The Mechanic (1972).

Review #1267: The Mechanic.

Cast: 
Charles Bronson (Arthur Bishop), Jan-Michael Vincent (Steve McKenna), Keenan Wynn (Harry McKenna), Jill Ireland (The Girl), Linda Ridgeway (Louise), Frank de Kova (The Man), and Takayuki Kubota (Yamoto) Directed by Michael Winner.

Review: 
Sometimes you need a good thrill. If there is enough action and interesting moments, you have a sure winner on your hands. Too bad this is a film that can't quite push itself to being a complete success. The teaming up of an seasoned veteran and a brash willing newcomer is a familiar one if you watch enough movies, so the real game is in the execution. The original script by Lewis John Carlino implicitly had the main two actors have a relationship. However, it became difficult to find a lead actor or financing for the film, with one notable rejection coming from George C. Scott. Carlino expressed disappointment with having to change the script, stating "I wanted a commentary on the use of human relationships and sexual manipulation in the lives of two hired killers. It was supposed to be a chess game between the older assassin and his young apprentice. The younger man sees that he can use his sexuality to find the Achilles heel that he needs to win." Honestly, if you did this with a man and woman, nobody would've objected. But this was 1972, so c'est la vie. The resulting film does tend to seem like a James Bond film at times (as reflected on by Carlino), with the dynamic between Bronson and Vincent seeming neutered to look like a father-son dynamic instead. I do wonder if the sequence with Ireland doing a girlfriend experience for Bronson was there originally, since it doesn't really seem to matter to the actual plot in the long run. Actually the whole film seems like a scattershot experience, having a plot that never completely gels to anything meaningful. It isn't tense enough nor diverting enough, with the only notable sequence being an opening that is without dialogue for sixteen minutes (in an elaborate death sequence), which goes off fine I suppose. This is a film where our main assassin is a loner who likes classical music, squeezes a ball on occasion, and  someone racked with anxiety and depression. In that sense, Bronson is okay with the role. He has a fine rugged charm that rolls with action without too many smirks or outbursts. Vincent seems to need something more to this role, where he only seems there to give a quip and bare moments of actual brash confidence. It should be a cat-and-mouse game, but it seems more of two cats clawing lazily at cardboard that looks like cheese. The other actors have little presence either, with Wynn leading out the scene count with two (all in the first half, naturally). What's the point of making an action thriller if there isn't an interesting hero or villain? Even with the re-writes, you could still have had an okay movie if provided a real sense of stakes. The best this film has to offer is a swift ending involving the main characters before its 100 minutes are up, which is actually pretty amusing. As one can expect from mining the depths of films to revitalize for "new audiences", this film has had a remake, released in 2011 starring Jason Statham and its own sequel five years later in Mechanic: Resurrection (creative title, for the 1990s). On the whole, this is just a very okay action film that seems a bit too fixed-up in the wrong places to really generate the right kind of entertainment. It has some explosions, moments of gritting teeth, but not much else.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Fire Maidens from Outer Space.

Review #1266: Fire Maidens from Outer Space.

Cast: 
Anthony Dexter (Luther Blair), Susan Shaw (Hestia), Paul Carpenter (Capt. Larson), Jacqueline Curtis (Duessa), Harry Fowler (Sydney Stanhope), Sydney Tafler (Dr. Higgins), Owen Berry (Prasus), Rodney Diak (Anderson), Maya Koumani (Fire Maiden), Richard Walter (The Creature), Norma Arnould (Fire Maiden), and Sylvia Burrows (Fire Maiden) Directed and Written by Cy Roth.

Review: 
Fire Maidens from Outer Space (released in the US as Fire Maidens of Outer Space, because...I shrug as to why the name change) is certainly an interesting curiosity. How often do you see a implantation of classical music in a science fiction film? Sure, maybe a few films come to mind, but this is probably the silliest sci-fi film this side of the United Kingdom. The man behind the film is Cy Roth, who directed, produced and wrote the film while collaborating with a small production company in Criterion Films, with separate distribution companies for the two regions. What can I expect from a film that starts with narration about a secret US-UK project that is designated plan thirteen (I take it the ninth plan from outer space wasn't successful) - having ten minutes of exposition before the ridicule to follow in the next seventy minutes sure is something, though. How many times can you cover dreck and write about silly moments before it gets old? Watching terrible films does tend to make one feel a bit better, as if seeing misery makes the hope of finding something better to do seem fruitful. That, or it gives me a chance to write some silly highlights and make fun of things. Whooshing meteors should be an early indicator. One particular favorite is when the space crew are trying to land the rocket in a forest (while on the 13th moon of Jupiter) and they superimpose stock footage of a V-2 rocket landing (or perhaps launch in reverse) onto a shot of some trees, which is about as convincing as the space set itself. Wait a minute or two, and you'll get a shot of the rocket (where the trees are seen through the tail-fin) that looks hysterical, and the fact that the crew gets out of the space rocket through a everyday ladder makes me giggle internally. Do you want to see a sequence of the crew hearing a scream and then hiding in the bushes while someone takes a photo of the space maiden (who lives among the rest in what they call "New Atlantis" - yes I am serious)? You are in luck, then, particularly with the silly creature that we know is probably going to be a treat to see later up close. Nobody really seems to come out of this with too much dignity, as if they have already reached the stage of acceptance (if one replaces grief with bad movie appearances, anyway), although maybe the fire maidens seem to have a fine time being in "New Atlantis" garb and dancing on occasion. There never seems to be a moment where one can really take this seriously, and when it comes to space women, even Cat-Women of the Moon (1953) seems preferable. The fact that the monster is a slender beast in a dark costume (with zippers) that can't be shot is just as funny as the growl noises and his final fate - being hit by a gas grenade that makes him stumble onto some flames. As one would expect from silly films like this, they actually decide to bring back one of the maidens with them to Earth, with the idea of future missions to fulfill the "promise" from their "father" for mates for the maidens (or something like that). On the whole, this reads like a joke to a science-fiction fan, belonging in the cellar with other dreck aptly fit for MST3K mocking but also aptly fit for a laugh if in the right mood. It isn't the worst by any means, but it sure is a stinker.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Natural Born Killers.

Review #1265: Natural Born Killers.

Cast: 
Woody Harrelson (Mickey Knox), Juliette Lewis (Mallory Wilson Knox), Robert Downey, Jr. (Wayne Gale), Tom Sizemore (Detective Jack Scagnetti), Tommy Lee Jones (Warden Dwight McClusky), Rodney Dangerfield (Ed Wilson), Edie McClurg (Mrs. Wilson), Sean Stone (Kevin Wilson), Russell Means (Warren Red Cloud, Sr), Lanny Flaherty (Earl), and Evan Handler (David) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street and #1090 - Platoon)

Review: 
It is interesting to look upon this film today, 25 years after its release. It is a notoriously famous kind of film, one that was modified from its original script by Quentin Tarantino (the second of two scripts he had sold, with the other being True Romance) to the point where he was given a story credit while screenplay credit went to Richard Rutowski, Oliver Stone, and David Veloz. Tarantino wasn't a big fan of the final product, and the film is certainly an easy one to rage/rave about. The resulting film is one that is bold in its violence and its attempts to make a statement about society and so on and so on while also serving as a twisted romance - two hours of chaotic energy that is frantic, satirical, and a bit of a mess. Honestly, it must be real hard to fall along the middle ground with this particular film: One can appreciate the technical aspects of the film and yet still take issue with its approach for the message it wants, or one can really, really feel that it is a tiresome and ridiculously shameless attempt at satire that goes over the top to where it hits the moon with jagged edge front and center. One film that came in mind when viewing this was Bonnie and Clyde (1967), which in itself was a controversial film for its violence with its lead characters while being a seminal film for a burgeoning generation. This is definitely a film that is trying to be the kind of thing for its type of audience, with its decade certainly being a polarizing one in terms of the landscape of media and the world as a whole. One can certainly see that effect today, for better or worse (the less said about quote-unquote fake news, the better). It is the kind of loud film that probably seems right at home with the loudness that can accompany our lives if one allows it (or even if they don't).

No one seems to be safe from Stone's grip on message-making, or his grip on spectacle violence (or whatever you really want to call it), and they make for a cumbersome cocktail that when sipped manages to hit the consumer on the head and make for a fuzzy feeling all at once. This is especially apparent with the editing (which took eleven months as opposed to the shoot taking just 56 days) and look of the film, which can go from color to monochrome or just be filmed with a dutch angle (or most notably superimposing images of the 20th century in the background). Am I watching an crime movie or an art film? Really, you could say it is a bit of both. Does it go over the line when it comes to actually making a point? Sure, and it does that with no real sort of regrets, much in the same way a shock jock can hammer the hot take home till the cows come home to call the complaint hotlines. For me, it is a well made film that comes off okay with its approach while scoring points for capable film-making (moreso in the first half than the second) and its cast. Each of the core five has some sort of oddity to them (the headlining couple need no explanation), where being over-the-top is more like being over the rails and into the weird aisle, which generally works out fine in showing some ooze. Harrelson and Lewis are a dementedly successful duo when it comes to performances. One always wants to know what they will prove to do, whether with each other or with someone else, a sort of hypnotic feeling really. Much like the others in the film, one can't help it. Downey Jr plays his role of prowler for the attention machine (or however one would describe a tabloid TV host who happens to have an Australian accent) with effectiveness, where one can see the thirst for something deep in us (or what have you) that manifest in a wildly weird climax. Sizemore surely proves to task with his unconventional conventional role, where you can see the powder keg show its cracks from time to time. Jones hams it up (this is apparent with the hairstyle), and it works itself out for a few laughs at a man meant to have control yet can't even control himself. Special scene-stealing consideration goes to Dangerfield, who actually wrote his lines for his dark part that is perfectly horrific for what is needed. In the long run, this is a movie that roars itself from the very beginning with an ax to grind about its topic of conversation that swings for the trees and manages to cut down the entire forest while also setting it ablaze. Its fury can prove a bit too much after a while when it comes to actually trying to contain itself to one frenzy at a time. It can prove to be a horrific, biting, infuriating, frustrating, or rewarding experience, depending on how one looks into it. It is a controversial film for a reason, but the curious film mind will certainly have quite the time with it, that much is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Accepted.

Review #1264: Accepted.

Cast: 
Justin Long (Bartleby Gaines), Jonah Hill (Sherman Schrader III), Adam Herschman (Glen), Columbus Short (Darryl "Hands" Holloway), Maria Thayer (Rory Thayer), Lewis Black (Ben Lewis), Blake Lively (Monica Moreland), Mark Derwin (Jack Gaines), Ann Cusack (Diane Gaines), Hannah Marks (Lizzie Gaines), Robin Lord Taylor (Abernathy Darwin Dunlap), and Anthony Heald (Dean Richard Van Horne) Directed by Steve Pink.

Review: 
Do you remember your path to college? The acceptance letters, the campus visits, et cetera, et cetera. Of course some of us didn't actually do these things, much like how not everyone simply just went to the college they wanted (or went at all). But I don't think I ever thought to make my own university to make up for previous failures, really. Whether one is big on their college lives or not, I'm sure we can all agree that this is a rather lame comedy that wastes its premise with inconsistent humor. Inevitably, one would probably make a comparison to Animal House (1978) because one really can just use that as the measuring stick for college comedies involving ridiculous stunts, preppy adversaries and people who look at least a decade too old to be in college (minus Lively, though). Actually, why stop there, why not just make a comparison to American Pie (1999) with its crude nature with a young cast? At least one thing can be said about that film - it wasn't completely predictable and it actually did something with its rating (R-rated, as opposed to being PG-13 like this is, which even bleeps out a curse word at the end). What is there to be expected from a fake university named the South Harmon Institute of Technology (S.H.I.T, get it, hardy har har so clever) that came out of an old mental hospital? These characters are more generic than soda simply named Tasty Soda, right down to the bad guys with the truly compelling goal of wanting to raze the aptly named fake university to make a...gateway to make their college more prestigious. Gee, and the only way to stop the plan is to try and fight their case for education accreditation in front of the state board. Really, this should be like one of those choose your own adventure things, where you don't know the obvious decision (or joke) from the get-go. 

But enough about the shaky foundation, how are the actors when it comes to actually trying to make laughs. Is a guy in a hot dog costume imploring people to ask him about his frankfurter (obvious word change from me because I felt like it) really amusing? No? Too bad, it doesn't get that much better from there. Black seems able with a grouchy curmudgeon role, at least, since he actually seems to be trying to say something interesting in his cynicism about the system. Maybe he actually would've been a better lead than Long (no guesses allowed over who thought Bartleby was a clever character name), who doesn't seem as persuasive with generating laughs as opposed to just making smirks. I never really seem to ever care about his scheme, which honestly could've just been some cheesy drama more than anything. Hill is fine, making more of a presence than Herschman, Short, and Thayer combined. How? Ask yourself this: can you remember any interesting "funny" moment with that particular trio as opposed to Hill? Welp, there's your answer. Lively is here and there, having as much chemistry with Long as a bag of hammers. Some people are just destined to be stars, it just so happens some get to be in a lame one to accompany their earlier work. This whole review can really summed up by me just sighing and looking at the run-time every ten minutes, wondering if I should check on my phone or make a doodle. On the whole, this is just a mediocre comedy movie, bland enough to have three writers attached to it (Adam Cooper, Bill Collage and Mark Perez) but not smart enough to really make an involving winner that matters more than just its 92 minute run-time. Not every comedy needs to be a smart one, but I'll be darned if one has to suffer through a lame one when there is always a better choice somewhere else that doesn't waste my time as much as the next viewer.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Roaring Road.

Review #1263: The Roaring Road.

Cast: 
Wallace Reid (Walter Thomas "Toodles" Waldron), Ann Little (Dorothy Ward, the cub), Theodore Roberts (J. D. Ward, the bear), Guy Oliver (Tom Darby), and Clarence Geldart (Fred Wheeler) Directed by James Cruze.

Review: 
How many times can one pick a century-old film to give spotlight to? The decade saw Hollywood rise in stature for film-making in the United States, with several studios rising to the occasion to make their own films, ranging from shorts to roughly an hour. Who better to cover than a film from Paramount Pictures, one of the oldest film studios still in existence that also happens to be the lone major studio still located in Hollywood. In a silent era where plenty of films were lost to audiences after release forever, one can appreciate the ones that did in fact survive for someone to view (particularly for films exhibited for over 95 years, which make for fresh pickings in the public domain), and I would hope that a viewer picks at least one film from this particular era of film-making to look at once in a while. This is a year in which test screenings were only just beginning to be used to gauge reactions to film, after all. Not every film needs to be loud or expressive to be a true winner, although the reverse can easily be said when it comes to how films were back then, which certainly could be spectacular or ridiculous. In this case, this is an okay movie, filled will silly moments to boot aside from a few interesting directing sequences (done through Frank Urson) that accompany a relic like this. It just doesn't feel like the kind of film meant to endure as heavily as other films of its time, where Broken Blossoms and The Grim Game managed to evoke more emotion and thrills in the same year. Each film certainly looks like they came from 1919, but there is a certain energy in the direction or its star that really drive those two films to inspire curiosity that this does not.

What is this film, you may wonder. Well, it's about a automobile salesman who wants to race and also get the daughter of his boss - even winning the big race in the middle of its 58 minute run-time doesn't convince the dad to let go of his daughter to be married unless they wait five years, because...1919, I suppose. Marion Fairfax helped write the scenario based on short stories done by Byron Morgan (Junkpile Sweepstakes, Undertaker's Handicap, Roaring Road), which turned out to be such a success that it inspired a sequel named Excuse My Dust the following year. Reid does fine, even if one doesn't really see that much of him (the auto scenes with him count, I suppose), but what can one really do with a name like Toodles? In the same year that he did this film, Reid suffered an injury to his scalp while in production for The Valley of the Giants. Treatment to relieve his pain at the time meant addiction to morphine that would torment him for the following three years in which he kept working in films before his death in 1923 at the age of 31. Little is okay, although she doesn't really seem to show that much passion (one would expect that from a film that favors its race action a bit more, really). Roberts (introduced to us after a quick shot of a bear to open the film) is also okay, playing to the strings of the plot with reasonable unreasonableness. In the end, this is a fairly mediocre effort that just can't inspire a shift into second gear despite all the chances to do so. You wouldn't hate what you see on screen by any means, but you also wouldn't really like it all that much either.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Pursuit to Algiers.

Review #1262: Pursuit to Algiers.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Marjorie Riordan (Sheila Woodbury), Rosalind Ivan (Agatha Dunham), Morton Lowry (Steward), Leslie Vincent (Prince Nikolas / Nikolas Watson), Martin Kosleck (Mirko), Rex Evans (Gregor), John Abbott (Jodri), and Gerald Hamer (Kingston) Produced and Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, #1021 - The Spider Woman, #1040 - The Scarlet Claw, #1056 - The Pearl of Death, #1161 - The House of Fear, and #1216 - The Woman in Green)

Review: 
As the Rathbone-Bruce batch of Holmes films gravitates towards its end, one would imagine that this film (the twelfth of the series) would continue on the decent path of the others with its traditional pacing and fair quality alongside offbeat choices involving plotting or characters. After all, this is a movie that starts with Holmes getting a clue to a secret place from a menu with fish and chips and then being recruited to escort a prince back to his country on a plane that is too small for both Holmes and Watson (because one needs a famed detective to escort a prince home). At least one can't say these films have given up on making themselves sticking out (this happened to be released three months after The Woman in Green). Surprisingly (or not), Holmes is presumed to be dead (again) when the plane is shot down, but he shows up on the ship with Watson en route to Algiers because he doesn't like plans set up by others (I can agree with that).  Really, you could make a comedy about these assassination attempts at the prince (disguised as Watson's nephew, because he has quite the resemblance), ranging from trying to poison the tea to knife throwing through a port-hole (ouch) to exploding paper hat packages, but at least one can say they'll have some sort of smile when watching this film, which is mostly set on a ship. It even finds time for a song for Watson to sing, which goes along fine actually. There isn't much of a mystery this time around, since you get to know who the assassins and their plot very early on, so it really seems more of a quiet thriller more than anything, complete with red herrings (with diamonds that don't matter, no less) to boot. At least there are some references to previous Holmes works that will make it seem a bit interesting, such as Watson talking about a giant rat of Sumatra. The highlight of the film proves to be the duo of Rathbone and Bruce, who walk through this conventional kind of vague mystery film just fine, with the latter having his own moments that aren't just there to make fun of the character he plays, such as the aforementioned song or when he believes that Holmes is dead and has to collect himself. The other cast-mates are hit and miss, save for the main trio of villains, who don't even get a showdown scene with Holmes. Imagine watching a movie for 65 minutes and having a twist ending instead of some silly showdown where Holmes and Watson could outsmart three bumbling agents (one of them being wrestler Wee Willie Davis). This is a ridiculous movie, but in the collection of Sherlock movies, it is at least light entertainment that works itself out just fine. You won't find yourself frustrated at what you see, unless you are a strict enthusiast for the Holmes canon or really want something more from the 12th of fourteen movies from seven decades ago. For me, this is just fine. Can one strive for films more (or less) than fine? Sure, but this will work for those curious enough to look further.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ghost Rider (2007).

Review #1261: Ghost Rider.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Johnny Blaze / Ghost Rider), Eva Mendes (Roxanne Simpson), Wes Bentley (Blackheart / Legion), Sam Elliott (Carter Slade / Caretaker), Donal Logue (Mack), Peter Fonda (Mephistopheles), Brett Cullen (Barton Blaze), David Roberts (Captain Jack Dolan), Laurence Breuls (Gressil), Daniel Frederiksen (Wallow), and Mathew Wilkinson (Abigor) Directed by Mark Steven Johnson (#443 - Daredevil)

Review: 
What can you really say about something like this? If you've seen one superhero film, does it mean you've really seen them all? With the case of a film like this based on a Marvel comic character of the same name (created by Roy Thomas, Gary Friedrich, Mike Ploog that made its first appearance in 1972 - an oddly appropriate decade for a character like this), I really did have a curiosity to see exactly what was going to happen with a film about a guy who turns into a leather-clad flaming skeleton on a bike because he sold his soul to a certain individual. The execution, needless to say, does not exactly come off well enough to make this a solid winner. It seems to strive for a over-the-top kind of action glitz that films like Blade (1998) did with its outlandish premise, but it flails around with awkwardness that is more akin to other comic book films of its ilk like Fantastic Four (2005) or even Johnson's previous work with Daredevil. In going for a supernatural kind of comic book film with tinges of a Western and Horror, the resulting concoction is much like being told a long and winding story by someone hanging around your friends that you accidentally started: ridiculous and messy while having you learning what a waste of time looks like. Is there really a way to make a movie about a bounty hunter for the wicked seem involving? Perhaps there is a way, but this is really not the best way to make it happen. If I don't care about the stakes of what is going on with its main mystical plot or what is being fought for (some sort of evil contract that can't fall into the wrong hands because...reasons), then what chance does the cast have in making this stuff come alive?

Cage, who evidently lobbied hard to portray this character, surely does seem like he wants to bring eccentric charm to a Evel Knievel/growly skull man kind of guy. He does seem hammy, but at least he seems like he really wants to be there, even if he can't quite show much chemistry with Mendes, who seems as interested in this material in the same way one is interested in looking at the painter paint one side of the wall. Nobody has a completely terrible performance, but nobody really pulls off a show-stopper kind of fun time either. If only one could say much about Bentley and his adversarial role more than a sentence: his character is an undeveloped joke that is too laughably terrible to be taken seriously as a threat, with Bentley looking more and more like he picked the wrong film in each scene. Elliott is likely the one actor who comes off without much ridicule, in part because one feels the need to see him in more scenes besides being the deliverer of exposition (whether through his rich voice or not) who leaves before the climax can start (complete with a sequence with him on a horse and Cage on a bike that ends with him leaving). There is a certain curiosity to seeing Fonda on screen, wondering how he would play a man of the darkness, which is quickly extinguished by the fact that you don't see him enough. If one wanted to use an analogy, he is essentially three pieces short of a whole devil's food cake, if it were made out of some sort of weird cardboard. The film ultimately feels flabby with where it wants to really go with its story (also done by Johnson) and tone. The action sequences seem more something you have to struggle to take seriously, especially when it comes to its climax, where the stakes have never felt so mild. Maybe this could have been a tongue-in-cheek film, or a self-serious one that really wanted to be supernatural with some action thrown in. Instead, you get a film that doesn't really please anyone unless you need to kill two hours (110 minutes for the original cut and 123 for the extended cut because of course there is more) and don't have one of the other comic book films laying around. What kind of sentence can really close such a mediocre piece of dreck like this. Honestly, I have just six words: Ghost Rider is a flaming disaster.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.

Review #1260: Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.

Cast: 
Zoe Margaret Colletti (Stella Nicholls), Michael Garza (Ramón Morales), Gabriel Rush (Auggie Hilderbrandt), Dean Norris (Roy Nicholls), Gil Bellows (Chief Turner), Lorraine Toussaint (Lou Lou), Austin Zajur (Chuck Steinberg), Natalie Ganzhorn (Ruth), Austin Abrams (Tommy), and Kathleen Pollard (Sarah Bellows) Directed by André Øvredal.

Review: 
Horror can certainly be affecting for its audience, whether young or old. If anyone can speak to being scared, children certainly have plenty of stories to tell, even after they grow up. This is a film adaptation of the story collection of the same name (consisting of three short books that contained 25 stories each released from 1981 to 1991) that was written by Alvin Schwartz and illustrated by Stephen Gammell. I have a vague memory of checking out one of the books as a child, with one certain story lingering through involving a hook. One notable contributor to the film is Guillermo del Toro, who helped produced and co-write the story for the film, which has a modest budget of $25 million and a group of young leads that headline a film taking elements from the books into one cohesive narrative (as opposed to an anthology film). The final result is a decent movie, having a few scares that will work for its target audience of folks looking for some scares whether they know about these familiar monsters or not. Within its main group of castmates, there certainly isn't a weak link among the kids when it needs to focus on moments besides being scared; Colletti carries the film with charm and resourcefulness that makes her well to follow along with right from the get-go. Garza does just fine with following along without becoming too much of a quiet outlier to the film's detriment. Rush and Zajur contribute to a laugh or two as the other cogs in the film's young core (which also features brief moments for Toussaint and Abrams, albeit in the first half) that play just okay. On the whole, while the film doesn't have enough characters to really make for the possibility of a substantial bodycount, at least one does find themselves having a little investment into where the film will go without just waiting for a monster to show up. Of the ones that do appear, I would say that the Jangly Man is probably the most creepy, although there isn't a weak link in the weird bunch. The 1968 setting was a bit of a surprise, but at least it does utilize it to make a few timely scenes stick out just well without just seeming pointless. The narrative that is built around these monsters (and the stories that they come from) is decent, built on safe foundations without bordering on too many cliches to make things less than compelling, where the chills don't become withheld because of weak storytelling. It does set up some bait for the possibility of further tales, and I find that to be something I can look forward to without much hesitation. Whether accompanied with loyal friends or not, this will prove worthy for a look.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Serious Moonlight.

Review #1259: Serious Moonlight.

Cast: 
Meg Ryan (Louise), Timothy Hutton (Ian), Kristen Bell (Sara), Justin Long (Todd), Nathan Dean (Detective), Andy Ostroy (Police Officer), Kimberlee Peterson (Trashy Girl), Derek Carter (Man #1), and Bill Parks (Man #2) Directed by Cheryl Hines.

Review: 
Some movies are just meant to stay in the movie bin. This isn't even a case of just being dreadful - this is a movie is too lame for even ironic watching like someone could do for Troll 2. The film can be summed up through three questions: Where is the comedy? Who thought this would be a good idea? Why is the film predictably pathetic? The best answer I have for any of these questions is this: Someone really thought this was going to work. This was written by the late Adrienne Shelly, who had written/directed/co-starred with Hines in Waitress (2007), with her widow being one of the producers of this film. This was shown at the Tribeca Film Festival in early 2009 before being acquired by Magnolia Pictures, who released it through their Ultra Video on Demand program one month before theatrical release. I am curious to wonder how many people decided to check this out on the streaming platform (barf) out of curiosity and how long they lasted before shutting it off. It amazes me that one can make an 84 minute movie seem interminable to go through. This is evidently a black comedy, and I say evidently in the loosest sense because it is roughly at the enjoyment level of lemon juice squeezed right onto your face in terms of humor. It is a film that is filled with contrivances in order to drive a romance angle that never really takes off - maybe there could be something funny about taping up your husband until he is persuaded that he still loves you and not his mistress, too bad this isn't the one to do it with. I shouldn't have been surprised that this scheme actually works, but maybe I really thought someone facing consequences for something so stupid could actually lead to a laugh. Obviously I should know better from a film with a title not to be confused with a David Bowie concert tour.

Who does one blame for such a blandly derivative film? You really can't blame the quartet of actors saddled with this material, who either got a memo to scream in every other scene or just really thought this was the way to go. Ryan (years removed from mediocre rom-coms like Sleepless in Seattle) is stuck in such a thankless position, where the dubious honor of trying to serenade her husband with a guitar is compounded by him being taped to a toilet after being knocked out (again). She is meant to have some sort of high-strung energy, but it never really comes out in a useful way to make me care. Hutton (spending most of his time acting from a toilet, a sentence for which I have to compose myself before I collapse from laughing) is similarly stuck with either having to shout or trying to be snide, which could be funny if the film wanted to do so. After all, it is just these two for over half the film. To say nothing of Bell, energetic yet not in the film enough to make more laughs. Long playing a robber sounds like a punchline already, but he mostly spends his time either hitting Hutton or lazily robbing them with his friends, which isn't as fun as it sounds. It gets stuck between the gear of sentimentality and cynicism and never gets out, where the direction and the script harmonize into ridiculousness that disappoints and irritates the audience at once. Nothing ever feels like it matters, with no real sense of consequences in any sense to be found. Why should I care about this loveless marriage and the attempts to revive it? Why should I care about them being tied up in their own house? Why make an implication with the ending about the couple seeing the robbers in the street after reconciling if you won't actually go anywhere with it? Is this really a film that needed to end before it even reached 90 minutes? As the questions ride over my head like a never-ending drumbeat, I can only say that this is the weakest kind of terrible movie - a whimpering and pathetic piece that can be mocked to oblivion and still have the insolence to linger there in its defeated state until the magnifying glass is taken off. The best thing to say for this film isn't to yammer about how awful it is for an essay longer than needed - if you see it sitting somewhere on a shelf or as an option on a streaming service (again, barf), just ignore it. By not watching it, you've saved those minutes for something better. Whether spent alone surfing the Internet, or spending time at work, or spending time with friends (whichever seems realistic), Serious Moonlight makes the case for appreciating doing those things more often as opposed to seeing the film more than zero times.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

K-19: The Widowmaker.

Review #1258: K-19: The Widowmaker.

Cast: 
Harrison Ford (Captain 2nd Rank Alexei Vostrikov), Liam Neeson (Captain 3rd Rank Mikhail "Misha" Polenin), Peter Sarsgaard (Lieutenant Vadim Radtchenko), Joss Ackland (Marshal Zolentsov), John Shrapnel (Admiral Bratyeev), Donald Sumpter (Captain 3rd Rank Gennadi Savran), Tim Woodward (Vice-Admiral Konstantin Partonov), Steve Nicolson (Captain 3rd Rank Yuri Demichev), Ravil Isyanov (Captain 3rd Rank Igor Suslov), Christian Camargo (Petty Officer Pavel Loktev), and George Anton (Captain-Lieutenant Konstantin Poliansky) Directed and Produced by Kathryn Bigelow.

Review: 
I could make up a sentence about how tense submarine dramas can be when done right, but I can't really say I have watched many of them. Sure, I have watched films with submarines before (like Fantastic Voyage), but the only submarine film I have covered was The Hunt for Red October (1990). Honestly, the urge to watch this film has never really been high, but sometimes you just have to get rid of the non-obvious picks so it never ever needs to linger on the shelf uncovered, especially for such a meh month like August. Is there anything interesting one could say about this film? Well...at least you can see the ambition (i.e money spent) jump at you on screen. As annoying as it may seem to note its box office failure (making only $65 million on a $90 million budget, with one production company being the National Geographic Society), it does become evident not too long into its run-time why this wasn't a big hit. Ford and Neeson can only do so much with a film that just does the bare minimum with garnering tense entertainment. It weebles and wobbles for 138 minutes, playing a game of tension and reaching stalemate more times than garnering overall victory. There are other ways of spending two hours, and this ranks as a middling option. One can be really wishy-washy about a film that just isn't energetic enough to really heap praise over nor crow about.

One thing I can note is the fact that the set of the sub is actually the same size of the real K-19 sub this film is loosely adapting from, complete with narrow corridors. Even if the film isn't completely accurate to historical facts involving the real K-19 (whose nickname upon the accident was actually Hiroshima), at least it can be said that this isn't a complete embarrassment to the real crew members that were on the ship, who had objected to the initial script (with the resulting script revisions also resulting in changing the names of the crew). At least the sub action seems pretty authentic, which can go hand in hand with the radiation effects. Ford and Neeson play off each other fairly well with what they are given - you may not get to really know these two beyond just being the heads on a cursed ship, but at least they seem fairly interested to be there - with ensuing attempts at Russian accents seeming okay. The other members of the cast are fine, if not really anything to write home about more than a sentence or two, with Sarsgaard showing fair promise at least. If one knows about a historical event (and its participants) more than just a search on the Internet, does it help in the enjoyment (or the opposite) of the film adaptation? It certainly seems a bit interesting to take a subject that didn't really have much notoriety due to the crew not being able to speak on the matter for decades and try to make something worthy for film, for better or worse. There isn't any shoehorned characters there for the sake of being there, and it holds itself up as a film without being too contrived even during its climax and epilogue scene. If the film makes you care what could happen to these characters in the sub, then it surely has done the job of making worthy entertainment. If the shoe fits, surely you could have a fine time with this one. If it doesn't do that (as is the case with me), try another film.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Pee-wee's Big Adventure.

Review #1257: Pee-wee's Big Adventure.

Cast: 
Paul Reubens (Pee-wee Herman), Elizabeth Daily (Dottie), Mark Holton (Francis Buxton), Diane Salinger (Simone), Judd Omen (Mickey Morelli), Alice Nunn (Large Marge), Phil Hartman (Reporter), John Harris (Andy), Daryl Keith Roach (Chuck), Carmen Filpi (Jack), and Jan Hooks (Tina) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, and #969 - Planet of the Apes (2001))

Review: 
It certainly proves interesting to wonder how a film gets itself into creation, whether through the efforts of its director or its main star, particularly with a film that features interesting cases for both categories. This was the theatrical debut of Tim Burton, who prior to this film had worked a few years at Walt Disney Productions under the animation department after his work in shorts at the California Institute of the Arts such as Stalk of the Celery Monster (1979). He made two short animated films with the studio in Vincent (1982) and Frankenweenie (1984) before being fired by the studio for making work too dark and scary for children to see. However, it was the style shown by Burton in his shorts that inspired Reubens to have Burton direct the film. Reubens had previously spent time with the sketch comedy club The Groundlings, with one of his friends being Phil Hartman, who helped co-write the film (alongside Michael Varhol and Reubens). He started a show with the character of Pee-wee Herman (a character he had developed in 1977 with the original idea being "a really bad comic, somebody you would look at and go, 'This guy's never going to make it.') after being rejected by Saturday Night Live for the doomed 1980-81 season (doing so through borrowed money and the help of people such as Hartman); the show proved to be a success, moving from being a midnight show to being shown at Los Angeles' Roxy Theatre - one of his showings there was subsequently taped and later shown by HBO in 1981. Reubens and the writers shifted the film's focus from being a re-telling of Pollyanna (1960) to one about a cross-country trek to find a bike due to seeing everyone of the Warner Bros set using bikes to get around (insert 1985 reference here, naturally). With a run-time of 91 minutes, what could one expect from something as offbeat as this? Honestly, I really didn't know what to think could happen with this one, especially with this being the first of many Burton films, which can be very creative with their main subjects with mostly positive results. This proves true with his initial film effort, which is a quirky yet endearing piece of entertainment that is generated from its main character in charge. Reubens plays off this oddball with a playful charm that doesn't come off as too over-the top or annoying without some sort of levity to go around. We have fun seeing him going through the country without being impatient to see it really end, particularly when it gets interesting for its climatic moments in the Warner Bros studio, which probably ranks as the key highlight. The other members of the cast do fine with their segments on screen beside Reubens, which certainly are scattered well throughout. It shines with its music by Danny Elfman that is as playful as the style wants to be, being interesting for both the children and adult kind of audience sensibility that likes to go across the room with silliness like a live-action cartoon that balances with a sturdy enough plot to make it worth it. It is an interesting curiosity to start Tim Burton's run of theatrical work, standing just as well with certain films of his without hesitation that will prove for some fun for those whose seek it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Review #1256: Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (John Smith), Angelina Jolie (Jane Smith), Vince Vaughn (Eddie), Adam Brody (Benjamin "The Tank" Danz), Kerry Washington (Jasmine), Keith David (Father), Chris Weitz (Martin Coleman), Rachael Huntley (Suzy Coleman), and Michelle Monaghan (Gwen) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper)

Review: 
What can you really expect from a summer blockbuster like this one? Perhaps it is good that I didn't have many expectations for one aimed to deliver action and laughs, as it makes the disappointment over the final result less awful to bear. If I actually felt something of interest over these characters when it comes to the action scenarios or the sitcom-level atmosphere besides it, this could actually fit just fine as a neat gem to eat popcorn with. As is, it i's just a mediocre product that feels like it should be much better, headlined by a cast that seems like it wants more to do. Sure, you could say that Pitt and Jolie make for a decent team, but they just seem stuck in something more pale than Lethal Weapon 4 - at least that film's highlight wasn't a dance between its main two characters. Chemistry is one thing, but how about a script with something more substantial to go with it? This is especially apparent when it comes to the scenes beside the action sequences, where there isn't really anything too funny or charming, where the lines feel like they want to be yukked out on a sitcom than an actual film. Even the therapy scenes seem bereft of something interesting to write something about. The action sequences are alright, but nothing too special to really write home about. I never really feel that either of them are in any actual danger, especially for its climax. Obviously they aren't going to hunt each other down, so why would I think a bunch of spies are going to finish the job for them? It just seems ridiculous to begin with that they could actually hide this sort of info from each other for years - actually, what exactly is the film's endgame if their agencies went to go take them down but failed the first time? An episode of Get Smart probably has more personality with their agency than this film, honestly. Vaughn gives off a few laughs in the brief time he shows up; Brody is essentially an afterthought until he has to deliver a key plotpoint before the climax. Washington and David aren't too particularly involved with things too much to make highlights of. On the whole, the film likes to talk a big game with trying to mix action and comedy, but it sure comes up flabby in the final result - it fits more for background noise than something really put on for involvement. I would say that this should be expected from someone who gave us Jumper (which can also be said for its writer, Simon Kinberg), but this actually was the film done by Liman three years prior. Imagine going from this to Jumper. If you have to make a mediocre product that will make a bunch of money and being just okay, this is probably a decent example of that scenario.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Do the Right Thing.

Review #1255: Do the Right Thing.

Cast: 
Spike Lee (Mookie), Danny Aiello (Sal), Ossie Davis (Da Mayor), Ruby Dee (Mother Sister), Giancarlo Esposito (Buggin' Out), Bill Nunn (Radio Raheem), John Turturro (Pino), Richard Edson (Vito), Roger Guenveur Smith (Smiley), Rosie Perez (Tina), Joie Lee (Jade), Steve White (Ahmad), Martin Lawrence (Cee), Leonard L. Thomas (Punchy), Christa Rivers (Ella), Robin Harris (Sweet Dick Willie), Paul Benjamin (ML), Frankie Faison (Coconut Sid), Samuel L. Jackson (Mister Señor Love Daddy) Produced, Written and Directed by Spike Lee.

Review: 
When it comes to great movies, there is generally a sense early on its duration where you know this is going to be more than just a good experience of entertainment. For me, the turning point was probably a short sequence involving Aiello and Turturro's characters involving the latter wanting the former to close down his pizzeria and do something else with his life as opposed to serving the neighborhood any longer than has been the case for 25 years. You have had a look into these people's lives over the course of the film up to now (all of which over the course of one day, naturally), so seeing how a conversation can have some certain preconceived notions seem to bubble even further than what has already happened on screen. One lives on his pride for the people that grew up on his pizza while the other feels nothing but loathing resentment, where being accosted by a guy selling pictures on the street means being rude and loud to their face. This is such a vibrant film, one that grasps for what it wants to say about intercity life and the people that accompany it with their respective type of personalities and preconceptions. For what its worth, the film is still relevant three decades after its release now more than ever, seeming in step in terms of its execution of direction from Lee to bring these characters to life alongside a story that clicks without a hitch from start to finish. Aiello is the best of a group with plenty of useful castmates to go around, showing plenty of surly ruggedness one could expect for such an interesting character however one interprets him and his actions. Davis shines just as well, having a mix of humor and dignity with his key role whenever necessary, whether when on screen talking about doing the right thing or something else. Turturro and Edson certainly play the brotherly sided coin with a fair edge, where their differences stand clear alongside brotherly ties without having a safe closure. Nunn plays the key in making his time count, compelling with a boom box as company.

Whether the character is involved with an amusing moment or something more serious, each actor do their part to make it stick with conviction, whether it is the corner-men of Harris-Benjamin-Faison and their cracks through the day or the time spent at the pizzeria and the people working (and mostly talking) on food for the neighborhood, with the two hour run-time slipping by without much struggle. When the film shifts itself from a mix of comedy and drama to a sudden turning point, it hits with a devastating punch - whether one knows anything about what happens in the film or not before viewing, it makes a key point on the nature of prejudice and what makes for the right thing when the moment needs it. In addition to all of this is wonderful cinematographry from Earnest Dickerson, who does well with making the look of the film seem readily consistent to take place over a day with good lighting (in general, it is quite an achievement to make a film in a few weeks on location) and also good music from Bill Lee. It keeps the pedals rolling without betraying its efforts for its conclusion, keeping a roaring spirit that progresses beyond the final reel. On the whole, this is a thoughtful and entertaining film that pulls quite a punch with forming an interesting world come alive and show the layers beneath the quirks, for which one can still learn from now. It is worth a viewing, preferably with a crowd.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004).

Review #1254: The Manchurian Candidate.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Major Bennett Marco), Meryl Streep (Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw), Liev Schreiber (Congressman Raymond Prentiss Shaw), Jon Voight (Senator Thomas Jordan), Kimberly Elise (Eugenie Rose), Vera Farmiga (Jocelyn Jordan), Jeffrey Wright (CPL Al Melvin), Simon McBurney (Dr. Atticus Noyle), Bruno Ganz (Delp), Ann Dowd (Congresswoman Beckett), Ted Levine (Colonel Howard), Miguel Ferrer (Colonel Garret), and Dean Stockwell (Mark Whiting) Directed by Jonathan Demme.

Review: 
One could say plenty about the idea of remaking classic films, particularly when it comes to one as classic as the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate. As much as one could want to deride yet another remake for the sake of remakes, the idea to try and update the Richard Condon novel for the current age does show enough promise to make things seem palpable. The original film was a neo-noir/suspense thriller that had plenty of power within its cast and other elements that inspired plenty of shock and biting satire that one would assume continues as much the second time around. The key differences between the original and this version involves updating the enemy from nefarious communists to an equally nefarious private equity firm alongside making both Shaw and his mother politicians along with one crucial twist involving the climatic assassination. In general, this film also seems more paranoid and aware of its surroundings of when it was made, which stands fairly firm even after fifteen years since its release. Those who are familiar with the work (novel or film) will see where it is going to end up, but it doesn't mean the surprises aren't still there waiting to pounce, most of which land just fine. It surely must've proved a challenge for director Jonathan Demme and writers Daniel Pyne & Dean Georgaris to try and make a follow-up worth the impact that John Frankenheimer and George Axelrod did with direction and writing the first time around. I do think that the final result is a fairly welcome one, deserving of existing alongside its predecessor as a capable if imperfect political thriller.

At least one can say the main foundation of cast members is sturdy to try and hold things together, whether they have time on screen to make a lasting impression or not. In this sense, Washington does a fine job with what is given, taking a different road from what was tasked before, showing plenty of conviction in trying to hold things together enough to grasp at the truth behind what he experienced and what hides behind with what isn't know. Streep shows plenty of fierce vigor whenever she enters the screen, whether when dealing with her on-screen son or with other forces at work, with her ruthless presence being felt handily. Schrieber handles his task without too much difficulty, where you can see the manufactured side of who he has been made to be alongside the vulnerability of what comes out at the surface that can't be meshed out. Voight and Farmiga don't have as much to do here as before, in part because of the fast-tracking that means the nomination goes without too much difficulty (with the rivalry between Voight and Streep not picking up as much steam as it probably could have). Elise's character also undergoes a bit of changes (mainly to add a bit of connective plausibility to how she just happens to be on the same train as Marco besides just being a supermarket clerk), and she does okay with being in the margins of the plot, I suppose. The other members of the cast (including a criminally underused Stockwell) do okay, with Wright making the most impression in his one scene in the beginning, a shadow of himself that serves to cast against the light of heroism shown in the initial scene. After all, the brainwashing sequences (involving an influx of science-fiction) are spread out in the film as opposed to being laid out from the get go, which does tend to work out in the film's favor without being too hokey. Maybe it isn't as subversive as it wants to really be, but at least it does reach some sort of thoughtful levels in its end. It isn't a film that will inspires many re-watches, but I would postulate that it is at least worth one look of consideration, having a cast that clings to a cynical update on what was done before with a little bit of polish and shock to go with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Igby Goes Down.

Review #1253: Igby Goes Down.

Cast: 
Kieran Culkin (Jason "Igby" Slocumb, Jr.), Claire Danes (Sookie Sapperstein), Jeff Goldblum (D.H. Banes), Amanda Peet (Rachel), Ryan Phillippe (Oliver "Ollie" Slocumb), Bill Pullman (Jason Slocumb, Sr.), Susan Sarandon (Mimi Slocumb), Bill Irwin (Lt. Ernest Smith), Jared Harris (Russel), and Celia Weston (Bunny) Written and Directed by Burr Steers.

Review: 
Call it writer's block, call it a logjam - this review took over a week to actually come to fruition, with two reviews sandwiched between UHF and this.

What is there to say about a film like this? It is an independent comedy drama that likely fits best to languish on a film shelf for years before you eventually get around to actually seeing if its worth it. The most annoying films to write about are the mediocre ones, where it isn't a terrible experience to sit through but it also isn't anything to really write home about either. In the long run, this mixed bag middles too much with its misanthrope main character for its first half while faced with more interesting supporting actors before its second half lands with a soft thud. There isn't a terrible performance in the bunch, nor is the film really that awful to sit through in the long run, but it sure takes its time in making itself seem worth a look, as if making a coming-of-age movie needed acidic foundations (in this case, a nutty rich family) to really make for entertainment. It feels like an interesting film when not faced with its silly misanthrope lead (or when he isn't being romanced / being assaulted by someone, like a therapist), but it really does seem at times more fitting for a novel than a film, albeit with a few chapters being tossed around. The best response one can have for the question of why should I care about what is going on is that it is meant to be sharply witty and observant, the kind of film that can picked and poked at the same way one could poke at The Catcher in the Rye, I suppose. This for a film that features a scene of someone who when told of how dirty he looks comes back to the family dinner table without clothes. When I really care about the movie is the parts around the main character - it needed more weird moments with people like Goldblum, Pullman, and Sarandon, who are each adept at garnering some humor along with showing the flip-side of life as an adult with some money - whether that involves hypocrisy or succumbing to pressures. I do at least appreciate Culkin for taking a role as ridiculous acidic as this one is and making an attempt to garner some humor. The same can be said for Danes and Peet, who clearly need more time on screen besides just being around the main character from time to time. Phillippe and Irwin provide small but useful moments. Sometimes a film can make you think about how you were growing up with all the changes that occur around you, whether through friends, family, or all of the above. Igby just happens to be on the fringes of adulthood - what better way to respond to it by skipping school, romantic moments, and plenty of loathing to go around. It sure wants to play cynical with its coming-of-age story - heck, why not go further? Fully drag its soap opera level of weird events to its natural conclusion - blather on for longer than 98 minutes and give these characters enough depth (and perhaps rope) to trap themselves within hypocrisy and what it means to be a human being - whatever that means. Go nuts and make this an attempt at garnering some real humor instead of trying to have it both ways with jokes and pathos. Of course one can't really take much of this that seriously, minus the parts involving Igby and his father (to a point); the time spent with him and his mother only really seems to come out in the second half rather than really drive the film home all the way. On the whole, this proves to be a frustrating film to sit through, where one can see the intentions from its director/writer Steers try to come out through a film that can't quite live up to making a clear resonating path. It becomes more depressing to see where the cast is and isn't used than the material itself, really. It may prove well for those who seek it out and have the right mindset for its tactics, but I just couldn't find this a clear enough winner to recommend it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Space Cowboys.

Review #1252: Space Cowboys.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Frank Corvin), Tommy Lee Jones (William "Hawk" Hawkins), Donald Sutherland (Jerry O'Neill), James Garner ("Tank" Sullivan), Marcia Gay Harden (Sara Holland), William Devane (Flight Director Eugene "Gene" Davis), Loren Dean (Ethan Glance), Courtney B. Vance (Roger Hines), James Cromwell (Bob Gerson), Rade Šerbedžija (General Vostov), and Barbara Babcock (Barbara Corvin) Directed by Clint Eastwood.

Review: 
This is one of those films that exists to deliver adventure for a certain kind of audience that surely is interested in seeing some entertainment without any rough challenges and a few visual winners. It runs at 130 minutes, but it sure seems to want to be familiar with predictable leanings that its main core four actors are up to making seem fun to sit with. After all, if John Glenn (fighter/test pilot turned astronaut turned U.S Senator) could be sent into outer space at the ripe age of 77, why not send four old pilots (with Garner being the oldest at 72 on release) into space to fix a secret satellite? Even the challenge of getting these folks up to speed with training (in 30 days, no less - for which publicity for this mission only comes in two weeks before launch) doesn't really seem to faze anybody in the film, especially not the audience. It does fall in the lines of a popcorn movie in that if you really wanted to poke a few jabs in its logic (the idea of sending an astronaut with terminal cancer comes to mind), you could, but I was at least entertained enough with what I saw to make this a winner by the margins, primarily because of its cast and effects. At least one cannot fault Eastwood for taking the script from Ken Kaufman-Howard Klausner and rolling with giving the film a bit of light charm in its journey without too many roaring bumps, essentially being the kind of film you could probably watch with your dad or mom and have a good time with (I remember my dad having interest in plenty of Eastwood films, nearly all of which in the bunch qualified as adventures like this), with even a Jay Leno cameo fitting the bill for what one could expect. It has a yearning for what was that certainly has aged a bit (particularly with the end of the Space Shuttle program) but will linger just fine with those who seek it. The effects-work from Industrial Light & Magic is well done as one could expect, capturing the essence of space and the moments that require some wonder and delivers pretty well, where one isn't taken out of the film and its shots of the shuttle or satellite in space because something seems too off-putting or ridiculous. As one would hope, it is the interactions between the core four that drive the film as forward as it wants, particularly when it is between Eastwood and Jones. Eastwood certainly is wiry enough to headline a last hurrah routine with a degree of persistence that only could come out in a mild adventure driven by Eastwood on both sides of the camera. Jones is just as wiry with plenty of rough charm that certainly gets its chance to come out plenty, whether when old wounds open up about who ruined whose shot at going to space or when doing some stunt piloting for an eager birthday man. Sutherland and Garner are both warm and engaging as the other useful cogs in this fairly oiled machine, fitting with what is needed just as one can hope. Harden, Devane, and Cromwell fill the other piece of the pie just fine, doing what needs to be done to further the film (whether it be exposition or occasional character moments with the main four) without bumps on the way. Dean and Vance are okay, but they feel a bit sidetracked when it comes to making any sort of comparison of the old guard (Air Force pilots) and the new type of astronauts, which might have been a bit interesting to go with. In the long run, what we have here is a film that aims for a tolerable standard blend of reality and movie-magic that will certainly feel par for the course in its execution but at least please its crowd just well enough to make things worth it, where the time goes by without too much waste to speak of.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.