Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Review #1781: Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Cast: 

Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Zendaya (MJ), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Jacob Batalon (Ned Leeds), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Jamie Foxx (Max Dillon / Electro), Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn / Green Goblin), Alfred Molina (Dr. Otto Octavius / Doc Ock), Benedict Wong (Wong), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), J.K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Rhys Ifans (Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard), and Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman) Directed by Jon Watts (#966 - Spider-Man: Homecoming and #1243 - Spider-Man: Far From Home)

Review: 

If you think about it, the best thing the Spider-Man series should do is take a few years off. Don't get me wrong, this movie is just fine and all that jazz. But as we approach the end of 2021, consider the fact that there have now been nine of these films in nearly twenty years, a rate basically like the James Bond series. At least one can say there is apparent difference between the respective series of films done by either Sam Raimi, Marc Webb, and Jon Watts. Of course, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) has stood tall in its own right when it came to a unique style of animation while featuring several versions of the hero in numerous dimensions (i.e. a multiverse). So, of course it figures that the third film of the third series of (live action) Spider-Man films decides to feature each of the previous heroes and villains of the previous films. If one didn't think they were cribbing from Spider-Verse, you might joke that they really cribbed from the multi-Doctor specials of Doctor Who, complete with a lack of surprise of really seeing these faces. The film was written by the same two behind the last film: Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers (they had also co-wrote the Homecoming film).

Not to be mean, but Spider-Verse did it better. True, the approach of this film is different (because that had the challenge of showing a new hero), but there is a familiar link within trying to stuff as much as possible in 148 minutes (the longest of the film series) that results in a decent if not noticeably uneven movie. It is just a bit better than Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019), but it is absolutely clear that the best Spider-Man film is a horse race between Spider-Man 2 (2004) and the aforementioned Spider-Verse film. But I will applaud the film for at least taking the time to approach the nature of consequences and choices when it comes to Spider-Man, if only because I did tire of the idea of folks just happening to know just who was behind the mask (if you remember, the last film ended with everyone suddenly knowing the name in a frame-job), almost as much as having the hero switching their masks on-and-off. In other words, sometimes you need to see your heroes get taken down a peg. Honestly, the idea of responsibility versus fate when it comes to handling circumstances is probably the more interesting idea presented by the film, since the villainous group is the one shown before the other main component. Granted, I don't really think I had to hear the "with great power comes responsibility" line again, but at least there is some sort of meaningful drama presented in making a real choice and sticking to it. Of course, the thing that comes with doing a film with numerous characters is all the references that come with it. Simply put, sometimes the film really takes it a bit much with "fan-service". It isn't exactly ego-stroking, but sometimes the best thing to do with a film that idles between action and conversation is to just let things breathe. This is especially apparent in the opening, which might be more interesting to set the tone if it wasn't for the incessant conversation that comes and goes before it finally ceases. The action scenes are decent, even if one wonders if the circumstances involving filming (filming in 2021 versus 2019, if you get my drift) means that certain dialogue scenes are a bit muddled. I appreciate Holland for what he has done for the role of Spider-Man, in that he seems to have really settled into this role now, charming in his disposition that keeps things in check. If the discussion at just who is the best Spider-Man comes up, one can at least make a fair argument for him among the others. Zendaya does just as well in the composure expected from maintaining her key angle in the plot that matches well with Holland for curious moments. Batalon does well with a few chuckles, but it is Cumberbatch who is the interesting last piece among the main cast, gliding through with reasoned timing that matches starkly with Holland (in a sense dabbling as a mentor but really more of a foil, what with the whole "turn things back" thing). Tomei does well with the warm ease presented for the role that doesn't get shuttled too far into the background (Favreau less so, but at least it is nice to see him). It is nice to see Simmons get to chew on the familiar words of a role now played five times, even if the obvious thing parodied is more an eyeroll than anything ("TheDailyBugle.net", gee I wonder). 

One gets to see a handful of villains - five, in fact. Oh sure, the highlight is Dafoe. He is the key in making the film work as well as it can when he is there because he is the prime sinister contrast needed among everything present that has not lost a step despite all the previous appearances (one prior film with two subsequent cameos). Molina (CG and all) is a careful second, while Foxx makes a capable mark. I can only imagine the joke I had about seeing Electro if I saw The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) beforehand, if only of the stark differences that a few years makes (yellow instead of blue). At least the Lizard looks better now, probably because he isn't really shown in full light, while the Sandman looks just fine, even though he probably doesn't have as much to really do (same with the reptilian, but that wasn't a surprise). Eventually, it becomes time to see Garfield and Maguire return as well. This works about as well as you would expect, in that they haven't lost the spark that made each interpretation interesting to view on screen (of course, one doesn't dwell much on the time between the respective last appearance, nor exactly what's up with their respective story, I suppose), having good patience and charm that we all have seen before and such. The three "Spider-Men" make for a good team with fitting chemistry by the time it comes to the climax, and it keeps the film from potentially de-railing under all of its weight (narrative or figuratively). By the time the film makes its final decision, I am at the very least satisfied with where the series may choose to go for its next film, even I would argue that a couple of years off wouldn't kill them (oh, but Sony sure loves the idea of their own Spider-Man film universe, and I immediately try to stop rolling my eyes). It maneuvers the line of responsibility and what it means to be a hero within a tightly packaged film that hits most of the marks required from its expectations that make a good time. Granted, it isn't the best film I've seen all year, but at least it proved its mettle in entertainment to make it all worth it. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, I did not actually intend for three Spider-Man films to be the closing trio of 2021, and yet here we are with another year over. Since this show started on December 20, 2010, only in three occasions (2010, 2015, 2017) has not had a review on New Years' Eve. It is nice to follow in the tradition of covering a current-year film like I did with Tenet (2020) last year, so it was good to get this out in time. That makes for 163 reviews in 2021 and the end of Season 11. It might not have been as busy as the previous year, but this was still the fifth busiest year in Movie Night's history (with only Season 2, 3, 4, and X being bigger). Have a Happy New Year in 2022 and I will see you there with what I hope is a good group of selections.

The Amazing Spider-Man.

Review #1780: The Amazing Spider-Man.

Cast: 

Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), Rhys Ifans (Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard), Irrfan Khan (Rajit Ratha), Denis Leary (Captain George Stacy), Martin Sheen (Uncle Ben), Sally Field (Aunt May Parker), Campbell Scott (Richard Parker), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), Chris Zylka (Flash Thompson), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), C. Thomas Howell (Jack's Father), Jake Keiffer (Jack), Kari Coleman (Helen Stacy) Directed by Marc Webb.

Review: 

"I wanted it to be more grounded and more realistic and that went for the emotion of the scenes, the physical action and wardrobe. It's less based in Steve Ditko world and probably closer visually and more influenced by "Ultimate Spider-Man" but it is also very much a world of our own devising."

Did you know that five years passed between Spider-Man 3 (2007) and this film? Well, I guess I should be surprised, but I really am not. Honestly, it is weird that I finally got around to this film just before it turned ten years old, and yet here we are nearing six decades since the creation of the comic book character. Admittedly, it made sense to try to re-invent a new interpretation of the comic book character. After all, this is the first one to feature artificial web-shooters (like in the comics), and it follows the tradition of casting lead actors playing "teenaged" superheroes while nearly pushing 30 years old. The film was written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves (you would recognize the middle name as the writer of last two Spider-Man films). At the helm to direct was Marc Webb, best known for his debut feature in 500 Days of Summer (2009), and he would do the subsequent sequel two years later.  I suppose we've gone from "dorky" Peter to "outcast" Peter, complete with a full-fledged dive into the high school experiences of the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man and the perceived mysteries of his parents (for which some of this is taken from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, which had begun in 2000).

It isn't a bad thing to be a mediocre movie, but it is a weird thing to make a mediocre superhero movie that basically serves as a retread of the 2002 Spider-Man that to me suffers the distinct quality of self-serious sickness. Maybe each film reflects the growing trend of the decade they were made in, but I found it to be a movie that is practically straining to pull off its tricks (new and old) that only succeeds in making the average comic book movie "amazingly" average because I only care to a certain point about the attempts at a "darker" interpretation of this hero. The memory of the old films lingers hard here, and it is confounding that it never manages to even rise above Spider-Man 3 despite having less clutter when it comes to villain composition or storylines (although with a 136-minute run-time, at least it isn't quite as long as it could be). Really if you think about it, the best way to keep the ball rolling with superhero films when changing actors might as well just follow the James Bond route and just roll with things with whatever mood you want to go with (such as going from A View to a Kill (1985) with The Living Daylights (1987), if you get my drift). Heaven knows one doesn't need another sequence of a bunch of New Yorkers rising up and helping Spider-Man.

Garfield, at the very least, makes a definable mark on the lead role that shows a touch of angst to go with loneliness and cockiness that shows the potential in a vulnerable hero. For the most part it works out, with likely the most interesting scene being one where he says just what his name is when saving a kid on a bridge (see, not every moment a masked hero taking off his mask is eye-rolling). Granted, the quips might take time to get used to, but at least he seems comfortable with the role and all that comes with having to follow the tradition of pretend-normal high schooler. Stone basically weaves her way through a role that would have weighed down a lesser actress (i.e., this could have been a role of mush). Regardless of if one knows the character or not, she makes it work with plenty of patience and charm that results in palatable chemistry with Garfield (your milage may vary, of course). In theory, the Lizard is an interesting villain to put on screen (the character, not the alter-ego, was in the last two films). However, he only is interesting when it is Ifans on screen as himself, not so much when he is turned into that CG render that looks like a silly slug. Sure, trying to strive for perfection without weakness can be interesting to ponder for a villain, but seeing it come out of a slug makes it hard to reconcile with the urge to snicker. Think about it: you have a guy going around as a lizard that at one point comes out of the toilet of a high school right before he delves into a plan about spreading gas around to turn people into lizards (well, "reptilian" would also be a suitable word to use, but either word is still funny to say out-loud).

The strangest thing is that the weak link among the supporting cast is Field (Khan doesn't count, since he is more a victim of the "comes-and-goes" box). She has admitted to not particularly enjoying the role, doing it more as a favor (specifically to friend and producer Laura Ziskin) that described it as one that you "can't put ten pounds of shit in a five-pound bag." (as quoted in 2016, which I guess applies to both features). Again, not to beat the dead horse of "the previous movies", but the role-from-five-years-ago had a bit more to really do when it comes to interacting with the lead character. Here, she pretty much has a handful of sentences that don't go anywhere that Rosemary Harris had done three films ago. Sheen is engaging for what is needed in patience (basically saying that quote about responsibility and power without having to just say it). There is probably something to be said about featuring Scott and Davidtz in its opening that seemed to hint at something "mysterious" when it comes to the parents of Spider-Man, but I'll be damned if I can give one single iota about it. Leary breezes through cliches with strange ease (one doesn't try to picture him suddenly break out into "standup", at least). As a whole, the movie is the equivalent of taking a few years off between going on an amusement park ride: sure, maybe something is different, but in the end it is just familiar motions to varying effect. There are certain times when the effects for showing the web-slinging ride can work out to interesting effect (no points for wondering how it looked in 3D), and the action sequences are decent for what is needed, which means that Webb basically managed to make a safe film that does the minimum and doesn't stumble. In that sense, that is probably the best endorsement one can make for a curious viewer.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man 3.

Review #1779: Spider-Man 3.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn / New Goblin), Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman), Topher Grace (Edward "Eddie" Brock Jr. / Venom), Bryce Dallas Howard (Gwen Stacy), James Cromwell (Captain George Stacy), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), with Theresa Russell (Emma Marko), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Joseph 'Robbie' Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Miss Brant), 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: 

"Where’s Peter Parker again in the second picture as a human being? He’s a kid in all these stories. They’re kind of coming of age stories and he learns aspects of growing up. Different life lessons in each of these films and often times, the comic books."

You know, it is entirely possible to make a third film of a trilogy that closes the narrative of its story with the right kind of balance and entertainment value that doesn't seem quite cluttered. Of course, doing so for a superhero trilogy is especially interesting to consider, if not for the fact that the expectations can sometimes reach grand heights. With this film, Sam Raimi was the first director to have helmed an entire superhero film trilogy. Spider-Man (2002), if you remember, was pretty well-made for the time and effort it took to get it on the screen, complete with a director that obviously had reverence for the source material that managed (for the most part) to generate warmly interesting entertainment. Spider-Man 2 (2004) continued that path while managing to be even better than its predecessor, both in its hero and villain story, and a third feature was immediately set for 2007. The story was done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, while Alvin Sargent (one of the writers of the second film) did the screenplay with the Raimis. Of course, it seems every sequel superhero film needs more than just one villain. With this one, there are three of them, distinct from the previous film (well, at least, if you count Harry as a villain in the second film). Raimi intended on just a story that was focused on the primary three folks from the first two films (Maguire, Dunst, Franco) and the Sandman (as played by Church). One of the producers suggested adding the character of Gwen Stacy, while Avi Arad (former president of Marvel and a fellow producer) suggested adding the character of Venom (introduced to the comics in 1984), with his argument being that the character had a strong appeal to fans (particularly since Raimi had made two features with his favorite villains); of course, before that happened, there had been plans to have the Vulture as one of the villains, so there is that. The film, while a hit with audiences, was the last Spider-Man film for five years, as plans for a fourth feature stalled because of Raimi's doubt over the viability of maintaining an intended release date of 2011 with a suitable script.

At the time of its release, it was actually the most expensive movie ever made, having been made for $258 million. It also was the longest of the three films at 139 minutes. I'm sure it goes without saying that this isn't a great movie to close the series down by any means. But hey, it has nearly been fifteen years since this film has come out, and six (five live-action) further Spider-Man movies have followed in its wake. Honestly, the movie is okay (besides, making a third feature involving an inverted hero already happened once with Superman III (1983), which was worse). Sure, it has a few little moments that could be made fun of (scrutiny, mockery, or whatever), but as a whole it at least manages to have some entertaining moments along with perspective on redemption that at least makes for a solid average movie. But of course, a movie that had considerable hype just can't be average now, can it? Undeniably, the big problem is that it has just one too many villains to go along with not being able to land all of its sticking points by the time it all ends. It is a messy movie, one that tries to fill itself on spectacle and drama that try to maintain the balance set by the previous two features that makes a good case for why it was good to just cap the series with three films. Maguire and Dunst maintain the sincerity in their chemistry that made for two curious (and interesting) features, but it probably doesn't help that their fragmented story here is the only one among all the other loose webbing that sticks out. Seeing their web tangle and untangle itself is the endearing aspect of the series, pure and simple. In that sense, Maguire does what he can, moving onto the next step that comes in the full-fledged stages of being an adult: finding forgiveness along with dealing with the pitfalls of pride (i.e. normal Peter Parker and symbiote Peter). He is earnest enough to make things such as "dancing" work where it could have been really silly to sit through. Dunst does just as well with matching up with withered patience (since her next step is not so much ego as it is "having a life"), doing what is needed as everything basically comes full circle with these two to useful effect. 

Franco has the weird dilemma of being a key side of the villainous triangle while having a segmented part of his time spent with "amnesia"; besides, one of the resolutions presented (i.e. next time check the wounds) is incredibly convenient in all the weird ways. Haden Church (who by virtue of graduating from Harlingen High School gets "Valley credits" from me) seems to be drawing his character from films such as The Wolf Man (1941), which works to a degree. While I understand the changes made to the character from the original origin (one that I remember because I actually did read one of those stories distinctly as a kid), I think it basically ties the story (and to an extent, Haden Church) in a knot that is way, way too convenient. Grace, best known for his role on That 70s Show, which I freely admit to watching too much of for years...does not exactly fare as well. While he does make an interesting reflection upon Maguire, it is hard to escape the inevitable "Yes, but Venom..." when it comes to actually seeing him on screen. I'm not saying the role needs a "bodybuilder" type, but it just never clicks together all the way with Grace, who almost seems a step away from making a quip more than anything (the less said about the actual lead-in to Venom, the better). Besides, having another costumed character present that likes to put on and then take off their mask is a step too far (keep it on!). Howard and Cromwell are there for segments that work right until you start to remember they disappear by the time of the climax (Harris has what she needs in the usual patience expected from her role anyway, while Simmons is sorely lacking in time). 

The contrivances that come with trying to tie it all together aren't swayed so easily with its climax (which is fine). Simply put, the dilemma of figuring out what it means to be a hero suddenly with sins that only thought in black-and-white is an interesting one, but the movie seems too mired in trying to pack in as much as possible in its frenzied focusing that it nearly loses sight of what the films meant in the first place. They were interesting movies with earnest charm and atmosphere (case in point this film seems lacking with the folks in the actual city that the film sets its action) that made it the first important group of superhero films of the new 21st century. While it may not be a great closing film by any means, it pulls off just enough tricks that keep one's interest on the level without churning into a pit. In other words: being just okay might not be the best thing to say about a highly anticipated movie but time generally shows that a movie being fine works out in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012). Must be a coincidence.

3 Godfathers (1948).

Review #1778: 3 Godfathers.

Cast: 

John Wayne (Robert Marmaduke Hightower), Pedro Armendáriz (Pedro Encarnación Escalante y Rocafuerte), Harry Carey Jr. (William "The Abilene Kid" Kearney), Mildred Natwick (Dying Mother), Ward Bond (Sheriff Buck Sweet), Mae Marsh (Mrs. Sweet), Jane Darwell (Miss Florie), Guy Kibbee (Judge), Hank Worden (Deputy Curly), Dorothy Ford (Ruby Latham), Charles Halton (Oliver Latham), Jack Pennick (Luke), Fred Libby (Deputy), Ben Johnson (Posseman #1), Michael Dugan (Posseman #2), and Francis Ford (Drunken Old-Timer at Bar) Directed by John Ford (#398 - The Last Hurrah, #1324 - 3 Bad Men, #1349 - Stagecoach, #1372 - Fort Apache, #1392 - The Searchers, #1409 - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance) 

Review: 

Well, if you need a Western with a Christmas bent, here you go? Of course, this also happens to be yet another John Ford and John Wayne collaboration, albeit one that is probably not as well-noted as the others (such as Fort Apache, released around the same time). The film is adapted from the 1913 novel The Three Godfathers, which was written by Peter B. Kyne. That novel had been adapted into a film five times: The Three Godfathers (1916), Marked Men (1919), Action (1921), Hell's Heroes (1930, directed by William Wyler), and Three Godfathers (1936); Ford had directed the 1919 and 1921 films, while Harry Carey Sr had starred in the first two adaptations (I'm sure you are all familiar with the next adaptation of the book in Tokyo Godfathers (2003)). As such, when Ford decided to do another version of this tale, he dedicated it to Carey (who had died in 1947), with the opening title card describing him as the "Bright Star of the early western sky..."). At any rate, this was the fifth starring role for Wayne in a John Ford film, coming off the heels of Fort Apache (1948) that would be followed by She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949) and a handful of others, although this might be the lightest of the Westerns they did together. This was the third and final collaboration of Ford and Armendariz (who decided to take on roles besides Mexican cinema in the mid 1940s), while Harry Carey Jr is given an "introduction" despite having done a handful of appearances in film prior to this one, which would be part of a solid run in character roles. The film had three screenwriters in Laurence Stallings, Frank S. Nugent, and Robert Nathan.

You have to understand that the tale is basically a re-telling of the religious tale of the Three Wise Men, so it shouldn't be surprising that there were varying levels of sentimentality in those feature films I just mentioned. The result is a movie that turns out to be just fine, one that will give a fair smile to one's face without turning it into a gloppy mess. For the most part, anyway (106 minutes), since it is sort of a family film that has a bit more chuckles than action (case in point about the adaptation differences, earlier versions featured a bloody gunfight). Well, that and plenty of sand (for Death Valley...doubling as Arizona, anyway), which means that this results in a nice-looking feature that you would expect from Ford. Wayne does fine with what is required from the role in stiff chiseling, one that isn't meant to toe too much into the sentimentality pool that is mostly believable in the long run. Armendariz and Carey Jr make worthy supporting presences in terms of snappy charm that make a useful triangle of pseudo-wise men in a makeshift family feature. Bond is the other key presence, doing exactly what is needed in light casual charm. The sacrifice at the end can only work if one believes it. In two of the previous adaptations (i.e. the 1930/1936 versions), attempts to find suitable water were a key part. Here, it is a bit more tied down, syrupy and curious at the same time. Well, since this is one of the John Wayne features where he isn't engaged in a duel at the end, that shouldn't be too surprising. As long as one stomachs where it goes, all should work out. As a whole, it is a light and charming Western that serves itself well in adapting familiar material with a useful spin and a solid trio that make for a curious Ford selection that follows the holiday tradition well enough without becoming stuck in comparisons. Instead, one takes its message of hope and cheer and runs with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Christmas Eve.

Review #1777: Christmas Eve.

Cast: 

George Raft (Mario Torio), George Brent (Michael Brooks), Randolph Scott (Jonathan), Joan Blondell (Ann Nelson), Virginia Field (Claire), Dolores Moran (Jean Bradford), Ann Harding (Aunt Matilda), Reginald Denny (Phillip Hastings), Douglass Dumbrille (Dr. Bunyan), Carl Harbord (Dr. Doremus), Dennis Hoey (Williams-Butler), Clarence Kolb (Judge Alston), Molly Lamont (Harriet Rhodes), John Litel (Joe Bland, FBI Agent), Walter Sande (Mario's Hood), Joe Sawyer (Private Detective Gimlet), and Konstantin Shayne (Gustav Reichman) Directed by Edwin L. Marin (#503 - A Christmas Carol (1938) and #532 - The Death Kiss)

Review: 

When it comes to Christmas movies, one has plenty of choices. This might be one of the stranger picks to go along with, if only because there are just so many movies centered around the holiday, complete with a handful that have it in the title. But hey, how many pseudo-anthology movies exist around the holiday? Well, at least if you think about it, given the framing device. It revolves around an eccentric old millionaire (one who likes to open the window after putting bird food in the house and give money to kids that kill rats) that could get committed to the nut house if she doesn't happen to have her three (adopted and fully grown) sons show up to meet the judge on Christmas Eve. This is where Brent, Raft, and Scott all come in, with the middle of the three being the only serious one of the bunch, complete with a brief skirmish with a Nazi. Of course, the latter involves a screwball-ish plot with adoption and undercover cops, so here we are with vignettes that revolve around some sort of vice. Of course, there were a few writers responsible for this film. Laurence Stallings and Richard H. Landau adapted the film from original stories, while Stallings did the screenplay. Of course, two other writers were not given credit for help with the story in Arch Oboler and Robert Altman. This was a Benedict Bogeaus production (having decided to become a producer after having been involved in real estate, radio manufacturing, and zipper-making), and the strange thing is that the firm that helped produce the film soon foreclosed on the film for insolvency, which you generally don't hear about.

Christmas movie or not, there is a great deal of mush to get through with this movie. Technically this film is a mishmash of genres, since it makes attempts to be a comedy-drama with chuckles. Unfortunately, it is lukewarm in its effectiveness, essentially being the equivalent of a roller-coaster ride that consists of a straight path with one curving path at half-speed. It isn't terrible enough to really make fun of (or ignore) nor is it exactly good enough to really sit through more than once. Two moderately okay segments cannot make-up for the rest of its rickety shortcomings, particularly with how predictable it is. It is probably one of the only times you will have a vignette with a fight scene turn out to be the lesser of the vignettes shown. It is a shame too, because Raft clearly deserves better material than what he is given with here, which is bland and not really anyone's speed (the stuff with Shayne is almost cardboard enough to become parody when it comes to cliche Nazi villain stuff). Brent at least seems the part for offbeat hijinks, but it barely goes anywhere in terms of actual interest, with Field's attempts at pep only going so far with a mildly interested person to match. This was actually the last non-Western film with Scott in his career, and he basically does a riff on it with plenty of "aw shucks" charm with a screwy vignette (with Moran), which manages to be more curious than the rest of the other stuff (fittingly, it is the last of the three segments). You might (or might not) be surprised that Harding is packed with plenty of aging makeup (for someone who was under 50 at the time this was made). She would likely be more effective if this was on the stage (i.e. playing to the rafters without much movement from a camera), what with all the carefully planned moments of speech that plays on "doddering" but really comes off as "nice try". Denny, Kolb, and Hoey close out the supporting cast with mild chuckles. As a whole, you get exactly what you think is going to happen for a ninety-minute movie with mild-mannered vignettes: serviceable mush, one that is neither terrible nor great in any regard. It is the kind of thing that can be easily found on the Internet, but the choice is up to those who seek it, because mediocrity can only go so far. I can't quite give it a winning grade, but that is just how it goes sometimes with "okay" movies.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

It doesn't happen often that the film title matches the day...and yet here we are. At any rate, I do have one more review coming for this holiday weekend, but I want to get the greetings out of the way. Have a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2.

Review #1776: Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2.

Cast: 

Eric Freeman (Ricky Caldwell), Darrel Guilbeau (Ricky, age 15), Brian Michael Henley (Ricky, age 10), James L. Newman (Dr. Henry Bloom), Elizabeth Kaitan (Jennifer Statson), Jean Miller (Mother Superior), Corrine Gelfan (Martha Rosenberg), Michael Combatti (Morty Rosenberg), Jill K. Allen (Mrs. Rosenberg's Friend), Ken Weichert (Chip), Ron Moriarty (Detective), and Frank Novak (Rocco, The Loan Shark) Directed by Lee Harry.

Featuring archival footage of Robert Brian Wilson (Billy Chapman, age 18), Danny Wagner (Billy, age 8), Jonathan Best (Billy, age 5), Alex Burton (Ricky Caldwell, age 14), Max Broadhead (Ricky, age 4), Gilmer McCormick (Sister Margaret), and Lilyan Chauvin (Mother Superior)

Review: 

If you remember, people got really weird about the idea of someone dressed up as Santa Claus going around slashing people in Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984). In that film, if you recall, this happened to an eighteen year old after having a psychological breakdown from a bad childhood where he saw his parents get killed by a man in said suit (after conveniently having his grandfather tell him that Santa punishes the "naughty" kids) and raised in a sad orphanage. Critics took umbrage with the film as some sort of feeling that it was either something that would traumatize kids and their trust in Santa (uh...) or as "bloody money" (as stated by Gene Siskel, which is purely ridiculous). Parents groups also took (hysterical) umbrage with the film and even had protesters picket the theater and sing Christmas carols (of course, I'm not sure how that is supposed to sway someone interested in watching a slasher film). Even Mickey Rooney spoke out against the film, saying "How dare they! I'm all for the first amendment but... don't give me Santa Claus with a gun going to kill someone. The scum who made that movie should be run out of town." (he proceeded to star in Silent Night, Deadly Night 5: The Toy Maker). Of course, it wasn't even the first Christmas slasher film, since Christmas Evil (1980) had been released independently, but I think you can understand how times have changed since 1984, for better or worse. Imagine my surprise to hear that a second film came and went without even half of the controversy, three years later. Granted, it barely had a release in theaters at all, but it still made it in time with alleged scares to follow. The film was written by Harry and Joseph H. Earle for its screenplay while its story was done by Lee, Earle, Dennis Patterson, and Lawrence Appelbaum (the latter also produced the film).

Are you ready for this? Somehow, the producers got an idea to take the first film and basically re-edit it with a few small new sequences to try and sell a "new" film to audiences. But the director managed to convince them to allow for a few days of shooting to film a few new sequences that could at least make a plot besides just re-using the original. So... that means nearly forty minutes of footage from the first film is present here, basically telling us an abridged version of the events from that film again, with occasional narration (by Freeman) or segments involving Freeman and Newman (try not to dwell on the fact that a character is narrating events that they were not present for and for some reason with a different last name than before); the total run-time of this film is 88 minutes, by the way,  complete with crediting the original cast in the credits. Eventually comes the use of footage with Freeman in the "well, now here's what happened when I turned 18" before finally, finally getting to actual breathing attempts at slasher stuff near the end. The gore is okay, but it proves pretty silly compared to what we had to see for the first forty minutes. You have a scene where a guy pushes an umbrella through someone's entire body before it reaches its peak with the one sticking line of the film: The killer, loose on a rampage seeing someone put their garbage on the street and saying "Garbage Day!" in an over-the-top nature. It became a "meme" in the early days of the Internet for good reason. Freeman attracted a cult following, probably amplified by the fact that he basically disapeared from acting after 1992. In fact, he couldn't even be contacted when it came time to do a commentary with Harry; an actual community on the Internet was even made (Finding Freeman) about him. The writer of the film apparently encouraged Freeman to go for an over-the-top performance, while Harry did not give him too much encouragement. One will see plenty of eyebrow twitching and shifts in his voice that makes for a curious performance. It is more watchable to hear him toy with Newman than it is to hear him narrate over exposition. Him just saying "I was there." to when he is asked about how he remembers a murder as a baby makes it almost seem worth it. All Newman has to do is sit in a chair and look over Chapman as the plot is told and so on, which is at least better than it could have been. Kaitian and Weichert make the significant part of the "plot" (i.e. a romance and rival), and each actually make Freeman look better by comparison before they become bait (Gelfan and Combatti basically disappear from the film after only a few minutes, somehow). It is bewildering to show so much stock footage of Chauvin and her icy effective performance from the first film only to have a different actress play the character in Miller (complete with makeup). It just doesn't seem the same when it comes to character motivation (if you can call it that for this film) when talking about the climax. Somehow, the series would morph into further weirdness. While the second film was the last to be released theatrically, three further films followed, each with their own storyline (the third one re-casts the "Billy" character while following up this one). A remake called Silent Night (2012) was also made. As a whole, the film is an amusing embarrassment, one that can't live up to the already mediocre standards the first feature had done that shows its limitations in all of the campy ways possible. If one wants to see where "Garbage Day!" comes from...seeing the clip is better than seeing the film, probably.  

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Next time: something better, again.

Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny.

Review #1775: Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny.

Cast: 

Jay Ripley (Santa Claus, credited as Jay Clark), featuring "Kids" from Ruth Foreman's Pied Piper Playhouse [Charlie, David, Kathy, Mike, Kim Nicholas, Robin, Sandy, Scotty, Steve]

Listing depends on which "insert" version seen: [Thumbelina - Shay Garner (Thumbelina), Pat Morrell (Mrs. Mole), Bob O'Connell (Mr. Mole), Ruth McMahon (Mother), and Heather Grinter (The Witch)] or [Jack and the Beanstalk - Mitchell Poulous (Jack), Dorothy Stokes (Jack's mother), Renato Boracherro (The Giant), Chris Brooks (Honest John)] Directed by Richard Winer and Barry Mahon.

Review: 

Sometimes you need an experience that defies reason to remember just how much one should be grateful for true filmmaking. Sure, there are plenty of movies that can be easy to make fun of for their quality when it comes to how it is crafted or how the studio/producer/star wants to make it. But have you ever seen a movie like this? Never have I seen a movie where nearly the whole cast looks really, really, really bored to be there. I should mention that this was actually filmed at an amusement park called Pirate's World. Perhaps it is fate that the park actually closed three years after filming, since that park looks fairly miserable. Richard Winer was credited as "R. Winer" for his segment (involving Santa), with his only other directing credit being The Devil's Triangle (1971). However, one focuses their director attention on Mahon, who actually got his start in cinema by way of being pilot-turned-manager of Errol Flynn after Mahon had served in World War II. He produced (and sometimes directed) an eccentric assortment of films such as Errol Flynn features, cheap children's films like The Wonderful Land of Oz (1969; featured songwriters Linsenmann and Falco, who are present for songs here)...and nudie features. 

You might be wondering about Santa in the plot. That, or you may be gagging at the idea of how awful this film sounds. Well, it actually starts with his sleigh getting stuck in a Florida beach without reindeer. Poor Santa has to stay near the sleigh while wearing all of those hefty clothes, so his first step is to telepathically call children to his sleigh to call for help. A failed assortment of barn animals (?) are brought by the kids, but their failure (20 minutes in) means that Santa tells the, story of a fictional fairy tale character...well, it is either Thumbelina or Jack and the Beanstalk (each done by Mahon). The version I watched has the former, which is kind of like getting a bag of rocks instead a bag of air. One is probably just as bad as the other, but the unknown is probably just as miserable to ponder. Essentially, one gets two films for the price of none. Can you imagine narrating a fairy tale with the sound quality of an intercom? Well, enjoy Thumbelina like that, complete with sets that look like they came from a high school production. The costuming is quite weird, complete with frogs, moles, and birds that make me really wonder if this was actually some sort of weird trick to get anyone who watched it on some sort of watchlist (of course, the whole "moles offer marriage to Thumbelina" actually occurs in the tale, so who the hell knows?). Did I mention that "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckberry Finn" occasionally show up to comment on the action?

An hour later, one finally gets done with the story so they can come back to the miserable adventures of Santa. Right near the end of a 95 minute movie comes the arrival of the "Ice Cream Bunny". Just who is the bunny? Well, it is a bunny in a costume that blinks (and never talks) that drives a fire truck. In fact, the siren noise for the truck is probably the saddest sound noise that I have ever heard, complete with the fact that the children are singing over it (trying to, anyway). It ends...with the bunny taking Santa away to the joy of the children. Farm animals (and a man in a gorilla suit) can't take the sleigh off the beach, but if the bunny and Santa get away in the truck, the sleigh magically teleports back to the North Pole. This may actually be the most bizarre "Christmas movie" since Santa Claus (1959). Of course, this one is actually worse, since this is barely a holiday film to begin with, since the fairy tale is the longer aspect of the film anyway. Since the acting here is nonexistent (with half of it from Clark/Ripley sounding like a dub), it goes hand in hand with lackadaisical filmmaking from Winer & Mahon that makes for a weird sit to view. It hits rock bottom early and never gets up, fitting purely as something that might only be watchable so one can make fun of it. In that sense, it might be right for a holiday viewer looking for punishment. It is likely the worst holiday film I have ever seen.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: something better.

The Cameraman.

Review #1774: The Cameraman.

Cast: 

Buster Keaton (Buster), Marceline Day (Sally Richards), Harold Goodwin (Harold Stagg), Sidney Bracey (Edward J. Blake), Harry Gribbon (Hennessey, the cop), with Josephine the Monkey, Richard Alexander, Edward Brophy, and Ray Cooke. Directed by Edward Sedgwick and Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, #805 - The Navigator, #877 - Three Ages, #908 - The General, #926 - Our Hospitality, #941 - Sherlock Jr, #1037 - Go West, and #1058 - Battling Butler, #1173 - Steamboat Bill, Jr)

Review: 

“When we made pictures, we ate, slept, and dreamed them.”

Buster Keaton, as is the case with several folks that thrived in the silent era, deserved better. He thrived best as one of the comedy pillars of the silent era, but his popularity underwent its demise not long after his decision to sign a contract with Metro Goldwyn Meyer. Of course, it actually really started with The General (1926), arguably his greatest film. The mixed success of the film at the time led his distributor in United Artists making sure to monitor him more carefully in expenses. With this film, it fell to MGM to try and manage him, with Keaton not even given credit for co-direction; Sedgwick, known for his un-credited work for 1925's The Phantom of the Opera (#774), shouldn't be diminished, since he tried to maintain his authority before quietly telling Keaton to help guide him. Keaton would later call his decision to join one of the worst of his life, one that would last until 1933. Instead of doing all the stunts, now he had stuntmen (after this film, anyway). Perhaps it is a coincidence that a movie involving cameramen name-drops the studio in the film. done by MGM. He wanted Spite Marriage (1929, the film released after this one) to be done ss a sound film, but the studio (headed by Irving Thalberg in production) wanted it to be done simply and under their control. As his workload got tougher in the next few years (which came with attempts at pairing him with Jimmy Durante for three films), his personal life fell apart, and he was fired from the studio midway through the 1930s. At any rate, this film managed to do quite well with audiences, even though it was believed to have been lost because of the 1965 MGM vault fire; three years later, a print was found in France, proving that is important to keep looking (a 1991 print was combined with this one to make the restored version one knows today). The film was written by Clyde Bruckman and Lew Lipton, with Joseph W. Farnham for titles. 

For what it is worth, the studio would show this film to new directors over the next few years about what a well-constituted comedy looked like. It is always hard to say just which Keaton film is the best, because he managed to do so well as one of the masters of the deadpan, the visual gag, and all-around master of charm. Even with a lessened capacity in terms of control with his comedy (i.e. not just him having an idea he could flesh out in the middle), he still is at the top of his game. His expressions in the face of amusing situations manages to never waver, always seeming to zone in on what is needed without becoming a malleable prop or just a stone face. He might not have as many dangerous stunts to pull around, but he still finds ways to make worthy humor come from arranged sequences, such as a street skirmish or sequences in a pool room. Day accompanies him with fair timing that fits what is needed, since one just has to make sure they don't look overmatched when it comes to being together. They match well, and the boat sequence is a useful one to note. At any rate, there are a few folks that Keaton pairs himself with for a gag, whether involving a monkey or with a hapless Gribbon (Goodwin does fine as the stooge). Of course, maybe the biggest smirk on my face comes with his scene at Yankee Stadium (an improvisation on his part), acting out the game to an empty crowd. At any rate, the sequence involving him shooting (or at least attempting) with the camera prove quite interesting, as a sort of film-within-the-film (which in that sense might remind one of Sherlock, Jr), complete with "mistake shots" and a climax with an absolute zinger for a line. The 67 minute run-time is effective to where one might want to see it twice just to absorb those visual gags again and again. It is the last great classic with Keaton in control, and he does everything one might see from him, never seeming compromised or constrained in his comic vision. No matter who stands out as your comic favorite of the silent era, Keaton's The Cameraman is still a great triumph for its era.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

I want to close this review off by acknowledging that today is the eleventh anniversary of the beginning of Movie Night. What a time we live in. 4,018 days since that day has seen 1,774 reviews, which means a review has been done every 2.26 days on average. As always, I wish to express my gratitude to anybody who has had the curiosity to check out this show over the years and anyone who has stuck around to check out what somebody on the Internet has to say about some random movie, whether good or bad. I hope that the years that follow lead to a continuation of interesting films to encounter and ponder about and that you are there to read all about it. Onward to the next row of films for the holidays.

Red River.

Review #1773: Red River.

Cast: 

John Wayne (Thomas Dunson), Montgomery Clift (Matthew "Matt" Garth), Walter Brennan (Nadine Groot), Joanne Dru (Tess Millay), Coleen Gray (Fen), Harry Carey (Mr. Melville), John Ireland (Cherry Valance), Noah Beery Jr. (Buster McGee), Harry Carey Jr. (Dan Latimer), (Two Jaw Quo), and Paul Fix (Teeler Yacey) Produced and Directed by Howard Hawks (#951 - The Big Sleep, #1352 - His Girl Friday, #1399 - Rio Bravo, #1687 - O. Henry's Full House), with co-direction by Arthur Rosson.

Review: 

I'm sure we all know the name Howard Hawks as a director. At least, I would hope so, in part because how diverse he managed to be within his filmmaking that spanned four decades within all of the major studios and multiple genres. He did films in his particular way that inspired plenty of future directors even after his death. Red River (1948) was the first of five Westerns that he would direct in his career, and it also would be the first of five films Hawks directed with Wayne as star. The film is adapted from Blazing Guns on the Chisholm Trail, a 1946 novel originally serialized in The Saturday Evening Post (albeit without the "Blazing Guns" part of the title, which was added for the hardcover publication) that was written by Borden Chase. When Chase chafed at changes to the story (one that resembled Mutiny on the Bounty, albeit with a fictionalized angle at a cattle drive), Charles Schnee was brought in to do the screenplay as well, with the two not actually writing together. Chase would write a variety of screenplays and stories, such as with Winchester '73 while Schnee would write and produce for films such as The Bad and the Beautiful. By this point in time, Arthur Rosson had moved from featuredirecting to do work as a second unit director, most notably for Cecil B. DeMille, but for this film he was given credit as a co-director, as he had shot some of the cattle drive and action sequences (as such, he gets credit here as a director, instead of using that weasely "co-director" label that is still present with certain animated features). The film was shot in 1946 but was delayed for two years, with a great deal of editing done by Christian Nyby. Somehow, right as the film had premiered in 1948, Howard Hughes claimed similarities between this film and The Outlaw (1943) with its climatic fight, and you may remember Hawks had been fired from the earlier film. This resulted in a few seconds being cut out in order to fast-track the film for the studio rather than deal with a frivolous lawsuit they would have won handily over Hughes and the content of his alleged Western. There existed two different versions of the film: The pre-release cut lasted 133 minutes while featuring shots of a diary for transition shots; the cuts forced by the lawsuit resulted in a 127 minute film (Hawks also commissioned Brennan to provide a voiceover instead of those shots). When interviewed late in his life (specifically an interview with Peter Bogdanovich), Hawks stated his preference for the shorter version, but it has not stopped the debate over just what version seems better.

You have to remember that Wayne is a movie star bigger than life, an icon that certainly stood differently in presence depending on just who was directing him. The lasting quote about him in this film comes from long-time collaborator John Ford, who famously stated (whether facetious or not) that he didn't know he could act. Well, Wayne does what he does in terms of handling the frontier front and center, only this time with an imitation of Captain Ahab with a granite foundation that works quite well with a look at a different Wayne (if only slightly): middle age. 1948 was the first year folks could see Clift on screen as an actor (he had starred on the stage for over ten years), with this coming out after The Search. He does quite well here, standing well against Wayne in conviction in not getting lost within such presence. You see the conflict within him about the measure of what being a man is, especially after being part of a makeshift family only to leave and comeback from it. It may be a Western, but it also could be thought of as a family tragedy too, since this involves the inevitability of what has to happen between father and son when it comes to being a man. Brennan accompanies the two with the expected supporting presence that matches with both with resourceful chemistry (as would be expected from a semi-regular on Hawks films). When Dru finally comes onto the screen, she brings an added edge needed when either paired with Clift or Wayne in a scene (the best one is the first though, involving her mood during a fight before casually taking an arrow to the arm). The rest of the character presences make their parts count well, whether that means a casual Ireland or the various associates that stand starkly to the granite-laced Wayne in terms of drive, which only makes the build to the climax all the more interesting. Apparently, Clift didn't care much for the overall conclusion (or his overall acting), which is strange, because it actually is quite interesting in sticking out from just being a fistfight. It doesn't seem like the "farce" that he thought it was in my mind - besides, Chase's story has one of them die, and we are talking about a film involving both family conflict amid a clash of relentless drive and youth along with moving cattle (Hawks and Chase did not exactly get along anyway). It seems quite foolish to learn a lesson right before they die anyway, and the film is called "Red River", not "Showdown at Red River", so there. The movie isn't perfect, but the ending isn't a letdown in the long run. It is an odyssey, pure and simple.

At any rate, Hawks created a worthy epic that isn't weighed down by needing a large scope or folks to try and reach over the presence of Wayne, because he has the skills of editor Nyby to go with Dimitri Tiomkin as a driving music composer and Russell Harlan in sweeping cinematographer to go with a dynamic cast that does what is needed in worthy entertainment. It is the classic imperfect Western for its time, one that moves steadfast for what Hawks wants to display about the nature of being a man that couldn't have been done by anyone else but him. In that sense, he did it exactly to his standards.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars

Mr. Thank-You.

Review #1772: Mr. Thank-You.

Cast: 

Ken Uehara (Arigatô-san), Michiko Kuwano (Woman in black collar), Mayumi Tsukiji (Girl being sold), Kaoru Futaba (Girl's mother), Setsuko Shinobu (Daughter of man who returned from Tokyo), Ryuji Ishiyama (Gentleman with beard), with Einosuke Naka (Peddler), with Reikichi Kawamura (Villager from Tokyo), Kazuji Sakai (Peddler), and Nagamasa Yamada (Peddler) Written and Directed by Hiroshi Shimizu.

Review: 

If you think about it, making a movie about a trip through the mountains with a bus driver and his passengers does seem quite ripe for curiosity. And for director Hiroshi Shimizu, it is exactly the kind of movie to introduce him into the curiousity of folks invested in sharpening their senses of world cinema, one who either made films known for their portrayal of children (he also founded an orphanage) or in the outsider among society in Japan. He attended college but did not graduate, instead moving on to the Shochiku studio in Tokyo, Japan to work as an assistant director. He then made his debut as director in 1924 and proceeded to direct over a hundred films in the span of 35 years before he died in 1966 at the age of 63. This is one of his most noted features, if only because only a handful of his films have managed to have a release in home video (at least on an easy to state scale, such as the Criterion Collection), although it could be possible to find features if one lurks on the Internet (of course, numerous films of his are lost, as is the case with a handful of films from that era in Japan); it is his contemporary (and friend) Yasujiro Ozu that had recieved more attention in terms of craftsman directors (Ozu however was once quoted as saying he couldn't shoot films like him). The movie is adapted from a 1925 short story Arigato [Thank You] by Yasunari Kawabata (one of 146 short stories that were included in a collection named the Palm-of-the-Hand Stories, which were eventually published all together after his death in 1972); you may recognize Kawabata from his writing contribution (alongside three others) for Teinosuke Kinugasa's A Page of Madness (1926) The novelist and short story writer was the first Japanese author to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, having been awarded the prize in 1968.

One might not recognize the names present for a film with characters that don't have too many particular attributes (such as names, for example), but it doesn't make the overall result any less curious or inviting when it comes to a look inside people trying to maintain themselves within the challenges they live in while it moves from Izu to Tokyo. Shimizu liked to make practical films on location (with either amateur actors or not). Uehara and Kuwano are the most noted presences among the actors, and Uehara ended up with over 150 roles to his name while Kuwano tragically died at the age of 31 in 1946. Uehara does pretty well with the lead role, gentle and engaging despite spending most of his time seated (while having a portion of his lines being "Arigato!", obviously) while Kuwano leads the group of travelers in snappy charm that lends to a handful of interesting moments (such as smoking on the bus or making light of the quirks in an opinionated mustached man).

For a film made in the Great Depression, it proves quite adept in sobering interest that might rival features abroad in that same era, if only because Shimizu knows where to go with crafting interesting moments that don't overstay their welcome. You'll see a sequence involving a road crew or an improvised song and come out of it interested further in what the director likes to say about the varying roles people have to say when in company. The others do well with their moments needed, such as a family on their way to a distressing transaction (in a film full of moments talking about the reality of scraping for money) or with small amusing bits within a comedy-drama. It takes its time and relishes each second of what it means to make meaningful drama with bystanders that doesn't feel static or dated. The film also doesn't just end in the traditional manner either, since it essentially ends where it starts in another bus ride (the return trip), although the resolution of its one tying thread of plot is clear without being overly defined.  For a 76 minute film, it is quite easy to recommend this feature, one that definitely stands as a useful feature to start with in the career of Shimizu along with films from that era and time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars

He Who Gets Slapped.

Review #1771: He Who Gets Slapped.

Cast: 
Lon Chaney (Paul Beaumont, aka HE), Norma Shearer (Consuelo), John Gilbert (Bezano), Tully Marshall (Count Mancini), Marc McDermott (Baron Regnard), Ford Sterling (Tricaud), Harvey Clark (Briquet), Paulette Duval (Zinida), Ruth King (Maria Beaumont), Clyde Cook (A Clown), Brandon Hurst (A Clown), and George Davis (A Clown) Directed by Victor Sjöström (#1327 - The Wind and #1731 - The Phantom Carriage)

Review: 

It should only figure that having a prime presence in Lon Chaney and a noted directing figure in Victor Sjostrom would result in an interesting movie. Sjostrom had moved to the United States when he was hired to direct Name the Man (1924), and he modified his name to "Seastrom". He would direct a handful of films in America in the silent era, and this was the first one to be produced by Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) in its history (albeit not the first released, since it was released in November for the holiday season), which if you remember had Louis B. Mayer as studio chief and Irving Thalberg as supervisor of productions, and the latter knew Chaney well enough from Universal Pictures to bring him to contract with the new studio. Sjostrom and Chaney would each benefit from the overall success that the film brought (one that made double its budget while being shot in the span of nearly two months). The film is adapted from the 1915 Russian play of the same name by Leonid Andreyev, with Sjostrom and Carey Wilson adapting it to the screen.

The film runs at 71 minutes (at least for versions in the public domain and on television, owing to an increased frame per second rate), and it manages to do quite well in making grisly entertainment. Well, at least for a film that involves a man who experiences humiliation so great that he becomes a clown only referred to as "HE" that gets a chance at romance but also revenge. Folks familiar with the actor referred to as "The Man with a Thousand Faces" will find a worthy treat in Chaney's lead performance as a dutiful clown, which technically means he is doing a dual performance: the normal mild-mannered man in the opening and a clown that prefers to laugh at people within pain (of course, there is also exploitation too). In that sense, he does exactly what is needed in a resourceful performance of pathos that we are generally sympathetic to, as in the tradition most would know from his previous highlights like The Penalty (1920), and it probably made sense that he would portray a clown again with Laugh, Clown, Laugh just four years later (which also had a love triangle). In fact, he nearly overshadows the other two folks in this love triangle story. Thalberg took an interest in Shearer, and this worked out pretty well for each side (they married in 1927), and one can see why. She has the bright charm required for what is needed here, and she seems quite suited in matching with Gilbert. He was in the midst of turning into a leading man around this period, and even with a segmented role like this he rolls with it pretty well (i.e. he doesn't get lost as just a nice face to romance another nice face). It might qualify as a thriller feature, if you think about it, since one definitely gets curious over just what will happen with the (unstable) lead presence, particularly when Marshall and McDermott enter the picture. McDermott makes a useful adversary as a bully that doesn't need much screen-time to make it work out, while Marshall makes a worthy exploiting figure. As one of MGM's early standout features, one should certainly not hesitate to pick this feature out, particularly since it happens to now be in the public domain. As a whole, the film is breezy and always interesting when it needs to be when it comes to showing a look into the circus along with being a fairly built thriller that still holds well within the standards of its time. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Jour de fête.

Review #1770: Jour de fête [The Big Day]

Cast: 

Jacques Tati (François), Paul Frankeur (Marcel), Guy Decomble (Roger), Santa Relli (Germaine), Mane Vallee (Jeanette), Delcassan (La commere), Roger Rafal (Le coiffeur), and Jacques Beauvais (Le cafetier) Directed by Jacques Tati (#434 - Mon Oncle)

Review: 

Sure, the silent era came and went in the early years of the 20th century, but that did not mean that there weren't still films that tried to rely on lessened noise to make for humor, one with a visual sense and deliberate timing. Jacques Tati certainly managed to make his mark within that sense of humor in his six feature films as star and director, and this was his debut. Born in Le Pecq, France to picture-framing parents, he decided to take up performing as an artist by his mid-twenties in the 1930s, which he would do for a number of years (interrupted only by service in World War II) while dabbling in short films. He started directing with "L'École des facteurs" [The School for Postmen], a short film released in 1947 for which he would utilize several gags for this film, which he would begin shooting later that year. He shot the film in Sainte-Sévère-sur-Indre, France, where he had resided there during the Occupation in World War II. The film was meant to be released in Thomsoncolor (with Tati have shot with two cameras). The process was not exactly reliable enough to be released in theaters, but Tati did tinker with the film in later years that involved adding color (doing so in a 1964 re-release that cut and re-shot scenes resulting in a shorter run-time of six minutes), and a 1995 restoration was spearheaded by Tati's daughter. The film was written by Tati, Henri Marquet (who would work with him for his next two features) and René Wheeler (best known for scripts such as A Cage of Nightingales [1945]).

If one really needed a good convincing argument about Tati and his accomplishments in visual humor, Buster Keaton once stated that Tati had carried on from the point where Keaton and others "had left off some forty years ago." He would continue to evolve within his visual comedy in his future films, with the next four featuring him as his most famous character, Monsieur Hulot, who Tati used for numerous escapades involving society moving forward in technology. One can see this curiosity here, though, since we are talking about a movie about a rural village with a quirky postman that tries to "speed up" his service in the vein of Americans and their post office people. In that sense, what we have is a pretty good movie that shows a slice of rural life within France. One doesn't need much of a story or fully developed characters when it comes to simple gags that delights one's curiosity with good leisure and the construction of getting to said gag for interesting moments. Tati is the one to follow throughout, and he does a worthy job of going through every little motion (or sound) with good timing that never betrays the intentions of making curious visual humor within a curious demeanor (i.e. one that is easy to follow). It makes for a brilliant and timeless comedy that hits most of its marks within an 86 minute run-time that comes and goes where it pleases for good effect with a worthy presence at the helm on camera. In a way, the film is like watching a puppet show, where one is an observer that sees a show come and go in its own machinations, whether that means seeing pursuits of what will occur with a pole or the weird quirks that come with trying to “improve” something. By the time one finishes the film, it is likely one worth looking into again (or recommending to others) just to see what can result from taking a closer look at its gags again. It makes for quite a leisurely time that anyone can watch and look for enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Ghostbusters: Afterlife.

Review #1769: Ghostbusters: Afterlife. 

Cast: 

Carrie Coon (Callie Spengler), Finn Wolfhard (Trevor Spengler), Mckenna Grace (Phoebe Spengler), Paul Rudd (Gary Grooberson), Logan Kim (Podcast), Celeste O'Connor (Lucky Domingo), with Bill Murray (Dr. Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Dr. Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Ernie Hudson (Dr. Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), and Bokeem Woodbine (Sheriff Domingo) Directed by Jason Reitman.

Review: 

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but there never needed to be a follow-up movie to Ghostbusters (1984). I say this as someone who watched the original film countless times as a kid with a DVD player, of course. I am sure you all know the great success that came from that movie as a cultural phenomenon, one that sprung from Dan Aykroyd and his fascination with the paranormal (along with his interest in updating old ghost movies he saw as a kid), with Harold Ramis serving as co-writer (of course, it was really a collaborative effort between them and Bill Murray to go along with director Ivan Reitman), which I'm sure you all know featured Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Ernie Hudson as the main quartet. Ghostbusters II (1989) was made because Columbia Pictures (after a bit of stalling) really wanted to make another one, and I think we all know that it proved to be "okay", although Reitman has defended it as one that just didn't compare well to the film released six days after it in Batman (1989), which he referred to as "kind of the flavour of that year" (no, they just wanted something funny without rolling their eyes at seeing the Statue of Liberty move). The idea of trying to do a sequel to Ghostbusters II came and went for decades, with one idea sending the crew to hell; some aspects of that script would eventually be utilized for the video game that was released in 2009 that featured the main quartet, which Aykroyd has stated was "essentially the third movie". Oh, right, this isn't the first time that someone tried to make a new Ghostbusters movie, since there was a reboot in 2016. Honestly, while the polarizing reactions to the idea of rebooting the series certainly was a bit weird, I just didn't have the spark of interest to really go to that many movies in a theater back in 2016 (which I saw just thirteen new movies, as compared to nineteen the next year). At any rate, that movie also featured appearances by the original cast and had I. Reitman as producer (made on a budget of $144 million, which led to a flop; this film was made for essentially half). Well, that and it also featured at least one Ghostbuster that fit the "everyman" type, but here we are. Truthfully, I don't think it should matter which movie you see, because one is here to watch a movie about folks going around catching ghosts - anybody that likes to prioritize some sort of agenda instead of overall quality for a film should probably seek a therapist (besides, "reboot", "remake" and "re-imagining" are all just words to roll one's eyes). The film was written by Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman (son of Ivan Reitman), the latter of which is known for features such as Thank You for Smoking (2005) and Juno (2007).

The funny thing is that it ends up being more interesting as a look upon a family slowly coming together again rather than its ties to Ghostbusters nostalgia. I will re-iterate that I am completely fine with the movie, but there really doesn't need to be an entire franchise of these kind of films, as the "Ghost Corps" logo at the beginning states (which was also present on the previous film). I think this is the case of trying to balance the tightrope of nostalgia: either one ends up making a movie that seems a bit too familiar to the original experience (with or without original cast-mates) or one makes a movie that doesn't quite seem interesting enough to the folks that cared about it to begin with or possibly even other folks. To me, there are probably a few too many attempts to call back to what had been done before, and yet I found the movie successful with making a useful and riveting adventure in the ultimate shape of things. If it is good enough to show the kids, you should be fine with the rest. It might run neck-and-neck with the second film in okay joke delivery, but as long as one doesn't find themselves cringing over its 125 minute run-time, you should be fine here. The tech certainly looks right when it comes to updates (such as a RC trap), so that helps. Sure, Coon and Rudd are meant to be the adult anchors of the cast, but Grace proves to be the overall highlight, one that manages to have charm and fair-enough timing to keep the film rolling in its attempt at layering itself (i.e. not simply throwing kids at the hands of effects and yelling, instead relying on a few bad jokes done on purpose that are up my alley). Wolfhard and O'Connor share a fair rapport with each other, while Kim proves useful levity as the final piece of the make-shift quartet. Coon might not have as much to really do as one might expect, but she does fine with the material, which also applies to Rudd, who brings a bit of energy when it is needed. Well, I suppose there is something to say about how they go about using Harold Ramis in CG. Maybe, but we are not even a decade removed from when Rogue One (2016) did CG to re-create Peter Cushing and use a sound-alike for scenes, so I throw up my hands and say, "interpret for yourself." If I am not thinking "would the family be fine with this?", then it is fine with me. It delivers a sendoff to Ramis without turning maudlin. At any rate, the main cast has a few lines that prove alright for what is needed, in the sense that this isn't too much of a "paycheck role" or "oh dear God, what happened?", one to enjoy seeing old faces at least one more time; sure, Murray is always the main curiosity, but it was definitely just as interesting to see Potts and Hudson again (particularly with the latter, the most underrated actor of those two films). Honestly, I would hope that any future Ghostbusters film of any kind would find time to create a new threat to deal with, if only because two of the four feature films (and the video game!) have now had the same kind of threat for its climax. That isn't to say I did not enjoy the climax as a whole (because, hey, it is worth it), but there surely should be something out there with ghoulish curiosity worth looking into next time pertaining to running a business with un-licensed nuclear accelerators and ever-growing traps. If relying on the familiar is a crime, the film certainly would fall guilty of it, but it at least looks like it is having fun doing so without becoming a shell of what it means to make a useful family adventure worth watching.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.