said about Pixar's other certain sequel in the decade, the better). As before, there certainly are interesting new characters to view upon the ones we know and appreciate - the existential crisis of a utensil toy sure does make for an intriguing one, with Hanks and Hale being up to the task of playing off each other with purpose and charm. The cast sure does pull plenty of charm and fairly timed laughs, even if it has to split them into segments just to try and keep things threaded - at least until its climax, anyway. Hanks of course does just as well anyone can do with a role he fits perfectly for, full of passion and leadership that is easy to follow with as before, such as when trying to help a newly created utensil toy find himself as more than just "trash". Allen has his moments to shine when its wants to be on him (with one recurring gag to follow along with, much like the last one), handily fitting into the role and its final sequence without hesitation. Potts, last in the role two decades (and two films) ago, is just as able to jump right back into things with relish, capable as can be with what the film wants to do with her role without making it like a fractured portrayal, and the chemistry between her and Hanks goes seamlessly enough. Hale is quirky yet fairly amusing enough to hold the ranks as the resident new toy on the block with his own interesting personality and design that keeps up with the others without becoming just another gag on the wall. Key and Peele make for a few laughs when the light needs to shine on them, and Reeves is just as charming (who can resist a toy stuntman of Canada?). Hendricks makes for an engaging part of the film, offbeat in sinister nature yet fairly capable of being vulnerable that falls alongside the lines of other character types from the previous films without being a complete copy. The others of the cast don't have as much to really do, but they make their time count just fine. A 100 minute run-time makes for a finely paced film that doesn't linger too much of stringing all its threads to a complete stop nor leave the viewer hanging for too much time, even if its finish is just fine with where it closes as opposed to simply just great. Its outcome may prove a bit more fit for a discussion than a real out-pour of emotions (if that's your sort of thing from animated movies, I guess), but at least its character arcs do make it all fairly worthwhile. The animation is wonderful as to be expected, capable at holding to standards one would expect from before that has evolved with the times in the past decades, holding balance with when it needs to be light or darkly-lit as such. On the whole, I do appreciate that the people who crafted this film tried their hardest to make a story worth viewing one again through these characters without trashing what made them so compelling in the first place all those years ago; it may not be the most necessary film of the saga, but it surely will prove just as well in entertainment for people that yearn to seek out where it lands itself this time. Whether there is another one of these films or not, it sure has been quite a fun time to see these films play out beside the toybox over the years.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The End of the World (1916).

Review #1237: The End of the World.

Cast: 
Olaf Fønss (Frank Stoll - Mine Owner), Carl Lauritzen (Mineformand / Mine Forman West), Ebba Thomsen (Dina West), Johanne Fritz-Petersen (Edith West), Thorleif Lund (Minearbejder / Worker Flint), Alf Blütecher (Styrmand / Ship's Mate Reymers), Frederik Jacobsen (Den vandrende Prædikant / The Wandering Preacher), and K. Zimmerman (Professor Wissmann) Directed by August Blom.

Review: 
It sure is hard to believe it has been a while since I covered a film from Denmark, where I covered Master of the House (1925) in 2017 - along with being only the 12th film from the 1910s to be done here. In any case, it seems necessary to deliver another world cinema review, which I hope you folks enjoy.

The End of the World (known as Verdens Undergang in its native country) can certainly be called a curiosity, having been released just six years after the passing of Hailey's Comet. with the Earth actually passing through the comet's tail on May 19; there had also been a Great Daylight Comet that year, for which at one bright point it even outshone the planet Venus. It also was a film released in the midst of World War I, for which the country was neutral on. The curiosity for me is in how the comet effects would look, having been done by showers of fiery sparks and shrouds of smoke. The other curiosity is admittedly how Blom and writer Otto Rung get to this climax with their story, which does try to juggle itself with a few threads, revolving around romance, manipulating stocks through the comet, panic through the streets and unrest throughout social classes. In this sense, the effects do shine a bit more handily than its story, but it isn't exactly a hard film to sift through, and I will say that the pacing is relatively steady through its 77 minute run-time. It doesn't test the patience of its audience too much, soaking in its melodrama in the ways you could expect from a film of its ilk, where you see actors try to live up to what is needed to be seen on screen to accompany occasional inter-titles that further the plot (or say something about a character), with the only sound you'll hear is from musical composition (unless you're watching a silent film with no actual music). In any sense, the actors do a fine standard job with such material, playing their types to a T that makes its ultimate fate a bit of a foregone conclusion, with its ending being a bit ham-handed but serviceable, and it surely must have played fine for its target audience. It can prove to be a hokey film at times (gotta love the rich people deciding to have a party on the day a comet is going to hit), but I can give credit for its fair ambition to make a efficient little tale without going completely overboard. Honestly, this is the kind of movie one could just re-purpose for a 70s disaster movie (such as Meteor (1979), although that was pretty terrible), so at least one can enjoy this movie for its own interpretation of the disaster movie before that was even termed as an actual genre. This is a film you can find fairly easily on the Internet, having been restored by the Danish Film Institute in 2006. In the end, I feel that there is just enough in its parts to make this a worthy piece to check out for movie lurkers wanting something from the past century that like a bit of worldly flair in their dramas.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Vulture.

Review #1236: The Vulture.

Cast: 
Robert Hutton (Dr. Eric Lutens), Akim Tamiroff (Prof. Hans Koniglich/the Vulture), Broderick Crawford (Brian F. Stroud), Diane Clare (Trudy Lutens), Philip Friend (The Vicar), Patrick Holt (Jarvis), Annette Carell (Ellen West), Edward Carrick (Melcher, the Sexton), and Gordon Sterne (Edward Stroud) Directed by Lawrence Huntington.

Review: 
One may wonder what is to be expected a film with a title like this. After all, this is a fairly obscure film that can't be found on DVD (the version I watched occasionally shows a TNT logo on the bottom, back when the network showed MonsterVision, a series dedicated to a marathon of older movies), only on VHS. Actually, this is a film I heard about a few years ago due to a video that I watched from a film reviewer (James Rolfe of Cinemassacre fame) that went into a little detail about the film. One would expect at least some semblance of horror, what with a poster tagline that starts with "Talons of terror!" and tells you about a half-man, half beastbird that swoops on prey, drinks blood, and mutilates flesh. This was the creation of Huntington, who served as both director and writer; he sold the story (first known as Manutara) to executive producer Jack O. Lamont, who garnered some funds on the condition of having American names as the leads. Other contributors of the budget (50,000 pounds) were from small British and Canadian studios. This happened to be the last film he directed, passing away the following year at the age of 68 following a career of 37 years, spent primarily in Britain. Oddly enough, this was a movie shown in black-and-white on original release in theaters, yet it was shown in color for television.

Believe it or not, all of these facts are probably more intriguing than the actual film itself. Would you believe that this is a film that shows its title beast for only 30 seconds throughout a 91 minute movie? Would you believe that this is a movie that has bland characters? Would you believe that this was made on the cheap and represents a mockery of what films can be with limited range of funds but ambition at the wheel? The answer to these questions are all a resounding yes, particularly with the last question. It is actually astounding how one could make a film with such dullness - this barely even qualifies as horror, feeling more akin to a murder mystery than anything dealing with real suspense. If this was done in any other decade, I do wonder how it might have panned out - or at least made with a bigger budget, where one could try to deal with the idea of depicting someone transformed into a vulture/human mix. The only times you see the vulture are very brief shots, showing its talons when it takes someone away, or at the end when the human head on the vulture is seen briefly; I imagine the film made sure to depict the scenes in the dark in order to hide the cheapness of these effects, since I can't imagine the hysterics if one tried to show this thing in a full shot just swooping around with an old man's head. Trying to think the logistics of this film's plot become a chore, as it throws stuff around about some old coins (buried alongside an accused warlock and his dastardly pet vulture because...I shrug to figure out why), a guy believing himself to be a descendant of said dead man and doing an experiment to disintegrate himself into the grave and then reassemble said self back with nuclear energy, and some sort of curse involving the descendants of the guy who buried warlock and vulture alive.

With such a mess of ridiculousness, how does the film deal with delivering some sense of fright? It does so with paleness, as if everyone was affected by a mysterious bug that wouldn't let them give any sort of life of amusement to what is occurring; the exception is a grouchy (but quirky) Crawford, who gets to be the first victim all because he wants open windows just to get sleep and gets snatched from said vulture (the astonishing thing is how strong said vulture must be, even if it has to turn him around first before it lifts him into the air). Hutton isn't really much better, figuring out a bare mystery with no real semblance of interest generated for the audience. Tamiroff is okay, but it is so amusing to see him turn out to be the villain, what with the lack of any real hints to go around - exactly how does he hide those bird feet and feathers in the daylight? Also, the idea of him swooping around eating animal flesh is weird to picture, although maybe that's just the vulture side wanting something to pick at, besides some old folks. I'm still astounded he actually decided to go through with such a bizarre experiment and never thinking to just simply dig up the grave and maybe check the body instead. If you can believe it, the count of victims of this ridiculous bird are a resounding two, and one of the takings isn't even shown to the audience. The bird gets offed by the silliest of climaxes: a character needing to be reminded that they have a gun with them by their spouse, falling off a cliff. To add on to these ridiculous terms, the couple actually buries the thing at sea, as if not showing this ridiculous freak of nature would be better served (or at least just to show to the authorities who think the murders is all about a bunch of coins and not big bird) - on the whole, this is just a mess. You could actually make a comedy out of such offbeat things, and yet this is meant to be taken with such seriousness that it actually just comes off like stale bitter coffee in an age where one would expect something with a bit more of a jolt. Even films that don't show off their title monster have some sort of atmosphere or pace that invite a viewer in to share a level of tension or calm fear. This doesn't even get off the platform, moving an inch at the starting gate and then proceeding to fall asleep for the rest of the race. You always seem to be waiting for something to actually happen, and the fact that you know it will only strike at night and strike certain people (from the oldest to the youngest of the Strouds), so what you are left with is filler. A film of such tediousness isn't quite deserving of the label of one of the worst, but it sure ranks up there in terms of ways to kill time the worst way possible, that is for certain.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

The Horror of Party Beach.

Review #1235: The Horror of Party Beach.

Cast: 
John Scott (Hank Green), Alice Lyon (Elaine Gavin), Allan Laurel (Dr. Gavin), Eulabelle Moore (Eulabelle), Marilyn Clarke (Tina), Agustin Mayor (Mike), Damon Kebroyd (Lt. Wells), and Munroe Wade (TV Announcer), with the The Del-Aires. Directed by Del Tenney.

Review: 
I have to admit that this film had been lurking on my radar of curiosity from time to time, mostly because of its reputation as an awful film. After all, it was mocked on Mystery Science Theater 3000 just like other fellow schlock films like its ilk, such as Eegah (1962), Monster a-Go-Go (1965) and The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? (1964) The latter one matters most in part because it also marketed itself as "The First Horror Monster Musical" Of course the music featured here is actually just soundtrack + source music (hence the credit for the Paterson, New Jersey rock band The Del-Aires), but when has that ever stopped someone from making a wild credit to get some attention? It probably serves to distract from that fact that the monster itself is a horrifically laughable design (done by Robert Verberkmoes), complete with chicken eyes that looks like it has sausage links in its mouth. The fact that there is more than one of these monsters present in the film (with one of the monsters played by a teenage son of the production assistant due to the suit not fitting the stuntman) makes it even more hysterical. I do wonder how Richard Hilliard (who also served as cinematographer) came up with merging beach part movies with monsters - or maybe Tenney really thought a black-and-white Connecticut beach film would entice the kids, complete with chocolate syrup for blood. Then again, this was paired up with fellow Tenney feature The Curse of the Living Corpse (1964) on original release with a "Fright Release" akin to a William Castle gimmick.

In any case, how is the actual film? Oh, it's pretty terrible, having gaping holes in logic, inconsistency levels of terror with its silly monsters, flunky acting that would fit best for an all silent radio play and pathetic execution in terms of basic continuity. This actually had three editors, a supervising editor and two assistant editors yet they couldn't keep continuity over whether a monster attack is happening in the day or at night. At least one can't say that it is too long at 78 minutes, that is for sure. Nobody acting in this film comes off with too much dignity, although I imagine they weren't asked too much by their immediate family if they ever appeared in "that silly chicken beast movie". The beach aspects are laughable, since everyone seems way too old to be hanging around the beach (complete with silly motorcycle gang who leave the film after showing up once) - to say nothing of the character who accidentally triggers the discovery of the monster weakness believing the beasts to be a product of voodoo (this probably goes with the original working title of Invasion of the Zombies). As is the case with most monsters, the weakness is something the heroes can wrap their heads around - this one being sodium of all things, a substance described by a quick Internet search as the "sixth most abundant element on Earth" - but then again I guess one really needed to search a bit to find where you can get a tub of the stuff for the 1960s and then track the chicken-sorry, atomic beasts and use it on them before it just swallows up the whole town. Believe it or not, the television print for the film cut out most of the gory scenes, such as the shots of the body of the first attack when it surfaces. I don't know man, cutting out the parts of a film that make this stick out beside the tedium of beach party fare and sci-fi gobbledygook seems like a bad decision. At least being "scared" by some old effects is better than being dulled by the rest. I'll give it credit for its gradual effects change of sea creatures to monster (done on a sound stage, superimposing images of a fish over dissolving shots), since it means the film is actually getting itself going. To point out all the ridiculous mistakes or silly things (such as the examination of the monster hand, the visible human head out of monster neck, etc) would be exhausting, so let me just put it this way: You would actually be better off filming yourself going into the water of the beach and shaking the camera a few dozen times while making silly noises - if you do that, you may just make a better viewing experience than the one present here. Just take Tenney's word for it in describing the film years later: "It's amusing, but it is a terrible movie...But it turned into a cult thing, and people have fun with it." This is worth a curious laugh more than anything, awful dreck to point and laugh at for the summertime thrill and laughs.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

The River (1951).

Review #1234: The River (1951).

Cast: 
Nora Swinburne (The Mother), Esmond Knight (The Father), Arthur Shields (Mr. John), Suprova Mukerjee (Nan), Thomas E. Breen (Capt. John), Patricia Walters (Harriet), Radha Burnier (Melanie), Adrienne Corri (Valerie), and June Hillman (Narrator) Directed by Jean Renoir.

Review: 
Admittedly, some films can stick out for their cast and crew, while others can stand out for their style and tone. This one does both in spades, the first color film shot in India along with the first color feature of its director. Jean Renoir (son of painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir) had been a director for decades prior to this film, directing films such as La Grande Illusion (1937) and The Rules of the Game (1939). By this point his career, he had spent a decade in Hollywood after fleeing invaded France in 1940. His last film had been The Woman on the Beach (1947), which had been re-edited prior to release. Renoir spent two years in India to shoot this film, for which he collaborated with Rumer Godden on converting her semi-autobiographical novel of the same name to film. Godden grew up in colonial India with three sisters for a time in her childhood; she wrote numerous fiction and nonfiction books, such as Black Narcissus and The Diddakoi, with numerous works being adapted into media (such as the 1947 film of the former). He directed the film along with serving as writer and co-producer. At hand as co-producer was a man named Kenneth McEldowney, a florist and real estate agent. He had complained about the quality an MGM film to his studio publicist wife, and she had dared him to make a better one. From 1947 to 1951, he spent his time trying to bring this film to fruition, having sold off their home and his floral shops. The resulting film opened in New York with a 34-week run at reserved-seat prices, a record for the time. McEldowney's first and only produced film proved to be a hit, and it is easy to see why that proved the case then as is now over six decades later.

It is a clear slowburn of a film, wrapped in a sense of spirituality and focus on telling a coming-of-age tale with sincerity and lack of Hollywood pretense. It flows like a river from one end to the other with a tone that spins like a globe, where life and death interweave with each other and so on. It has a mix of professional and amateur actors, such as Walters, a girl that Renoir described in his memoir as a "daughter of a man on the staff of one of the local industrial concerns" - this was her only film appearance. Hillman hadn't had a credited role on film in over a decade prior to serving as narrator for this feature. Breen was the son of film censor Joseph Breen (head of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America) and he had lost his right leg due to a combat injury in World War II, and this was his last movie appearance. Knight (who was half blind after a war injury) and Swinburne had been married for several years before this feature. In any case, it certainly makes for an interesting experience to see a variety of acting take place, which goes without much of a hitch. Seeing each of the perspectives of the three growing young ladies in Walters, Burnier, and Corri in their moments with the arrival of Breen makes for some interesting moments, and Burnier comes off best in that regard, where moments don't need to spelled out in detail for a viewer to absorb it fruitfully. Through its 99 minute run-time is something that has some nice photography (with cinematography done by Claude Renoir, Jean's nephew) and diverting lighting choices with color. The others do fine with their moments on screen, with Breen's vulnerability shining through well; it isn't the kind of film that would win many acting accolades, but it is certainly one that merits a look for its vision about growth through a prism of passion and tragedy that doesn't have an easy finish for anyone. It strives for something special with a natural concept idea and lands in the middle with a fairly compelling entertaining piece that shines for the curious viewer interested enough to seek it out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind.

Review #1233: Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind.

Cast: 
Sumi Shimamoto (Nausicaä), Gorô Naya (Yupa), Yôji Matsuda (Asbel), Yoshiko Sakakibara (Kushana), Iemasa Kayumi (Kurotowa), Ichirō Nagai (Mito), Hisako Kyōda (Obaba), Minoru Yada (Niga), Mahito Tsujimura (Muzu), Kōhei Miyauchi (Gol), Jōji Yanami (Gikkuri), Mahito Tsujimura (King Jihl), Miina Tominaga (Lastelle), Makoto Terada (Mayor of Pejite), Akiko Tsuboi (Lastelle's Mother), Rihoko Yoshida (Teto / Girl C) Directed by Hayao Miyazaki (#1111 - Spirited Away)

Review: 
Hayao Miyazaki had a great interest in animation ever since viewing a film named Panda and the Magic Serpent (1958); although he soon graduated from university in 1963 with degrees in political science and economics, he found work at Toei Animation. Over the next few years, he worked on a variety of projects such as chief animator for The Great Adventure of Horus, Prince of the Sun (1968), writing and illustrating numerous mangas before leaving Toei in 1971; he continued work with animation, contributing to anime series and shorts before moving to Tokyo Movie Shinsha, where he directed his first feature in The Castle of Cagliostro (1979). In the following five years, he kept busy, with one of his works being a manga named Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind that began in February of 1982. It proved to be a fair success, leading to him going an adaptation to film, writing the screenplay for a movie that had only sixteen chapters of manga to work with (with the manga running until 1994). Topcraft was the anime studio that helped in making the film; they went bankrupt the following year, with the buyers of the studio (Miyazaki, Toshio Suzuki and Isao Takahata) becoming founders of a new animation studio - Studio Ghibli.

With all of that in mind, it should prove no surprise that this is a wonderful entertaining film, worthy of viewing by anyone looking for a sensibly well-crafted tale that stands tall as a pillar of animation. It is a film that shines on its animation and story, having plenty of depth and moments to view and be entranced by, challenging the viewer and not letting them wander for any sort of time through its 117 minute run-time. The film's main focus is nature itself and how it flows throughout life - whether it is through clean air or toxic ones, as is the case with the latter, owing to Miyazaki and being inspired by mercury poisoning of Minamata Bay in Japan that had occurred in the late 1950s. It travels on story-types of the past when dealing with its nature and focus on life, but it never attempts to boil itself in cliche good-and-evil traps - it keeps itself in check with a focus on environment and maintaining oneself without having to resort to basic fear and greed and fighting over what one does not know or understand. The cast does not break with holding up such lofty ambition in storytelling, particularly with Shimamoto, wonderfully earthly and captivating to be around throughout this adventure, with a climax that helps seal her fate as a memorable heroine for film. The others made their moments on screen count, such as Naya and Sakakibara, with no true weak-link present here. On the whole, the movie cultivates a vision for itself that never seems blurred while playing its hand with the right kind of patience, letting its story play out with a sense of balance and subtlety that makes one appreciate how animation can let creativity play out on such a grand scale. The following year, New World Pictures released an edited version of the film in America named Warriors of the Wind - an English dub lasting 95 minutes that Miyazaki was not pleased with (there of course exists a 2003 English dub that makes no cuts to the original film). In the past 35 years since this film's release, Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli have thrived with showcasing numerous stories into film, with him directing nine features and the studio having released 21 features into theaters - and it isn't hard to see why that it is the case with this one, an adventure for the ages that captivates with its animation and an entertaining story that proves perfect for inquisitive viewers of all ages.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Nanook of the North.

Review #1232: Nanook of the North.

Cast: 
Allakariallak (Nanook), Alice Nevalinga (Nanook's Wife - the Smiling One), Cunayou (Nanook's Daughter), Allegoo (Nanook's Son), and Camock (Nanook's Cat) Directed by Robert J. Flaherty.

Review: 
Admittedly, this is a film I had been interested in covering for quite some time now. It isn't easy to justify watching a documentary when there are so many films out there for me to try to watch and cover. But in any case, I realized that the chance to cover a silent documentary (also known as Nanook of the North: A Story Of Life and Love In the Actual Arctic) like this could be a unique experience to cover, particularly one that stands high as one of the seminal films of the past century. It contains elements of re-staged events of drama (docudrama) that attempts to capture the struggle of an Inuk in the Canadian Artic, from his travels with family to hunting a walrus to building an igloo. Robert J. Flaherty had a curiosity that drove his childhood, in part because of his father's iron ore explorer background, working as a still-photographer in Toronto. Flaherty was commissioned by Sir William MacKenzie to examine the potential iron ore deposits on certain islands in the East Coast of Hudson Bay. He made four expeditions over the span of six years, most notably finding the Belcher Island archipelago in Hudson Bay (a re-discovery for which for which he was inducted into the Royal Geographic Society of England in 1914). On one of his trips, he brought a motion camera with him; he filmed 30,000 feet of film of the Inuit people over this time. A chance accident in 1916 involving a cigarette burning the negative meant the loss of his footage, which only inspired Flaherty to try again. He made his focus onto one Inuit family while trying to raise funds for filming, which took four years to do. The film itself depicts some events as reality despite being staged by Flaherty. Examples of this include Allakariallak hunting much in the same way of his ancestors instead of his traditional rifle, which had been common by this time. The igloo used for interior shots was a special three-walled one in order to help with lighting (along with the fact that making an igloo big enough for the camera to be included proved unfeasible).

Flaherty later described the food he had brought with him for filming, which contrasted with the food diet of his fellow Eskimos, later stating: "My food outfit comprised one hundred pounds of pork and beans which had been cooked in huge kettles at my post and then put into a canvas bag and frozen. These beans chopped out with an axe from the frozen mass along with dried fruit, sea biscuit, and tea comprised my food supply. Nanook and his companions' diet was seal and walrus augmented by tea and sugar from my supply and, most important of all, tobacco." With this film, he combined documentary subjects with a film narrative, showing the calamity of nature and the plight of a community to survive despite great odds against them. The walrus fight is a sight to behold. Seeing someone attempt to land a harpoon onto an over 2,000 pound animal with tusks locked in battle - that is something you just can't replicate today, unless you happen to be in a situation like that yourself. Seeing the construction of an igloo is still a sight to see regardless of what one might know about its structure modification. This is a film that is a product of the time, where the rules of what makes a documentary and what you could and couldn't really do with depicting staged events as authentic weren't as prominent as they are now. At least one can't say Flaherty put his crew in complete danger or overbears on depicting a culture as they are, instead finding them remarkable to view through the lens of film. It is the courage one sees in these individuals such as Allakariallak that makes this a fascinating film to view for its 79 minute run-time. One gets a feel for what made people like him attempt to endure here despite the chills of the North riding through the day and night, for which Flaherty got to experience this first hand through production of this film. How can one not enjoy what they see on screen, a film that depicts exactly it promises to depict on screen with such conviction and such enduring power to this very day? Perhaps it is not everything one would desire in a documentary depicting people of a culture, but it surely stands tall for its entertainment value and its ambition from Flaherty and his crew to make a worthwhile experience for any sort of curiosity. In an age where looking at other cultures and views on the Internet increases by the decades, Nanook of the North endures in the scope of curiosity of film as a well-deserved pioneer of its time.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Shaft in Africa.

Review #1231: Shaft in Africa.

Cast: 
Richard Roundtree (John Shaft), Frank Finlay (Amafi), Vonetta McGee (Aleme), Neda Arneric (Jazar), Debebe Eshetu (Wassa), Marne Maitland (Col. Gonder), Spiros Focás (Sassari), Jacques Herlin (Perreau), Frank McRae (Osiat), Nadim Sawalha (Zubair), Thomas Baptiste (Kopo), and Glynn Edwards (Vanden) Directed by John Guillermin (#726 - King Kong (1976))

Review: 
Admittedly, the first two Shaft films (released in 1971 and 1972, respectively) were fun pieces of entertainment for the right time, being on the forefront of the blaxploitation era - riveting movies that had plenty of action and interesting qualities to go around , with a good deal of credit going to its lead in Roundtree alongside direction from Gordon Parks and writing from Ernest Tidyman (writer of the novels that had featured the character beginning in 1970). For this one, both did not return, with the writing being delegated to Stirling Silliphant (mostly known for his work on projects such as Route 66 along with the screenplay for In the Heat of the Night) while Guillermin was brought in as director. This was the third installement of the series - which proved to be the last of the series for over two decades. It ranks as the weaker of the three Roundtree films in terms of general excitement and foundation, but Roundtree keeps it together long enough to make it most worth a watch. It is evident the makers of this film really wanted to keep things fresh, and perhaps they really thought changing the setting to Africa would rake in a few more box office dollars. After all, both of the previous films had each been made for under $2 million while raking in over $10 million each at the box office, so raising the budget a bit should prove good luck - it did not, since the film failed to make its budget back. The film seems a bit too closed in with trying to make a casual adventure action film, complete with James Bond type gadgets in a stick and a story that tries to cover itself with some subtext involving a bunch of 70s sounding topics while only really doing best with its action sequences, which do their part in giving the film a leg to stand on. It feels a bit too long at 112 minutes, dragging in the middle while not recieving much help from its opening or end in makign a proper powderkeg of entertainment go off. Roundtree is the highlight of the film, containing charm and care without having to say too much, stepping into some comfortable if not entirely challenging shoes. Finlay can't really make this role seem any more than just an "Evil Brit" type, but at least he's passable. McGee is fairly charming, although the others aren't too particularly memorable to go along with. It is a film that meanders in a somewhat interesting setting but with conventional execution and not much else to go along with. On the whole, this is a film that just can't quite get itself into gear enough to make a consistent winner, but it may prove just well enough for people wanting some fair action type without too many struggles. It works best when one doesn't give too much thought to how things go down and just let it happen, whether it involves stickfights, a mild climax, and a little passion to go around.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Carrie (1976).

Review #1230: Carrie.

Cast: 
Sissy Spacek (Carrie White), Piper Laurie (Margaret White), Amy Irving (Sue Snell), William Katt (Tommy Ross), Betty Buckley (Miss Collins), Nancy Allen (Chris Hargensen), John Travolta (Billy Nolan), P. J. Soles (Norma Watson), Sydney Lassick (Mr. Fromm), Stefan Gierasch (Principal Morton), Priscilla Pointer (Eleanor Snell), and Edie McClurg (Helen Shyres) Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible)

Review: 
When it comes to making films from novels, Stephen King books sure do make for interesting material to cull from. Prior to the publication of his first novel, he had been a English teacher at Hampden Academy in Maine; he had contributed and written numerous short stories for years while trying to work on ideas for novels. Early in the writing process for the novel that would become Carrie, King threw out the first few pages of the work he had typed out (involving the shower scene), which his wife Tabitha saved. She encouraged him to finish the story, As he later described after the book's success: "I persisted because I was dry and had no better ideas… my considered opinion was that I had written the world's all-time loser." As it turned out, Carrie (released in 1974) became a hit, with King soon selling off the film rights to the book (for $2,500) - director Brian De Palma, a reader of the book soon got interested in doing the film, with Lawrence D. Cohen being brought in as screenwriter. The budget for the film would prove to be $1.8 million, which was pretty small compared to other horror films of its time, but in any case the film managed to turn out pretty well for itself, raking in over $30 million upon release. It isn't hard to see why its success inspired others to try and make further adaptations, including a 1988 Broadway musical, a 1999 sequel, and remakes in 2002 and 2013. The film itself is a fine piece of horror entertainment, being fairly engaging with terror and tension that manages to endure well after its release four decades ago. It works best with key moments such as its opening or its prom climax, where its tragic elements play well within a high school setting like this, and a fairly game cast makes that click in most of the right places. It does fine with a pace of 98 minutes, building its reversion of the Cinderella tale to life with a few good direction and camera tricks from De Palma and cinematographer Mario Tosi.

Spacek plays the role with vulnerability and angst that slowly morphs itself into some readiness to make for a rounded out performance fitting for a film like this. Laurie chews a bit of scenery with a brimstone touch, but it all feels worth it in part because she doesn't lose your attention whenever she shows up on screen. Irving and Katt turn out okay for their parts, both having a bit of plain charm to them. Buckley plays her part (named Desjardin in the novel) just fine, probably being the easiest person to follow along with besides Carrie at times. Allen, Travolta, and Soles (all in the early parts of their respective film careers), make for a capable group of bullies, the kind of people that could fit right in with the right crowds for the time without having to reveal themselves too much. In any case, it is the prom sequence where the film gets itself into final gear, where it builds up the tension for its memorable moment slowly but surely until it hits like a bucket of blood. The split-screen usage here is a bit interesting here for its time, at least, and the lighting sure can make for a tense watch. It lets loose with terror for a good bit and makes a fine climax upon return back home. There is a scene after that (different from the novel), but it's probably best to let a first-time viewer watch the whole thing without getting too spoiled - but it sure makes for a good punch to leave the viewers home with a bit of a chill. On the whole, this is a well-done tragic horror film that pulls some punches close to home with a good reflexive sense behind it and some memorable terror to along with it to make this a fine film to recommend for the horror circuit.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Lonely Are the Brave.

Review #1229: Lonely Are the Brave.

Cast: 
Kirk Douglas (John W. "Jack" Burns), Gena Rowlands (Jerry Bondi), Walter Matthau (Sheriff Morey Johnson), Michael Kane (Paul Bondi), Carroll O'Connor (Truck Driver), William Schallert (Harry), George Kennedy (Gutierrez), and Karl Swenson (Rev. Hoskins) Directed by David Miller.

Review: 
Sometimes you come across a Western that is a bit different from the rest. This Western drama is adapted from Edward Abbey's 1956 novel The Brave Cowboy with a screenplay from Dalton Trumbo. The film deals with the difficulty an individual can have living within growing society, one where wires and fences loom over the open country, where one lone man stands with his principles. Douglas (who calls this his favorite film) was attracted to playing the lead after reading the novel, with him getting Universal Pictures to help fund the film with him as star, complete with cast and crew recruited from his production company Joel Productions. Filmed on a budget of two million around Albuquerque, New Mexico, Lonely Are the Brave is a stark and excellently done tragic classic, headlined by a great performance from Douglas alongside a capable supporting cast to go alongside him in a film that stands out from other Westerns of its time, both in setting and in tone. Key moments include Douglas and his fight with a one-armed man (Bill Raisch, a stand-in for Burt Lancaster on occasion best known for his appearances on The Fugitive beginning the following year), well-done cinematography by Philip H. Lathrop that shows off vast landscape shots without trouble and fine detail and an understated performance from Matthau, who was more known for his work on the stage (winning his second Tony Award the same year of this film's release, in fact). For the most part, this is a film for Douglas to grab with his performance, which is quite wonderful, running the gamut in grace as a man of the West trapped in a tragic fate of a moving world that makes this revisionist Western stand tall. Rowlands and Kane do fair with their brief time on screen, being the kind of people who could cross paths with a rogue like our lead without seeming completely in the background, trying to roll with their path in a weary world. The other members of the cast (including a young O'Connor) do just fine, including a rough Kennedy. It did not prove to be a huge hit upon initial release, in part because of disputes between Douglas and Universal over how the film should be released, with Douglas believing it should be released in art-houses and gradually build its audience and the studio preferring to release it wide without any sort of big support. Despite this, the film has its own cult following and it isn't hard to see why. It has a solid headliner with Douglas in a role he excels with, making it obvious why he would adore it still after half a century since, since it is a solid production with its own bit of thrills and distinctive voice among Westerns that make it a fair piece to recommend out of curiosity on the trail.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Brightburn.

Review #1228: Brightburn.

Cast: 
Elizabeth Banks (Tori Breyer), David Denman (Kyle Breyer), Jackson A. Dunn (Brandon Breyer), Abraham Clinkscales (Royce), Christian Finlayson (Fauxhawk), Jennifer Holland (Ms. Espenschied), Emmie Hunter (Caitlyn), Matt Jones (Noah McNichol), Meredith Hagner (Merilee McNichol), Becky Wahlstrom (Erica), Terence Rosemore (P.E. Teacher), and Gregory Alan Williams (Sheriff Deever) Directed by David Yarovesky.

Review: 
Perhaps there was an interesting idea behind a twisted take on the Superman origin story present in the original pitch. It isn't the first time someone has made a what-if story involving a twist on the Superman mythos, with the easiest one I can think of being Mark Millar's comic mini-series Superman: Red Son (2003), which presented what would occur if Superman had been raised in the Soviet Union instead of Smallville. I suppose in a decade where we've had a film adaptation of Superman in Man of Steel (2013) that aimed for a gritty take on the hero, why not have a gritty take on the origin of an alien landing in a Kansas town too. Produced by James Gunn with a story from his cousin Mark and brother Brian Gunn, Brightburn is a film lacking in tension that finds itself hamstrung by not going further with its premise and being an overall ridiculous horror film. It comes at no surprise that this runs at 90 minutes, since it never seems to truly take off for real terror until the very end, by which at that point I'm trying to restrain giggles. Ideally, this shouldn't happen in a film that basically turns a 12-year old Superman into a serial killer, complete with a calling card. The fact that it is a film with a small cast headlined by Banks, Dunn, and other actors mostly known for television work that can't really make this material seem more alive; everything seems too closed in, too much like I am watching something made for a film school project or something to binge on a streaming service late one night. It is a film where all of its beats and paths seem drawn out before it even gets to an hour, having a lack of tension because it never really seems in doubt that this kid will just grow up to be a monster - made especially weirder by drawing out when the parents try to start figuring it out (no points for who figures it out last). It only seems vibrant when it shows the kid going kooky with his power, such as him flat out lasering someone in the eyes after someone tries to "Old Yeller" him. I do find that Dunn does well with this material when faced with being a creep more than when he is trying to act like an actual kid - basically I can't help but wait for the psychopath moments, such as him not attempting to have any sort of sympathy when he hears news about someone passing away (what with him dropping that same guy and his truck from the air three minutes earlier). Banks and Denman do what they can as the parents, showing some compassion and vulnerability that works mildly when compared with their freak-of-alien nature offspring; they can't really save this film from bordering on self-parody, but at least they don't inspire too many eye-rolls. Really the film needs someone to just chew the scenery a bit, or at least have some presence beyond these three, with characters just appearing and disappearing without much time (especially apparent with Hunter) to grow. Maybe this needed an older Breyer to make this conflict actually seem more developed, or a bit more budget and time to really make this seem like it really does belong on a big screen. I can't fault the premise so much as I just fault a film that can't quite rise to great lengths with horror, only inspiring snickers and mild bemusement, an average little film that will only stand out from the crowd if you know where to look and what to expect.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)

Review #1227: Godzilla: King of the Monsters.

Cast: 
Kyle Chandler (Dr. Mark Russell), Vera Farmiga (Dr. Emma Russell), Millie Bobby Brown (Madison Russell), Bradley Whitford (Dr. Rick Stanton), Sally Hawkins (Dr. Vivienne Graham), Charles Dance (Colonel Alan Jonah), Thomas Middleditch (Dr. Sam Coleman), Aisha Hinds (Colonel Diane Foster), O'Shea Jackson Jr. (Jackson Barnes), David Strathairn (Admiral William Stenz), Ken Watanabe (Dr. Ishirō Serizawa), Zhang Ziyi (Dr. Ilene Chen and Dr. Ling), with T.J. Storm (Godzilla) Directed by Michael Dougherty.

Review: 
It's about time for this one. Perhaps this review may prove a bit too long - but I wanted to have some fun with saying as much as I could with a film I really did anticipate - after all, I didn't cover four Godzilla movies for nothing, so here's a Godzilla-sized review for the hell of it - 1,000 words for your enjoyment. 

Five years can certainly pass by when it comes to movies. Godzilla (2014) was a fine movie that worked to get out of the shadow of doubt that an American adaptation of Toho's monster franchise couldn't actually succeed. I really can't say I have too many memories of the film, but I might as well just snatch some words from way back when:

"The cast isn't bad (though I wish there was more Bryan Cranston in it), our main character is okay even though it seems the cast get more screen time then the monster himself, Godzilla. The movie seems to want to build tension and wait, so it cuts the first two monster fights (along with waiting an hour to show Godzilla) so we don't see much and then relents and shows the final fight, which is fantastic."

Of course, I also don't remember giving it a 9, but yet here we are. The only other Godzilla film that I had covered at the time was the original Gojira (1954). I hadn't (and still haven't) even touched the 1998 American attempt at Godzilla, with me just going in cold for some big monster action. Actually, I haven't returned to the 2014 Godzilla since I saw it in the theater all those years ago, perhaps since I don't usually re-visit each film I go see on the big screen. In the five years since its release, Toho re-started the series with Shin Godzilla (2016) while Legendary Pictures continued their pursuit of a "MonsterVerse" with Kong: Skull Island (2017). Just three cast members (Watanabe, Hawkins, Strathairn) return for this one, with a few references included throughout while doing a bit of ret-conning and changes in tone that make for a fairly decent if not perhaps as challenging monster movie. The first film had a screenplay by Max Borenstein and a story by David Callaham, while this one has director Dougherty as co-writer and co-screenwriter while retaining Borenstein for the screenplay once again alongside Zach Shields. It lingers a little too long at 132 minutes (eleven minutes longer than its predecessor), but I felt that I enjoyed a good majority of what I saw on screen, albeit more when it focused of its monsters than its cadre of characters. The quirk of the original having its only interesting character being wasted midway through is modified by this film having a quirk of having sprinkles of just mildly interesting characters. This film is basically a re-imagining of Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (1964), albeit with a somewhat developed foundation of human characters that makes for a less silly experience. Honestly, as long as there is an entertaining monster mash somewhere in its run-time that isn't overshadowed by something else, you have my vote, and this one gains that vote for the most part. This is a $200 million CG spectacle with monsters that takes itself mildly seriously - once a year is just enough for my standards, really, even if I am aware of the prevailing tastes for other kinds of action films for the summer.

It is a loud and sometimes dumb movie, but I can't help but adore its ambition at spectacle. Each monster, from Godzilla to King Ghidorah, is rendered really well, looking quite crisp that retains the characteristics from before (like the latter and its three heads) while making sure they stand out in their own ways, which proves to be a fairly done strategy. While I do wish there was a bit more emphasis on shown spectacle of distraction (as opposed to just showing things already being destroyed), at least I can say that this one manages to retain most of the wrath that nature can bring onto us if not careful from the earlier movie. I never feel lectured or bored when it comes to trying to peddle some plot threads on me, with the parts involving specific frequencies for the monsters faring best over parts involving discussions in rooms over what to do. The cast does what they can, some faring better than others. Chandler is fine to follow around with, straight-laced yet completely willing to go along with what occurs on screen without seeming like a drag on what occurs in the basis of a monster movie. Farmiga does fine as well, with the focus on her and Brown being fairly subtle. Brown shines just as well when shown on screen. At least the family angle the film pushes is okay, since the film can't just be all on the monsters and their ties to myths and legends from yesteryear. Whitford and his attempts at being comic relief (by being the equivalent of someone on the Internet lecturing you on "uberscience lol" at 8am) come off as a bit tepid, although Middleditch doesn't fare too much better. Dance comes off as ridiculous as the human adversary - I don't care too much about the eco-terrorism angle, but the parts involving trying to restore a sense of balance in the world with Titans (as opposed to the previous film's classification of the monsters of MUTO)  Not having too much to do with Hawkins is a bit disappointing, although at least Watanabe gives the film some sense of emotional depth. Rounding out the cast is passable performances from Hinds, Jackson and Ziyi. With all of that mind, where else did I find time to show some joy besides seeing a bunch of occasionally creative fight sequences and a bunch of CGI in the dark? I found some fun within Bear McCreary and his music, taking some inspiration from previous music beats from the Godzilla series from Akira Ifukube - any time you do a cover of a Blue Oyster Cult song (particularly "Godzilla") gets a nod from me as well. With a looming sequel in Godzilla vs. Kong next year, this is a movie that succeeds in garnering interest to see some more monster mashing without regret. It proves as a worthy follow-up to its predecessor while also living up to the standards of other Godzilla films before it without too many stumbles yet having plenty of thrills to make one satisfied.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.