Undertow (1949).

Review #1703: Undertow.

Cast: 

Scott Brady (Tony Reagan), John Russell (Danny Morgan), Dorothy Hart (Sally Lee), Peggy Dow (Ann McKnight), Bruce Bennett (Reckling), Gregg Martell (Frost), Robert Anderson (Stoner), Dan Ferniel (Gene), and Rock Hudson (Detective) Directed by William Castle (#369 - House on Haunted Hill (1959), #1071 - 13 Ghosts, and #1418 - The Night Walker) 

Review: 

Honestly, if you didn't know that the director was William Castle, would you bat an eye for this film? From 1943 to 1974, he made 56 films as a director, but it is strange to think that the films that you would recognize from him came in the last third of his career, one that saw him move past low budget crime affairs to low budget B-movies with sensational showmanship. But hey, the important part is that Castle was not just a director with one trick. He honed his desire of wanting to scare the pants out of audiences as a teenager to work in Broadway in a variety of jobs to a shot at Columbia Pictures before he was even 25 years old, and his first feature was The Chance of a Lifetime (released in 1943 as part of the Boston Blackie series of crime dramas). He moved to Universal Pictures with Johnny Stool Pigeon (1949). There isn't exactly a great deal of facts to talk about this feature, one where I can't explain why it is called Undertow, since that apparently sounded like a better one to market over the working titles of Frame-Up and The Big Frame (I guess framing is like a current of water?). The film was written by Arthur T. Horman (a busy writer for two decades) and Lee Loeb.

Honestly, for the brief sentences one can struggle to think about a movie that falls along the line of Castle's extensive early work, it proves to be a decent filler kind of movie. For a film noir, it works alright in generating tension in the moments that try to give off a sense of claustrophobia, one that has a selection of clichés you would see from a noir (such as the femme fatale or a race against time) that for the most part manages to not flub itself in getting to the finish line at 71 minutes while packing in a few nice shots of Chicago. Brisk is not a bad word to describe a movie, if you think about it. Granted, there are things to quibble about a movie involving a guy on the run having to prove his innocence for the murder of a kingpin where you don't even see the kingpin. It really is the kind of movie that focuses on the dry side of plotting that is exactly what you would expect from a programmer kind of movie. If you don't have that many cast members to begin with, the mystery can only go in a few directions that are more passable than clever; besides, having a small run-time means you can't have too much time spent on motivation, which affects Dow's character more so than anyone. It manages to have no terrible or great moments present, which means that the highlights really come from little sequences, such as a chase sequence with some steps or perhaps its quick climax that relies on a little confusion. Brady fares pretty well in one of his early roles in film, partaking in a slew of tough-guy roles while eventually adding on television to his line of work, which also can apply to Russell (each had a star role in a Western show in the following decade), who plays it pretty lean and fair. This was the first feature film for Dow, who had dabbled in modeling and radio before having a brief feature career; she does okay with a quiet part, one that can't be too contrived in innocence without seeming completely out of touch with the attempts at thrills and chemistry with Brady that pales when thinking of the allure generated in parts by Hart. Having Bennett's character be the way he is in the script is a bit of a stretch (an old buddy detective), but he at least makes it seem passable to what is needed in dry company. As a whole, one will either find comfort in its accomplishments of making a decent thriller with no frills or find it just a bit off their tastes. But one cant deny that Castle was the kind of director capable enough to try and make something out of nothing, and I suppose that makes it more than enough for the curious. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Review #1702: G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Cast: 

Dwayne Johnson (Marvin F. Hinton / Roadblock), Bruce Willis (General Joe Colton), Channing Tatum (Conrad S. Hauser / Duke), Jonathan Pryce (Zartan / President of the United States), Byung-hun Lee (Thomas Arashikage / Storm Shadow), Ray Park (Snake Eyes), Elodie Yung (Kim Arashikage / Jinx), Ray Stevenson (Firefly), D.J. Cotrona (Dashiell R. Faireborn / Flint), Adrianne Palicki (Jaye Burnett / Lady Jaye), Luke Bracey (Rexford G. 'Rex' Lewis / Cobra Commander; Robert Baker as voice), Walton Goggins (Warden Nigel James), Arnold Vosloo (Zartan), and Joseph Mazzello (Morris L. Sanderson / Mouse) Directed by Jon M. Chu.

Review: 

Do you remember G.I. Joe? All power to you then, because it has been essentially nine years since I last thought about it. G.I. Joe is a series of doll-I mean action figures that Hasbro began production on in 1964. There had been comics involving G.Is for decades, but Hasbro eventually came up with their own attempts at comics, with the most notable being a G.I. Joe series with Marvel Comics in the 1980s; an animated series also ran during that time that promoted the toy line and had its own film (which went from plans for a theatrical release to television after the failure of The Transformers: The Movie). At any rate, it should only make sense that a Hasbro property like this would eventually be turned into a live-action feature, seeing how Transformers (2007) turned out so "well". Five writers later, G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra (2009) came out to box office success amid ridicule from anybody looking for a good one to make fun of. I remember being twelve years old and seeing this movie in theaters only because I got a gift card to the movie theater as a present around that time,; I've probably seen that movie once or twice ever since, and its qualities haven't exactly improved since then. You don't really need me to tell you in a long spiel that it was a dumb movie, one catered to the tastes of script-logic akin to Transformers that had plenty of clunky moments.

So yeah, a sequel was warranted, and I guess it only makes some sort of arcane sense to get a director best known for dance movies to direct. The sequel was meant to be released in 2012, but Paramount Pictures (who in their odd wisdom wanted to do a reboot but not a reboot) shifted its release five weeks before its intended release because they wanted to convert the film to be shown in 3-D (because they wanted to make more money with a fad-I mean a great process for experiencing movies). Despite all of the hubbub, it was essentially just as successful as the original feature was (i.e. making back twice its budget). Eight years later, here we are talking about the release of a new G.I. Joe film...an origins story, which is amusing to think about (because hey, Transformers did it, so...). Anyway, this feature film was written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who were best known for their work on Zombieland (2009). You would think that making an ensemble cast movie series would mean that there is a bit of cast continuity between features...well, try again. Five cast members (Lee, Park, Pryce, Vosloo, Tatum) return from the previous film, and only two of them has a substantial speaking role as a hero (Park plays a mostly quiet ninja commando, but still). For a run-time of 110 minutes, this is a film that does the bare minimum in every department and flails slightly less than its predecessor in the art of balancing spectacle and the little thing they call "substance". Some movies can get away with being a fun time without having the greatest plot (like Commando, for example), but this is not one of those movies. There are not many sequels that are better than the first one that are also quite forgettable, but this sure is one of them. It is just a middling movie, one that fundamentally has no one great (or terrible) sequence to think about, because there are just a bunch of "eh" scenes with a plot that kind of floats around with a cast that doesn't have much footing to go around besides a few attempts at humor. Johnson surely seems like the kind of presence one would see coming to try and invigorate interest in a film, particularly since action seems to be right up his alley. While I can't say his performance is exactly anything good, he at least seems game for a movie with plastic ambitions at action with fairly solid composure; somehow, the filmmakers had the bright idea to kill off the lead guy of their first film with Tatum, and he looks about as interested as waiting for soup to cool off. Honestly, I can't tell which actor seems more in it for the money, Willis or Pryce (one gets to play the President and the other doesn't have to show up for almost a hour), and it is almost amusing to see them see them try to make these lines seem anything other than lines spoken by committee. I guess Lee does well here, in that he gets to a bit of swordplay and not have to wear a mask the whole time (as opposed to Park). The other members of the ensemble don't fare too well, seeming about as interested in talking action spiel as one would be interested in talking about the dynamics of why baseball is the greatest sport to follow to a bunch of Yankees fans. As a whole, what we have is a bland movie that goes boom a few times but never really goes farther than "do something!" in terms of maneuvering an interesting plot or characters beyond cliché. If one needs some sort of action fix in the modern era or need to waste time with people who should know better, at least make sure you check the whole totem pole of options before thinking about this one.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Little Caesar.

Review #1701: Little Caesar.

Cast: 

Edward G. Robinson (Caesar Enrico "Rico" Bandello), Douglas Fairbanks Jr. (Joe Massara), Glenda Farrell (Olga Stassoff), William Collier Jr. (Tony Passa), Sidney Blackmer (Big Boy), Ralph Ince (Pete Montana), Thomas E. Jackson (Sergeant Flaherty), Stanley Fields (Sam Vettori), Maurice Black (Little Arnie Lorch), and George E. Stone (Otero) Directed by Mervyn LeRoy (#596 - Random Harvest)

Review: 

There is an interesting curiosity one can find from movies made in the pre-Code era of Hollywood filmmaking. Sure, there were boards of censorship all across the country since the silent era, but one generally finds more interest in looking at the era of filmmaking when sound become prevalent in feature films. In other words, one sees things differently in film when you can hear the action to go along with it, regardless of the fact that public pressure would soon mount a Motion Picture Production Code that would soon oversee features for three decades. But that was in 1934, so let us jump back to 1931. This was the same year that saw the release of The Public Enemy (featuring James Cagney in the role that also made him a star) which came out three months after this feature, with each being based on written experiences in Chicago near gangster types, with this film being based off the book of the same name by W. R. Burnett (a novelist and screenwriter for decades who had resided in the city as a hotel desk clerk), with a screenplay written by Francis Edward Faragoh and Robert N. Lee (each nominated for an Academy Award for their work here, which they lost to the writers for Cimarron), with un-credited work by Robert Lord and Darryl F. Zanuck. Incidentally, Robinson and Cagney would star together in a feature together in Smart Money (1931), a crime drama that was the first and only time they starred together. For all the speculation about inspirations within the gangster Al Capone for either The Public Enemy or this feature (which drew not so much entirely on Capone but also criminals such as Salvatore "Sam" Cardinella), this was also the same year that he was charged and convicted of tax evasion that saw him put in jail. At any rate, those aforementioned films also made stars of their lead actors; Robinson had emigrated to the States from Romania as a child, but his first interest was in law before acting. Years spent in the theatre served him well when he started to make regular appearances in film with The Hole in the Wall (1929), which would be one of a handful of films he appeared in that ranged from second to supporting role (primarily in the crime drama genre). Of course, the gangster film did not entirely start with this film either, since one could argue that Underworld (1927) as the proto-gangster movie, and Lights of New York (1928), the first all-talking feature (which alongside Public Enemy and Little Caesar was released by the studio) also had elements of the crime drama in it. At any rate, Burnett was also one of the writers behind Scarface (1932), which also has stood as one of the lasting key pieces of the gangster film, particularly in the pre-Code era. 

At the helm for this feature is LeRoy, who had graduated from a brief stint in acting to writing comedies to directing his own features in the 1920s. Little Caesar is one of over thirty features that he would direct in the 1930s for a decade with plenty of audience appetite for films. As a whole, it might not be as devastating in raw entertainment as The Public Enemy, but its lead performance by Robinson essentially carries it enough to the point where it does not matter too much because one is having too much fun with the gripping interest generated in 79 minutes. LeRoy was one of the hardest working directors of his time, and it certainly shows in both his successes and missteps presented here, one that has some fairly well captured shots from cinematographer Tony Gaudio to accommodate some static moments (as is the case with early sound films, and this even has a few intertitles) without seeming too constrained or too apart while serving as a blunt instrument of efficient filmmaking. There would be a variety of gangster films over the next few years, but Little Caesar managed to stay its welcome with its reasonable edge for the subject that didn't go straight for easy tricks such as indulging in violence or confusing its message in simplified or complicated gobbledygook - it helped to build the clichés to gaze upon in the gangster film for years to come, if you think about it. You get a tale of someone rising the ladder in organized crime that doesn't pull punches, and Robinson is at the forefront of making this role his with no complication. He would find himself typecast in a variety of tough guy roles over the next few years (even taking a role in Larceny, Inc (1942) to offset his image with a comedy, which I fondly remember enjoying), and it isn't too hard to see why, owing to his voice and mannerisms that make him undeniably interesting to view through the film, whether spent trying to strong-arm Fairbanks Jr or strong-arm himself into the next big thing; everybody needs a good death scene in a gangster film (no matter how prepared/un-prepared one is for it), and he makes that final line stick with the right sense of doom and folly required. Fairbanks Jr and Farrell are meant to match him in sensibility, which generally works out fine in useful engagement without detracting from the general experience. The supporting cast prove worthy enough in setting the seedy atmosphere required in terms of grimy strength (ones that could be thought of as faceless brutes). Jackson plays the authority with coarse charm that doesn't serve to make this a straight moral tale. As a whole, its portrayal of the rise and fall of a crime lord proves quite interesting in cultivating a worthy atmosphere and tension within a great lead performance and fair support from others in a proven feature that has endured well for itself after eight decades since its release, a fitting marker for a star and director that had plenty of time to follow up their successes in their field.

On the board for the Count to Ten Project, updated.

1921: 5, 1922-23: 8 each, 1924: 9, 1926: 7, 1929: 5

1930: 6, 1934: 4, 1935: 5, 1936-37: 6, 1938: 5

1940-41: 8 each, 1944: 7, 1948-49: 8 each

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Goonies.

Review #1700: The Goonies.

Cast: 

Sean Astin (Michael "Mikey" Walsh), Josh Brolin (Brandon "Brand" Walsh), Jeff Cohen (Lawrence "Chunk" Cohen), Corey Feldman (Clark "Mouth" Devereaux), Jonathan Ke Huy Quan (Richard "Data" Wang), Kerri Green (Andrea Theresa "Andy" Carmichael), Martha Plimpton (Stephanie "Stef" Steinbrenner), John Matuszak (Lotney "Sloth" Fratelli), Anne Ramsey (Mama Fratelli), Robert Davi (Jake Fratelli), Joe Pantoliano (Francis Fratelli), Mary Ellen Trainor (Irene Walsh), Keith Walker (Irving Walsh), Steve Antin (Troy Perkins), and Lupe Ontiveros (Rosalita) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, #734 - Lethal Weapon 4, #1452 - The Omen, and #1542 - 16 Blocks)

Review: 

Richard Donner was a director that managed to channel a long career in film through his versatility and consistency. He honed his craft through television in the late 1950s and the 1960s while making his start in film with X-15 (1961) before having his breakthrough with The Omen (1976) that continued with the film that defined superhero adaptation for a generation with Superman (1978). He directed twenty films from 1961 to 2006 alongside taking time to produce films with his wife Lauren with the Donners' Company before his recent passing early this month. The Goonies was the eighth feature directed by Donner, and it certainly serves as one of the most interesting collaborations between filmmakers, if you think about it. Steven Spielberg contributed the story (which was his last story credit until A.I. Artificial Intelligence in 2001) while also serving as executive producer with Amblin Entertainment as the main production company, while Chris Columbus (best known for his work on Gremlins the year before) wrote the screenplay (the second of three collaborations as writer to an Amblin production, which closed with Young Sherlock Holmes the same year). I will admit that the curiosity for watching this film has varied wildly over the past few years, although some movies slip by the cracks when you grow up past being a kid (which happened about over a thousand reviews ago). But hey, I guess one needs imagination now and then, whether that involves riding bikes with friends, them telling you about big events in their life so you don't hear it second-hand, saving the community, or pirate treasure involving dead pirates. It depends on how much one can dwell on the adventure and the craftsmanship taken to get to that point in the guise of a movie for kids with plenty of syrupy tone to go around. If you thought E.T. the Extra Terrestrial (1982) was too odd to try and experience for oneself in terms of "connected" aliens for the kid at heart, why not go a different direction with a tilt awhirl of feel-good adolescence? At least one can't say that the vision of the director isn't consumed by the habits of their producer (this is more true for other features with Spielberg as a producer with Tobe Hooper's Poltergeist (1982) or Joe Dante's Gremlins (1984), for example). While there were rumblings of a potential follow-up for a number of years, no sequel has come from it (or even a remake), which seems to be appropriate no matter how much one likes the film (because, really, who needs to break the illusion?).

This is one of those movies that could be thought of as "classic-proof" to those who like it. For me, I just call it "okay-proof" and shrug my shoulders. The level of enjoyment depends on the level of patience one has for the contrivances displayed on screen (maps in the attic that happen to lead to treasure, the amount of booby traps in the road to the ship, finding jewels right before a big signing moment, et cetera). It likely hasn't aged as well as other highlight films that grabbed the attention of its audiences in the 1980s, but it does manage to have an appeal within a game cast and some interest in maintaining adventure after a sluggish start that will surely leave one satisfied enough with the concoction brewed by Donner. The kids are kids, really. I think at least one of the kids will remind you of yourself, so I suppose that is more of a compliment than if I was instead bored by syrupy sentiment or self indulgency, and this is for a film where four of its main seven kid actors are making their film debut (Astin, Brolin, Green, Cohen) and the most experienced actor is Feldman. In that sense, Brolin stands out the best among the fresh folks, mostly because his beleaguered elder presence is the most refreshing to see through the film, which is then followed by Plimpton, who provides fair timing to accommodate a mild Green (with milder chemistry shared against Brolin). Astin is fine, in the sense that he holds well to the quivering balance of adventure and goofball folks without seeming like a slam brand of bland man (of course, the scene at the well is hit-and-miss for me, but hey, if it is indeed your time, go ahead). Cohen did exactly one feature film before eventually deciding to study law, so I think it all makes out well for some decent comic relief that is more than just "haha Truffle shuffle". Feldman maneuvers fine in mouthy charm, while Quan gets to have a few chuckles with the gadget sight gag cycle. Sure, the kids are fine and all, but I find the adult trio of Ramsey-Davi-Pantoliano to be far more curious to view from time to time, particularly if one views them as a prototype for the foils in Home Alone (1990; Columbus did co-write the script for the film, after all). Ramsey generates a few chuckles for what is needed in that friendly balance of cartoon and cruelty that results in plenty of curiosity and moments to view with brazen warmth. The same goes for Davi and Pantoliano, each of which clearly had bigger and better roles to come when it comes to cultivate distinct presences beyond just "the heavy" (which works when using a trained singer doing opera for a joke). Football player-turned-actor Matuszak plays the heavy with the right balance of strength and timing to not become just an effects-show. Honestly, the best parts of the movie come out best when the film doesn't turn on the hokum full blast; it is nice film to look at when it comes to its trek across the water for a ship, and seeing a bunch of skeletons around does at least make the danger seem apparent to make sure one isn't too lost in syrupy antics for gold. It can be fun for those who want to have fun with it, and that will surely work enough for those who buy into the execution of a few gags of humor to go with its eventual end shot, which I admit is a nice touch. I can't quite go so far as to label it as a refined classic, but the lasting appeal has been there in the 36 years that have followed its release for those in need of movies with "heart", if you will.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Blues Brothers 2000.

Review #1699: Blues Brothers 2000.

Cast: 

Dan Aykroyd (Elwood J. Blues), John Goodman (Mack McTeer), Joe Morton (Commander Cabel Chamberlain), J. Evan Bonifant (Buster Blues), featuring Aretha Franklin (Mrs. Murphy), James Brown (Reverend Cleophus James), B.B. King (Malvern Gasperone), The Blues Brothers Band [Steve "The Colonel" Cropper (rhythm guitar / vocals), Donald "Duck" Dunn (bass guitar), Murphy Dunne (keyboards), Willie "Too Big" Hall (drums and percussion), Tom "Bones" Malone (trombone / tenor saxophone / vocals), "Blue Lou" Marini (alto saxophone / tenor saxophone / vocals), Matt "Guitar" Murphy (lead guitar), Alan "Mr. Fabulous" Rubin (trumpet / percussion / vocals)], The Louisiana Gator Boys [various musicians, featured below], Erykah Badu (Queen Moussette), Blues Traveler, Lonnie Brooks, Eddie Floyd, and Kathleen Freeman (Mother Mary Stigmata) Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, and #1465 - An American Werewolf in London)

Review: 

"I was very pissed off by what Universal did to me on ‘Blues Brothers 2000′ and that was my first experience with the new corporate Hollywood. It’s very different. Everything is by committee now, and they destroyed that movie, though the music is still good."

If you remember correctly, the Blues Brothers was the result of two guys who loved the blues. John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd (who credits Donnie Walsh and Richard “Hock” Walsh as the model for their characters) had performed together on Saturday Night Live with the act a few times before being asked by Steve Martin to be his opening act at one of his shows, which resulted in the live album Briefcase Full of Blues in 1978. This, alongside Belushi's success with Animal House (1978) only served to attract the interest of studios to engage in a bidding war to make a movie. Of course, that movie was racked by chaos involving substances and one half of its writing team being fairly green at the art of creating a screenplay. In other words, it wasn't easy to make a movie involving numerous music acts and the destruction of 103 cars while shooting exclusively in Chicago, or one that focused exclusively on the blues (in a time that was more about disco and less about the blues and soul) while dodging complaints of being too over-the-top (i.e. people who don't know shit) to become a classic. Perhaps it only makes sense that Aykroyd kept the name around with the chain restaurant (and live music concert hall) House of Blues, which has managed to have a few locations around the country, and Aykroyd has taken to tour on occasion with the band (alongside with John's younger brother, Jim). So yes, I suppose it makes sense that Aykroyd wanted to do another movie involving the blues and put more acts on film. Of course, it is also possible that Aykroyd and Landis wanted to re-capture lightning in a bottle when it comes to success - this was after all the sixth collaboration between the two of them, all of which that were done in the 1980s. Just remember, this was done in 1998.

Reportedly, Landis and Aykroyd did not have a great time with filming. While they were the writers behind the script, Universal Pictures made their stipulations clear that involved requiring a PG-13 rating and a child lead. Of course, the original pitch that the two was apparently just a re-hash of the original, since it would have featured a plot involving refurbishing the old orphanage (which would have featured Jim Belushi cast as "Brother Zee" alongside Goodman as a trio). Of course, Belushi could not do the film due to contractual obligations (at the time, he was cast in a lead part in the series Total Security, which didn't even make it to 1998), so the script instead was modified to include Morton. Have you ever seen a movie that looks and seems DOA as quickly as this one? Making a sequel eighteen years after the fact is already a tough task, but making a comedy sequel that has the task of replacing one part of its key nucleus is like trying to do The Three Stooges with only two actors. Of course, Belushi wasn't the only actor to have died in the gap between the two films (the film opens with a tribute to Belushi, Cab Calloway and John Candy). Oddly enough, everybody else in the Blues Brothers Band returns, and they all get to have a scene dedicated to re-uniting them all together, because how else would this film run for two hours? Well, there is one solution that would probably have worked to the benefit of everybody who don't care for stories about pint-sized kids getting mentors and voodoo witches: focus entirely on the music. Heck, cut around the "plot" with no explanation and call it artistic license, that would probably work just as well (that, or alienate a whole bunch of folks who wonder where Eric Clapton came from). Call it the "Mission from the Blues" Edition, if you will. Let me be clear: teenagers don't watch movies just because the rating is PG-13 instead of R, and they sure won't watch it just because there's a kid as one of the leads. That isn't say to that foul language and certain situations is important to making something people want to watch, but this is a movie that clearly is the result of studio notes from people who think they know better.

Perhaps it is my imagination or my memories have faded from the year that followed watching the original film, but Aykroyd seems to have thoroughly faded into nothingness when it comes to generating anything more than a quivering thought of a chuckle. The fact that he doesn't take off those Ray Ban sunglasses doesn't help either, a dubious marker of shame for someone who probably should have known better as both writer AND star. Honestly, I do wonder if Goodman would have prevailed with the original script when it comes to zippy energy. He seems kind of pale here, seemingly stuck in that suit and sunglasses like a statue without a home to draw a response. Morton gets to play both uptight authority and inevitable "Blues Brother" in the same film, and it is perhaps a fitting marker of dubiousness that his most notable scene is one where he sees the error of his ways by levitating in the air and changing his outfit. Embarrassment is a hard word to swallow when it involves your lead trio. Well, there is Bonifant, but you and I both know that child actors are either forgettable, passable, or terrible. Take a guess how he does. Perhaps if one had never heard of the original movie they would be okay with this one, or maybe if they watched it solely to see blues musicians play on a big screen. Name dropping is an annoying habit, but yes, there are quite a few performers to see (mostly near the end) for the "The Louisiana Gator Boys": B.B. King, Isaac Hayes, Lou Rawls, Billy Preston, Bo Diddley, Koko Taylor, you get the idea. It is far more interesting than the car wrecks or the attempts at plot that go nowhere (which involves the group being turned into plastic statues after being forced to play Caribbean music...???). In the end, this reeks of something you might see in the direct-to-video junkpile, yet here we are with a $31 million/123 minute movie of failure that benefits from moments of music more so than anything else - indeed, it is some sort of accomplishment to have brought back the same director and a portion of the same cast after many years apart and make a sequel inferior in every way. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Legally Blonde.

Review #1698: Legally Blonde.

Cast: 

Reese Witherspoon (Elle Woods), Luke Wilson (Emmett Richmond), Selma Blair (Vivian Kensington), Matthew Davis (Warner Huntington III), Victor Garber (Professor Callahan), Jennifer Coolidge (Paulette Bonafonté), Holland Taylor (Professor Elspeth Stromwell), Ali Larter (Brooke Taylor-Windham), Jessica Cauffiel (Margot), Alanna Ubach (Serena McGuire), Francesca P. Roberts (Judge Marina R. Bickford), Oz Perkins (David Kidney), Linda Cardellini (Chutney Windham), Bruce Thomas (UPS Guy), Meredith Scott Lynn (Enid Wexler), and Raquel Welch (Mrs. Windham-Vandermark) Directed by Robert Luketic.

Review: 

Well, sometimes you need a movie about the law to go with a tale of forging a path forward for oneself with confidence, I suppose. Legally Blonde is adapted from the novel of the same name, which was self-published by Amanda Brown in 2001 (although it should be noted that the 1994 copyright filing lists both Brown and Brigdet Kerrigan, who coincidentally had attended Harvard) based on the writer's experiences in Stanford Law School, which namely involved making fun of her classmates with letters sent back home to Arizona while reading Elle magazine; one key experience involved her going to a group for women attending the school that Brown found amusement over their serious tone (such as trying to change "semester" to "ovester"). She dropped out after two years, but she eventually cobbled a manuscript together; while it didn't attract much attention as a book, it did find interest with film studios, and one pitch that was used for it was "Clueless meets The Paper Chase". At any rate, the film was written by Karen McCullah Lutz and Kirsten Smith, who saw numerous script changes that turned a first draft with raunchy material into one with adversity to overcome and a murder trial (including an ending that came from test audiences caring about the success of its character rather than a kiss on the courthouse). In other words, a script that would probably have come off the heels of stuff like American Pie (1999) ended up being more of a feel-good movie that surely plays its own note in the blonde circuit (which has quite a few stereotypes that I'm sure would make for an interesting discussion somewhere else). This was also the feature film debut of Robert Luketic, a native of Australia who had been making short films since he was a teenager before his short Titsiana Booberini (1997) attracted Hollywood.

Honestly, it's just an okay movie. It's an obvious movie, one that plays exactly to the bone of "being yourself with confidence" that makes for a few chuckles for a 96 minute movie that sure takes its time to really get going, even when it has something to say about workplace dynamics in conduct (or perhaps not judging stuff like sorority life or law school by the cover...?) and something something feminist classic something something. Or something like that, because really it is the trial parts that are more up to speed in actually doing something beyond "aw shucks". You know how folks will randomly approach stars and have them do "classic stuff" at a convention? The appeal for this movie is kind of like that, albeit without as many nerd lingo (as any convention attendee would say). That, or it is basically a sports movie for sorority folks. Strangely enough, with a pitch evoking the name of Clueless (1995), it really doesn't seem to have that much "zing" to it, if you know what I mean. Sure, there are quite a few quirky moments, such as the "bend and snap" sequence, which sounds believable when you note that the writers came up with it while at a bar. It comes and goes, really, when you think about it. There is nothing here that is exactly harmful or ridiculous, and I imagine that it certainly proved an inspiration to at least one person when it came to law or perhaps something else - so yeah, average isn't the worst possible experience one could have with this feature. If it wasn't for Witherspoon, this probably would have been a lesser experience. Her sunny charm and wit certainly play off against the others well enough with flourishing interest that you would see from a "fish out of water" type without being played out, and its easy to see how two decades have only cemented the enduring entertainment that Witherspoon brings here. The others keep up fine for the most part. Wilson is casual enough to keep his portion of the film going well enough without asking for too much more (the aforementioned ending involved the two leads kissing at the end, but I think you can see why they just went with a different one). Blair brings up the snobby parts to where it needs to go (complete with the predictable stuff), which is followed by the snooty snake charm from Davis to go with the slithering calmness generated by Garber. Coolidge gets a chuckle in shyness while others get a line or two to show up (such as Larter doing some well-blown hysterics over gluteal efforts), which means that one will do just fine in keeping their attention airtight. As I stated already, it is the law parts that generate interest more, probably because its predictability is a little less obvious than the school segments, but that is probably just me. In the two decades that have followed the release of this film, a sequel was released alongside a musical and a spinoff, and it is perhaps representative of the legacy of the film that another sequel is in development. Is it predictable? Indubitably, but it has plenty of charm in the right places to make a worthy time for those in the mood for what it yearns to say about having fun as oneself without letting folks or other things get in their way. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Why Change Your Wife?

Review #1697: Why Change Your Wife?

Cast: 

Gloria Swanson (Beth Gordon), Thomas Meighan (Robert Gordon), Bebe Daniels (Sally Clark), Theodore Kosloff (Radinioff), Sylvia Ashton (Aunt Kate), Clarence Geldart (The Doctor), Mayme Kelso (Harriette), Lucien Littlefield (Butler), and Edna Mae Cooper (Maid) Directed by Cecil B. DeMille (#1245 - The Squaw Man (1914) and #1371 - Unconquered)

Review: 

“I love to take some vitally interesting theme and work it out according to life. That is what I am doing with Why Change Your Wife? These themes I am toiling on do a damn lot of good.”

Cecil B. DeMille made seventy feature films over the course of a four decade career, but one would probably be surprised to know that 52 of them were silent films. Sure, the sound features would play a key part in defining him as a crowd-pleasing director with scale and showmanship, but one can't get there without doing a few other kind of films in between for the Massachusetts native. This was the fourth film featuring Swanson directed by DeMille, which started with Don't Change Your Husband (1919) and ended with The Affairs of Anatol (1921). It happens to be part of a string of films that DeMille made involving marriage, although reading a description of the former film (prosaic husband, romantic wife) might make this seem a bit clearer. Of course, this film had a story done by William C. deMille (Cecil's older brother, who unlike his brother did not alter his name) while Sada Cowan and Olga Printzlau wrote the scenario. You may or may not be surprised that this is generally labeled as both a comedy and a drama. Consider the premise: a couple gets tired of each other and divorce each other before eventually falling in love again even with one of them being re-married. Of course, there are a few things that make this a bit interesting, starting with the character played by Swanson, described as someone whose "virtues are her only vices". By the sixth minute, a intertitle is shown that has her character gripe about her husband spending money on wine when one could be thinking about the starving millions in Europe. Her attempts at being a real goody goody extend to music choices, having a dog/not having a dog in the house, clothing, even sleeping next to each other in little separate halved beds. Amusingly, she is inspired to dress better not because of her divorced husband or because of a friend advising her to (we don't see anybody who looks like a friend to either of these folks, so one could just assume these people either don't have friends or they don't get involved in said stuff), but instead because she hears gossipers mocking her looking like her aunt. A myriad of weird events lead to a conclusion that I'm sure you already know, since this actually seems more like a DeMille instructional manual, but I suppose each lead learns a lesson about being a better spouse...well, I guess Swanson learns more than Meighan, but whatever.

So here we are with Swanson, Meighan, and Daniels. Really when you think about it, they seem to have an energy that could be seen as prescient to the screwball comedy that would come across a few years later, or even movies like Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941, although that divorce movie involved a love triangle with two guys). Swanson gets to play a bit of a double act in terms of balancing "goodliness" with daring charm, which just means that one gets a few chuckles, such as when she is sitting at the pool turning suitors away or when she does the old dangerous substance-in-the-eye wash trick. Meighan pulls enough in the mild bewildered act of dopey straight man to make it work without too many hitches, making sure that one does not grow annoyed at the potential annoyed amusement at someone striking out twice in marriage. This was the third feature role for Daniels, who had moved on from doing short subjects to doing contract work for DeMille. She plays the contrast to Swanson fairly well, peppy in her own way with flaws just as the other two that are interesting when paired with Meighan for (somewhat obvious) moments; each share a scene where one is trying to shave but is foiled by interruptions (because hey, that one bathroom is big enough for the two of us), and it is a bit amusing on the second run). Basically, you get to see how romance can go when piety and superficiality loom over it; either one is a "think of the children!" type or a loose woman...with this film, the latter seems more interesting, but I'm probably more familiar with pious hypocrites than either stereotype here - this is 1920, so consider that along with it.

DeMille made plenty of movies considered to be crowd-pleasers, and this fits that description to a T, although one's mileage may vary depending on how much curiosity they have on the subject of folks learning a lesson about marriage. Honestly, it is the intertitles that might generate more chuckles, if only because of how strange their details get with describing things (one ends with "optically a pippin", really). that either range from being one sentence too long or other various words. I especially admire this one card in minute eight, talking about the "husband's eternal problem" that uses the "-" three times while going on about what he's going to do and the "bad luck of a married man" he has in picking the shop; consider minute 39 with the idea of a mysterious force that gets people together who think of one another that they say "fools call it coincidence"...yeah, I think the writer is messing with the viewer. I especially like the times during the dialogue where certain words are underlined, but the nail on the coffin is near the end when the main two are on a train, where one intertitle talks about if this was fiction, there would be a train wreck or a terrible car accident (!), but in real life ("if it isn't a woman", right), something like a banana peel will change a guy's destiny. Either one is thinking the writers have decided to act out some gripes with themselves or others (some sort of weird therapy or perhaps a predecessor to further personal movies years later), or they are in the mindset of details, details, details (of course, maybe slipping on a banana peel didn't seem quite familiar in 1920). In the end, it is a 90 minute tale that will either entertain your curiosity for what DeMille and company accomplished in its blend of amusement and romance, or one simply will let it pass them by. For me, it is an okay movie, a strangely entertaining movie for some of the right reasons that makes for a very curious affair, one that passes a bit better in the second half while the intertitles manage to befuddle the audience. At any rate, this is in the public domain, so one can see for themselves if they want to encounter this film and its director for a century-old time.

Well, this is technically part of a new project. In coverage of Movie Night from 1921 to 1949, there exists eighteen years in which there are not at least ten reviews for said year (i.e. with this review, 1920 now has ten reviews one can look at). As such, I will commit a small part of my time to picking films from that era to increase the year output over the next few months; for example, 1929 has just five films that were reviewed by me. This "Count to Ten Project" will run as long as I see fit (incidentally, the 1910s will have their own certain project at some point this year).

On the board for the Count to Ten Project:

1921: 5, 1922-23: 8 each, 1924: 9, 1926: 7, 1929: 5

1930: 6, 1931: 9, 1934: 4, 1935: 5, 1936-37: 6, 1938: 5

1940-41: 8 each, 1944: 7, 1948-49: 8 each

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Secret of the Incas.

Review #1696: Secret of the Incas.

Cast: 

Charlton Heston (Harry Steele), Robert Young (Stanley Moorhead), Nicole Maurey (Elena Antonescu), Thomas Mitchell (Ed Morgan), Glenda Farrell (Mrs. Winston), Yma Sumac (Kori-Tika), Michael Pate (Pachacutec), and Leon Askin (Anton Marcu) Directed by Jerry Hopper.

Review: 

Inspiration is an interesting thing to define. When interviewed for her work as costume designer for the film Raiders of the Lost Ark, Deborah Nadoolman Landis talked about the costume of its main hero Indiana Jones and the inspiration for the character's clothing being this feature, adding "We did watch this film together as a crew several times, and I always thought it strange that the filmmakers did not credit it later as the inspiration for the series." Of course, when filmmakers George Lucas and Steven Spielberg wanted to guide the production crew on what the film should seem like in style and acting, this was one of the films, while the other was China (1943, featuring Alan Ladd), and it just so happens each movie was released by Paramount Pictures. Really though, looking at this feature under any eyes as some sort of proto-Indiana Jones is a bad idea, because it forgets the basic truth for this feature: it's just a mediocre adventure with a guy in a hat and leather jacket looking for fortune and glory (at least without an artifact that melts people's skin off). I don't mean to clog up a review for one film with stuff for another, but it is evident to see and say why one film has endured for forty years in the popular culture while the other has essentially languished in lesser stature after half a century, and it is the general energy in the adventure that makes that evident. I mean, we are talking a movie about a guy who likes to call himself a "tour guide" for gullible tourists coming off the plane in Peru who just happens to find part of a relic (which I will call the doohickey) that if found intact can help him find a shinier doohickey linked to the end of the ancient Incas; of course he has to find a way to travel there, so when someone conveniently happens to need to escape a person with a plane (so he can "borrow" it, get it?), he just happens to get himself to Machu Pichu to find the doohickey that already had archaeologists ready to find the doohickey for the natives. The only other thing that might make it seem different is the fact that the film was actually shot on location in Peru and that the film was for a time really hard to find on video formats. Besides, director Hopper would basically be more known for his work on television (ranging from Wagon Train to The Fugitive) more so than his features, with this being the fifth of his eighteen movies as director.

Technically speaking, there isn't anything too terrible to watch here for 98 minutes, it merely happens to just be a movie with very average marks for a film that lacks subtlety in the way one would expect from a noir, which fits the middling level excitement that you wouldn't think would happen in something meant to be an adventure. You get exactly what you would expect from a movie with blah chemistry and one clear unkempt adversary, which is really a whole bag of "okay, sure" - even having a random supporting character join in as a villain would have been a useful surprise to chuckle. This was the twelfth film role for Heston (who replaced Wendell Corey, initially cast as the lead), who by this point had cultivated a bit of success with features in the 1950s just before he became a bigger star. Even in a movie that resembles a B-flick, Heston still makes it a worthy time to at least try to watch, enterprising in his blunt approach to living that is in need of a lighter film or a noir with tension. This was actually the last film for Young, who had been acting in films since 1928; he might be best known for his second phase in acting on television, such as Father Knows Best (which he had the lead role in radio and television for eleven years). He really only shows up in the second half of the film (because remember, the film needs to spend quite a bit of time meandering before getting to the temple), and he seems a bit too quiet to really make an impression beyond just the blah-blah doctor role, and the idea of any chemistry with Maurey seems more like a father-daughter dynamic, really. Maurey plays a Romanian defector with the timing of a hat rack knocked down by a sloth. At least the Indiana Jones series would hone their craft in snappy chemistry between its leads without cribbing from the passé energy seen here. It might interest you to note that Mitchell was a prime star in film, television, and theatre (playing support roles generally just in the first category) that lasted for nearly half a century; he makes for an interesting unkempt kind of adversary, one that pops in from time to time to serve as a parallel to Heston of sorts (while being nearly undone by a terribly ironic last scene in which he is talking about gravity right before falling down a ravine). It might interest you to note the presence of Yma Sumac, performing folk music native to Peru that had an octave range higher than most singers (four and half compared to most trainer singers with three). Of course it also might not interest you to hear multiple performances of Sumac, because really it kind of drags the film down a bit in what we call "get to the point". The noir could probably get away with a song or two, but this is an adventure, not a stage show - now, if I watch a recording of an opera on film, then obviously I wouldn't make that statement. As a whole, there really isn't anything here that just screams for attention beyond just a mild experience with mild acting. If it wasn't for the "inspiration" part, it probably would have just lurked farther into obscurity, which means that basically this is a movie you watch to "look" for the moments or if one is interested in seeing Heston headline a movie before stuff like Ben-Hur (1959), I think. There's a plethora of movies from that era that are probably more suitable for a watch (good and...noticeably not good), and there are probably better adventure movies to sift through before/after this movie that one could probably look into, but if you really need to scratch the itch of curiosity over a somewhat obscure movie with a leather-clad fedora wearing hero, it might suit you. I can't endorse it as a winner, but I'm sure others will prove just fine (or less patient) with it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man 2.

Review #1695: Spider-Man 2.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn), Alfred Molina (Otto Octavius / Doctor Octopus), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Donna Murphy (Rosalie Octavius), Daniel Gillies (John Jameson), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Robbie Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Betty Brant), Elya Baskin (Mr. Ditkovitch), Mageina Tovah (Ursula), Ted Raimi (Hoffman), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, and #1495 - Darkman)

Review: 

“I just tried to get even more in touch with the things that I loved about Stan Lee’s great character Spider-Man, and a lot of writers throughout the 40 years at Marvel have contributed to Spider-Man. All the things that I loved about all of their stories, I tried to really get deeper into and connect on a deeper level with the actors, and make it more about the characters and their interaction with one another. I tried to get to the core of what I loved even more.”

It must be amazing to think of an era where superhero movies did not in fact rule the Earth, really. But the dawn of the 21st century shows that they merely lurking in the shadows of entertainment, when you think about it. There is not a long line to get from something like this film to Iron Man (2008) when it comes to adaptation of something from the world of Marvel Comics, much less when it comes to movies beyond just an one-off. Spider-Man (2002) was the sixth feature film adapted from a Marvel character (as created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1962), coming off the heels of previous works such as Blade (1998) and X-Men (2000), which like this film came from years and years of development (among quite a few scripts); naturally, this film follows along the sequel line among those aforementioned movies (Blade II, X2), and it likely stands as one of the best superhero sequels of its time. It is interesting to note that the first film actually had the character of Doctor Octopus as a secondary villain before Raimi dropped him in order to focus more on the dynamic between the title character and the villain. At the helm for the screenplay was Alvin Sargent (near the end of a lengthy career of writing, which included un-credited work on the first film) while the story came from Michael Chabon, Alfred Gough, and Miles Millar (the latter two are mostly known for their development of the show Smallville; obviously, the movie is a hodgepodge of ideas from each writer - Chabon's proposed script apparently had a love triangle involving Doctor Octopus). 

Most superhero sequels generally tend to raise the stakes by adding villains to the pile for the hero to fight that make the challenge seem tighter (i.e. more than one villain, which was present in more than a few superhero films beyond the Marvel line, such as with the Batman series). And yet, here we are with a movie that has quite a controlled focus with consistent stakes and drama that improves on the original without being as hamstrung by the little things as had been the case with the original Spider-Man (which was a pretty decent effort from a director who clearly appreciates the material). It carries itself with enough weight in responsibility to deliver entertainment with meaningful power and meaningful moments to see and hear. Of course it isn't just an effects show, even though one can be impressed by the crew of John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara and John Frazier (among others) when it comes to the tentacles for its villain that prove a blend of computer effects with puppetry (alongside a harness of course) that definitely serves an improvement when compared to the sequences involving the Green Goblin from before. Maguire (who was nearly replaced by Jake Gyllenhaal because of a near-serious back injury) leads the cast with worthy presence once again, maintaining the sincerity and vulnerability depicted before without seeming generic in his charm or being overshadowed by others too much (heroes get overshadowed by the villain in a handful of films anyway). Dunst matches well with snappy chemistry that balances scenes spent either with Maguire or Gillies.  Franco works with the gradual moments with bitter righteousness that still seems like a worried child when it comes to obsession and taking the mantle his father held (which I guess works pretty well in its little imitation of Hamlet, but seeing Dafoe again is a worthy bonus). Molina proves a worthy adversary, one struck by fate that is quite sardonic in his menace that draws you in from the very first moment with him on screen (at least if you compare him with his scenes spent with Murphy with his time with the AI arms); in other words, he makes for a fun villain that improves upon the dynamic seen between the lead and the adversary from before in terms of showing the nature of power and responsibility. Closing out the cast is a few brief-scene wonders from before with the bright nurturer in Harris and the wonderful blustering comic relief in Simmons. At any rate, the film proves efficient at 127 minutes in balancing its spectacle with effective characterization that draws upon the comics without being beholden to too much cheese or being a show for overdrawn spectacle - Raimi honed his craft with the hero film in Darkman and he has merely improved upon the human aspects of what makes a thrilling and poignant movie that happens to have folks in costumes that builds on the curiosity left by its predecessor while setting its own stage for another adventure without too much trouble.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Down the Road Again.

Review #1694: Down the Road Again.

Cast: 

Doug McGrath (Pete McGraw), Kathleen Robertson (Betty-Jo Mayle), Anthony Lemke (Matt Burns), Jayne Eastwood (Betty Mayle), Cayle Chernin (Selina), Tedde Moore (Annie Burns), Kristin Adams (Secretary), John Cleland (Sammy), and Elva Mai Hoover (Housekeeper) Written and Directed by Donald Shebib (#408 - Goin' Down the Road)

Review: 

"I think “Down the Road Again” has a better script, more emotional. It will never have the effect the original one had, that was kind of a unique film in its own way, but it was also filled with flaws, a lot of montages, musical sequences–there were far too many."

Do you remember Goin' Down the Road? 51 years later, it still stands one of Canada's most notable feature films, one that followed two Canadians from the Maritimes (located on the Atlantic coast) that migrate from Cape Breton Island to Toronto for the perceived better opportunities in jobs and the bright lights only to find hard truths. It was the debut feature film of Toronto native Donald Shebib, who was once quoted as saying the basic premise was to make a film about folks most people wouldn't care for, stating that "The young twenty-five-year-old hip kids that went to see the film wouldn’t spend the time of day speaking to those and neither would I, but they like them in the film.” Shebib had spent over a decade in film that started with his study at the the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television in 1961 that had followed his study of sociology and history at the University of Toronto. His study there got him close to a classmate that soon became involved in film production with Francis Ford Coppola, and Shebib worked as a cinematographer and assistant editor on Dementia 13 (1962); Shebib started to do his own short films around this time. After graduating in 1965, he returned home to do work with the National Film Board of Canada and CBC Television in documentary filmmaking (which received notice, although little of his work is readily available); it was his experience seeing his cousin try to make a living in Toronto from Cape Breton that had shaped the film's creation, one made on a crew of four people on $25,000 that starred Doug McGrath, Paul Bradley, Jayne Eastwood, and Cayle Chernina that Shebib co-wrote with William Fruet. Shebib has directed ten feature films (with another in post-production), but Goin' Down the Road is generally the movie he is most remembered for (much to his surprise, since he did not expect it to get any commercial distribution), and it is considered one of the most seminal films for Canadian cinema.

Perhaps it makes sense that clips from the film are used throughout this one (one just a bit shorter than the original at 84 minutes). Shebib was inspired to make a follow-up after years of cajoling (mostly from Chernin, who passed away from ovarian cancer three months after filming), and he wanted to make a film that touched people and prove something to Canadians, in part because he has gone on record for his distaste for Canadian films for their "boring quality" at times; Bradley had died in 2003, and Shebib uses the death of his character to shape the plot for this feature. Surely he wanted to make an interesting bookend by way of making a movie that resembles something made for television with the capability for twists like a melodrama, for which it serves as a fill-in-the-blank for things you either wanted to know or didn't from before in the original - albeit with a lessened blow in its ending. Obviously it is a better-made film in terms of its look (four decades will do that), and the acting is just as fine as it was before (i.e. not awards bait), and it certainly tries to pull at the strings left hanging from before with reasoning - the result is an okay movie that either gives you enough of the answers that Shebib urges to reach or it seems unnecessary to really find out. Honestly, some things are easier to leave buried, but whatever, at least it is Shebib behind the wheel and not someone else, much like a reunion between old friends that doesn't end in passive boredom or worse. Look, if you want to see what happens to folks that ran off to Vancouver for a new start after they assaulted a clerk and left a wife and child, the result will have some payoff that makes it more than just an epilogue or a letdown. McGrath is wry and wistful enough in his balance of looking to the past and the present without becoming a shell of himself in the process - he makes the mark he wants to make without trouble in a bucket list road movie. There is a spark in Robertson that does elicit some interesting moments when paired with McGrath when it comes to tender amusement in chemistry for a time. Lemke comes around in the middle, used for the other turn of the narrative for exposition (particularly with the ending, which is drawn out pretty silly). Eastwood and Chernin accompany the film for a few scenes in providing perspective without turning into the peanut gallery. Moore is the last piece of the puzzle, playing someone affected by Alzheimer's disease, and the performance generally works out without trouble. At any rate, what we have is a decent return for all involved, one that tugs at the strings of the past without becoming strung along too tight to forge its own pattern . The passage of time ages us all, and there can be certain moments of the past that will arise at times for us to encounter once again, whether that means a bad breakup or a decision made in the name of supposed friendship. It is our reaction to it (whether one is haunted or ready to the memory presented) that makes growing up who we are. In other words, the truth always comes out, and it's our job to react accordingly to it. For a film like this, I would say it comes up just enough in the right direction to make it fairly worth what could have been a forgettable affair (or worse a letdown), one that Shebib can say accompanies his previous film and vision. There are quite a few sequels that commit the sin of just not living up to what was done before, but at least this Canadian one does what it can to make it a worthwhile affair.

Well, here we are in July. Honestly, I had intended to return to somewhat regular tradition of a Canada Day feature for Movie Night, but I ended up having to hold it a day because of timing (i.e. I didn't want to rush a review before work). Inadvertently, this is actually an anniversary review, because Goin' Down the Road made its premiere on July 2, 1970 (the sequel was released in October 2011, but that's a horror month, man). There had been rumblings about doing this movie for a few years (because even I eventually sneak up on sequels or spinoffs being made), but the Tribute to the Decades project took off and ran right over anything for July beyond the 1980s. As always, hope for a surprise when it comes to Movie Night, because the best plans are always improvised for writing...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.