Top Gun: Maverick.

Review #1844: Top Gun: Maverick.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Pete "Maverick" Mitchell), Miles Teller (Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw), Jennifer Connelly (Penelope "Penny" Benjamin), Jon Hamm (Beau "Cyclone" Simpson), Glen Powell (Jake "Hangman" Seresin), Lewis Pullman (Robert "Bob" Floyd), Ed Harris (Chester "Hammer" Cain), Val Kilmer (Tom "Iceman" Kazansky), Monica Barbaro (Natasha "Phoenix" Trace), Charles Parnell (Solomon "Warlock" Bates), Jay Ellis (Reuben "Payback" Fitch), Danny Ramirez (Lieutenant Mickey "Fanboy" Garcia), Greg Tarzan Davis (Lieutenant Javy "Coyote" Machado), Manny Jacinto (Lieutenant Billy "Fritz" Avalone), Jack Schumacher (Lieutenant Neil "Omaha" Vikander), and Bashir Salahuddin (Bernie "Hondo" Coleman) Directed by Joseph Kosinski (#343 - Tron: Legacy)

Review: 

"With Top Gun: Maverick I hope it shows people why we make movies for theaters. The film was designed to be enjoyed on the biggest screen with a packed audience."

Admittedly, the original Top Gun (1986) was a film of its time in terms of spectacle and flavor. It was a movie made by committee with the efforts of director Tony Scott, star Tom Cruise and producers Jerry Bruckheimer & Don Simpson. It was a quality movie that lived and died on the heights of its aerial sequences with enough instinct and style. The idea of doing a sequel started in 2010 with Paramount Pictures offering each of the main core of Bruckheimer, Scott, and Cruise to return, although the suicide of Scott in 2012 obviously changed things (as such, the film has a dedication to him in the credits). The screenplay was done by Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer, and Christopher McQuarrie (who has collaborated with Cruise on the most recent Mission: Impossible films) while the story was done by Peter Craig and Justin Marks (the two had first finished a screenplay draft in 2012 after writers like Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz were approached in 2011). Joseph Kosinski had worked with Cruise on Oblivion (2013) and Teller with Only the Brave (2017). He ended up becoming director when he made his pitch to Cruise on what his approach would be to making the film (i.e. the relationship between Cruise and Teller's characters and also the "Darkstar" sequence), complete with shooting practically with a camera system in the cockpit. The crew had to work for months with cooperation from the Navy to get "six IMAX-quality cameras" in the cockpit and also train the actors in pilot training (keep in mind, they also did underwater training before being allowed in a F-18). Shooting was done from 2018 to 2019, but the film ended up being delayed multiple times: once because of needing more time to shoot complex action sequences, another time because of the pandemic and finally because of scheduling conflicts.

As stated by its opening card: On March 3, 1969 the United States Navy established an elite school for the top one percent of its pilots. Its purpose was to teach the lost art of aerial combat and to insure that the handful of men who graduated were the best fighter pilots in the world. They succeeded. Today, the Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School. The flyers call it: You get the idea. It's funny how the movie is in all aspects better than the original feature despite the fact (or perhaps because of it) that it really takes several of the same beats from the previous one, from its opening sequence where a chewing off of the  lead character for recklessness before getting sent somewhere he wants to go right down to its own sequence of playing on the beach (complete with a nameless enemy once again, although you can argue over if that is because it isn't necessary or because the movie doesn't want to fearmonger people). You thought Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) copied previous movies? Try this one for size. It does handle the balance of spectacle and sentiment better in that it actually tries this time to really make riveting drama as a rite-of-passage of movie rather where it bumbled before. Of course, the chemistry between Cruise and the leading woman is better this time around by the simple act of it looking like they care to build a script with one level of depth rather than the script of vague-ness that occurred before. Cruise doesn't seem to have missed much of a beat from before, one filled with confidence in the air to go alongside a semblance of lingering doubt over things in the ground. In other words: it finds a way to let go without becoming cheap about it. Teller is okay, one with collected calmness that matches well with Cruise in simmering tension that at least makes sure he doesn't get lost in the shuffle of playing the pilot angle like a sports movie, only with a bit more chuckles that are on purpose. At least Powell seems to enjoy the role of overconfidence and chuckles, since Pullman and the others exist on the margins for moderate engagement on par with a high school movie. At least the movie utilizes the only other actor to return from the first film to poignant effect. Kilmer had his voice altered due to treatments for throat cancer in recent years (an AI program was developed to mimic what he sounded like), and the movie shows him for a brief time for a useful sendoff that is both the most inevitable part of the movie and yet the least cheesy. Harris and Hamm play the stand-in foils that are basically the equivalent of the characters played by James Tolkan and Tom Skerritt, and they do okay (of course, an over 90-year-old Tolkan might have made me crack of a smile rather than Harris, but that's just me). 

The action choreography is nearly what one would expect from a movie in 2022: something good to look at, but this time without as much evident CG to think about, if only because if Cruise is a showman who prefers to do his stunts, then heaven help the idea of trying to cheapen out on putting people in planes with IMAX cameras and let them fly. The level of inevitability could not be higher here, because to me I never really thought there was a semblance of danger present, which seems fitting to match the first film in making one not really think about the danger for just enjoying the ride (in other words, you know damn well Cruise is not going to die). In essence, the product from 1986 has been updated with useful updates that don't make one want to demand a recall. If the violence is going to seem bloodless to the point where war only seems to be the next level of a board game, then at least the movie wings it all the way to the most natural conclusion. Would I want another one of these? No, of course not, but at least as an attempt to hone back to the adventurous spirit of the first film, it at least does a suitable job in exceeding the standards set by the original without losing sight of what mattered most. In other words: it has the showmanship of the original with a degree of intelligence this time around. I don't think it quite elevates the material past "fine", but it will probably age a bit more gracefully in legacy because of its coherence in the face of adventure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Top Gun.

Redux: #029: Top Gun.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Pete "Maverick" Mitchell), Kelly McGillis (Charlotte "Charlie" Blackwood), Val Kilmer (Tom "Iceman" Kazansky), Anthony Edwards (Nick "Goose" Bradshaw), Tom Skerritt (Mike "Viper" Metcalf), Michael Ironside (Rick "Jester" Heatherly), John Stockwell (Bill "Cougar" Cortell), Barry Tubb (Leonard "Wolfman" Wolfe), Rick Rossovich (Ron "Slider" Kerner), Tim Robbins (Sam "Merlin" Wells), Clarence Gilyard (Marcus "Sundown" Williams), Whip Hubley (Rick "Hollywood" Neven), and James Tolkan (Tom "Stinger" Jardian) Directed by Tony Scott.

Review: 

"Jerry was the first person to see the energy and dynamism that ad directors could bring to movies because he was from a commercials background himself."

A main core is only as successful as the parts that come with it. Tony Scott was born in Tynemouth, England as the youngest of three sons; when his older brother Ridley shot his first film in 1962, he cast his brother as the lead. At any rate, the younger Scott studied at Sunderland Art School and the Royal College of Art before he decided to join his brother in making advertisement films (as was the case with other soon-to-be directors like Alan Parker and Adrian Lyne). Of course, he did do his own shorts with One of the Missing (1968) and Loving Memory (1970) before his feature film debut came with The Hunger (made in 1983 to minor attention), but it was his filming in advertisements that would keep him steady for a number of years, and it was his advertisement for automaker Saab (which had a car racing a fighter jet) that raised interest from Jerry Bruckheimer to do this film. Of course, as a young man, Bruckheimer had worked in advertising before moving to producing films in 1972; it was his meeting years later with Don Simpson, who also had years of experience with film production that later led to their first collaboration: Flashdance, released in 1983, would be Bruckheimer and Simpson's first major hit as producer. The movie was inspired by an article called "Top Guns", written originally for California magazine in May 1983 by Ehud Yonay. The article detailed a F-14 pilots training with the Navy Fighter Weapons School program that was noted for its prose and still photography that conveyed what flying a fighter seemed like, as stated by two pilots named "Yogi" and "Possum". Bruckheimer and Don Simpson liked it and thus got Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr to construct a first draft, although there would be considerable differences before it finally made it to the big screen (which reportedly saw a last-minute rewrite from Warren Skaaren). This also extended to their work with the Department of Defense (a key backer that wanted to maintain that the movie honored the fine points of security, accuracy, policy, and propriety with the story (i.e. a character not suffering a mid-air collision or the love story being changed from between military personnel to a military man and civilian). The technical advisor utilized for the film was Peter "Viper" Pettigrew, a former "Topgun" (as the actual term is referred to) instructor at the Miramar Naval Air Station in Miramar, California.

As stated by its opening card: On March 3, 1969 the United States Navy established an elite school for the top one percent of its pilots. Its purpose was to teach the lost art of aerial combat and to insure that the handful of men who graduated were the best fighter pilots in the world. They succeeded. Today, the Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School. The flyers call it: You get the idea. The last time I saw the film was over a decade ago, and I remember that the film was a "cheesy flick", one that worked best with its action sequences more so than its overall mood and atmosphere. But time does find a new way to write more clear words about a movie that has now reached over three decades of age. If one gets even a fraction of how Yonay felt when he flew in an F-5 for an hour in terms of aching muscles or the thrill of wanting to get up there again, then the movie has obviously succeeded. The sequences in between talking are quite effective in their choreography, ones that serve as a useful tool of conveying action with the strange duality of not churning itself in its look but also conveying violence without drops of blood. Admittedly, the movie served as a useful tool to one thing in particular: the United States Navy, who not only helped support the film but also found plenty of recruits after the movie was released. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Oliver Stone (director of Platoon, which won Best Picture the same year as this film) felt the movie was fascist. Honestly, the parody Hot Shots (1991) might actually be the most appropriate feeling about the movie: a movie that made light of its overt macho nature that doesn't have time to think, instead acting on instinct and not much else. I think the mediocrity that my eyes saw as a fourteen-year-old only slightly changed very slightly as a 25-year old. The best thing about the movie is still the style first and Cruise second. One can see the persistent charisma oozing from Cruise (who had his breakthrough with Risky Business three years prior) that molded him from casual leading man to one with a formula fitting for a big-name presence, and he essentially walks over most of the folks here, to the point where McGillis can't catch up even when "Take My Breath Away" is blaring. Edwards provides warm energy to the early part of the proceedings for a movie that set a tone as a so-called movie for the "bros", if you will. Kilmer (who had early success in comedies like Top Secret!) has his own kind of icy charm that is just as confident and self-assured as Cruise. Skerritt and Tolkan are useful tools for authority foils, ones fitting of a sports movie filled with recognizable people meant to induce a wise-ass remark or smile. Besides, sports movies could only wish to be as eccentric with their opening besides seeing someone take a photo from up above. I think the opening with Stockwell going through a panic attack in the air is probably the best actual sequence of dialogue and visual sense; the volleyball sequence may be talked about to death, but honestly it only seems to exist as an offshoot to all of the other scenes that seem shot for a commercial rather than anything to seriously dissect. I respect the craft while also recognizing that the script quality is essentially on a level equivalent to an adventure movie where inevitability is king. It is probably how driving a car from the 1980s would turn out: it may look sleek, but one has to watch out for the simple things. For a number of years, the idea of a Top Gun sequel came up a couple of times in the 21st century, even with the suicide of Scott in 2012, and after a number of years in film/development, Top Gun: Maverick was released in late May 2022. It isn't a surprise that this followed along the lines of other sequels to movies long ago, because Top Gun is a curious representation of its era: bold, set firmly in its time, and possibly ripe for further viewing if one is in the mindset for what it wants to sell.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Review: Top Gun: Maverick.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

Review #1843: The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

Cast: 

Jeff Goldblum (Dr. Ian Malcolm), Julianne Moore (Dr. Sarah Harding), Pete Postlethwaite (Roland Tembo), Arliss Howard (Peter Ludlow), Richard Attenborough (Dr. John Hammond), Vince Vaughn (Nick Van Owen), Vanessa Lee Chester (Kelly Curtis), Peter Stormare (Dieter Stark), Harvey Jason (Ajay Sidhu), Richard Schiff (Eddie Carr), and Thomas F. Duffy (Dr. Robert Burke) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence, #1560 - The Adventures of Tintin)

Review: 

"I beat myself up... growing more and more impatient with myself... It made me wistful about doing a talking picture, because sometimes I got the feeling I was just making this big silent-roar movie... I found myself saying, 'Is that all there is? It's not enough for me."

If one remembers correctly, Jurassic Park as both novel and film was major success. The book, published in 1990, was the seventeenth novel written by Michael Crichton, who also tried his hand at directing and writing films from time to time (most notably with Westworld (1973). He had developed the novel for a number of years from a graduate student recreating a dinosaur to wildlife park of extinct animals because of the expense of genetic research. Crichton, who had first met Spielberg when the latter was tasked to show him around the lot of Universal Studios in the late 1970s, would be the director for the film adaptation (at the time, it was the seventh adaptation of a Crichton novel), as Crichton told Spielberg about the novel a year before its publication. When it came time for the film adaptation, Crichton slimmed down the large contents of the novel to about a fraction for the script that he wrote for the film (with later writing by David Koepp). The book was such a success that fans asked Crichton to develop a sequel, which only ramped up with the success of the film. The Lost World (named after the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel of the same name) was released one year later by Crichton, and development for a film adaptation started not long after by Spielberg (Crichton did not have involvement with this or any other Jurassic Park movies). The plot between the book and film differs in some ways, as a cursory view of the summary states that the book features the character of Ian Malcolm going a rescue mission to retrieve a paleontologist in "Site B" with five others (that includes two stowaway children as research assistants), as opposed to being a reluctant participant to retrieve his significant other already on the island there to "document the dinosaurs" (the film Hammond is considerably different from the book anyway). It was the only sequel book that Crichton ever wrote, although it did not stop the eventual development of a third Jurassic Park film, which was released in 2001 with ideas and characters from the first novel incorporated into it. 

Technology is a curious thing, with Crichton once describing it as a "manifestation of how we think." Dennis Muren, Stan Winston, Phil Tippett and Michael Lantieri had won Academy Awards for their work in visual effects for the first film, and all but Tippett returned to provide effects. Koepp would also write the screenplay for this film, which he did by himself. Adventures are really, really tough to do again and again. Hell, one should have seen this coming because of how it went for Spielberg the first time he did a sequel to one of his films: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984). Think about it: both movies are darker than the original film while also having different cast members with the exception of one (no, Attenborough being there doesn't count since he basically cameos for two scenes). Spielberg himself felt that the reason sequels like the one he made here weren't as good was because of his overconfidence (where one feels since the original did so well, this would be a slam dunk), for which he decided to take his hands off ever doing another Jurassic Park film; at the last minute, he decided to change the ending to include a dinosaur rampage on San Diego, which he planned to save for a third film before realizing he would probably not do a third film. Of course, we are dealing with a movie that has characters that know they are going to an island of dinosaurs, so that also changes the tone a bit for a film long at 129 minutes that features "hunters and gatherers". Technically, it does excel well as a monster movie, since it rolls along with the cliches and execution of a horror movie, complete with characters that have the intelligence size of some random guy you see on the street trying to juggle blindfolded while crossing the street; in other words, it has the thought process of a B-movie that should know a bit better. At least one knows what they are getting into early, since the first scene features a little girl stumbling onto chicken-sized dinosaurs that like the taste of meat that attack her (off-screen). I didn't hate the movie, because I certainly tolerated the long and winding road (read: a road one inch thick) in trying to make adventure that at least gets to a fraction of The Lost World (1925), which it does after dawdling for a time. It's a nice-looking movie with a jagged edge of humor for setting up terror at times, but being an average Spielberg movie is probably more disappointing to view than just watching an average B-movie. 

The strangest thing is that the most interesting actor in the film is one who doesn't even show up for the beginning or its climax: Postlethwaite is the most convincing of the group because one really does believe he is just a guy who wants to be on an island with dinosaurs for the ultimate hunt, one with the most dignity and conviction without becoming a complete caricature in long-winded speeches, which means one kind of would have rather had him as a focus or at least stay a bit into the climax rather than shuttling off (hey, a movie about people trying to get their kicks by hunting dinosaurs can't be that silly). Don't get me wrong, Goldblum is an adequate lead, one who retains his cynicism from before that is interesting before he gets pegged into less chaotic fare with Moore and Chester that makes him not exactly as compelling to view from before, if only because he seems more seeped into the labeling crowd; in other words, he has become a bit ordinary. Moore can only go as far as the script goes with a character that seems scribbled together with minimal things to really do besides making one wonder why the "gatherer" characters seem less suitable than the "hunter" characters to root for. Vaughn is okay here, but the fact that the film helped gain him a bit more exposure on a path to more interesting projects is at least somewhat comforting. Honestly, it is surprising that Chester is the one "kid character" here, because the two kids from the original (Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards) appear in a cameo that seems to remind me that their adolescent story worked far better than sequences with Chester and Goldblum trying to play (family) house, which seems corny more than anything. Howard homes in the arrogance expected of the role with decent edge, but the only real selling point is obvious: seeing someone get their just desserts, because heaven knows he might be the only prominent cast member to face true danger. It might be a darker movie than the first film, but it doesn't quite capture much of the same magic that came before it, with its monster mash chase sequences only pushing the film barely over the finish line beyond just being a really expensive B-movie that has to fill some obligations. I did like what I saw from the San Diego scene at the end, even if it was more inevitable in execution more than anything. As a whole, if one wants a few nice effects and an okay story, this would be just fine in the cornucopia of movies that only reach its grasp 70% of the time, which is still better than reaching it only 60% of the time. As a movie that is now 25 years old, perhaps it will age gracefully for the curious who seek it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Beverly Hills Cop II.

Review #1842: Beverly Hills Cop II.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Detective Axel Foley), Judge Reinhold (Detective Billy Rosewood), Jürgen Prochnow (Maxwell Dent), John Ashton (Detective John Taggart), Ronny Cox (Captain Andrew Bogomil), Brigitte Nielsen (Karla Fry), Allen Garfield (Chief Harold Lutz), Brian O'Connor (Detective Biddle), Dean Stockwell (Charles Cain), Gil Hill (Inspector Douglas Todd), Gilbert Gottfried (Sidney Bernstein), Paul Reiser (Detective Jeffrey Friedman), Paul Guilfoyle (Nikos Thomopolis), Robert Ridgely (Mayor Ted Egan), and Alice Adair (Jan Bogomil) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun, #253 - Unstoppable, #357 - The Last Boy Scout, #1632 - True Romance)

Review: 

Admittedly, it isn't much of a surprise that this film came on the heels of a successful feature, one that  celebrates its 35th anniversary of release. Beverly Hills Cop (1984), based on a script by Danilo Bach and Daniel Petrie Jr with direction by Martin Brest, was the right movie at the right time to bring its main star (Eddie Murphy rather than Sylvester Stallone, who is referenced from time to time in this movie) to widespread popularity, one that was the biggest blockbuster (and biggest overall hit) of its year. As such, the sequel features the same producers in Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer along with most of the regulars back to star; the movie was done rather than the idea of doing a television series, which is what Paramount Pictures wanted to do (Murphy said no to the idea). Of course, the writers are different, as Larry Ferguson and Warren Skaaren wrote the screenplay while Robert D. Wachs and Eddie Murphy did the story. For what it's worth, Murphy said a few years later that it was a "half-assed movie." Tony Scott, who had made a serviceable hit for Bruckheimer with Top Gun (1986), was brought in to direct the movie, which was his third ever feature as director (with his older brother Ridley, they had founded a company together in 1968 that honed directors like him and Alan Parker in making commercials).

At least "Shakedown" is a good song to start with (Bob Seger is underrated)? Honestly, it is just okay. It doesn't do well in terms of generating amusement, but Scott does well enough with staging the action and general charm of Murphy and friends to make a relatively decent experience. One gets to see Murphy paired with Reinhold and Ashton while others nearly fall by the wayside, whether that means Prochnow or with Cox. It glides around for103-minute with some of the same beats from the original while trying to not muddle the machinations of the plot, which goes from "fish out of water breaking into a crime ring by a businessman" to "not fish out of water breaking into a crime ring by a businessman" (both involving someone close to him being shot in Beverly Hills), with "alphabet crimes" being the name of the game here. Scott stated this film as a cross between Beverly Hills Cop and 48 Hrs (1982), but it inadvertently serves as a precursor to Murphy doing second-tier work in later years such as Another 48 Hrs (1990), although at least this film doesn't strain itself too hard to explain its plot beyond what it needs to. Murphy at least makes the effort in driving the movie along with his general charm that maneuvers his way through the action/comedy beats with staid patience rather than complete "paycheck mode". Additionally, Reinhold and Ashton make for a good trio to follow along with in budding engagement, where one likes to see them around making good beats for timing with contrast between calm and hard-lined personality. Prochnow and Nielsen are moderately around the adversarial level that the first film had in general "okay" quality that can't exactly stand out too well from Murphy besides cardboard threats of inevitability (Stockwell being used as a front man rather than for actual moments of ooze is particularly vexing, I don't care how many movies Prochnow has done, you cannot tell me Stockwell isn't up to his par). Besides, Garfield is the hard-lined foil to remember for short bits anyway. There are a select number of small appearances with recognizable faces (established or not), with some of those working out fine like with Gottfried and his momentary bumbling (also, Chris Rock makes his first film appearance) while others...do not (no one, and I mean no one, needs a sequence at the Playboy Mansion). As a whole, the movie is glossier and perhaps less heightened than the original, one with all the right (cliche) moves that will please just the folks who are fine with what they have seen before, serving as a pinnacle of average. There is nothing great or terrible with it, which seems more of a description of fast-food products more than anything. With that in mind, this is one of those "take it or leave it" movies, where Murphy and company carry it far enough over the finish line to make the experience mostly worth it. In a sea of Murphy movies, being in the middle of the pack is not a bad thing to consider.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Smokey and the Bandit.

Review #033 Redux: Smokey and the Bandit.

Cast: 

Burt Reynolds (Bo "Bandit' Darville), Sally Field (Carrie), Jerry Reed (Cledus "Snowman" Snow), Jackie Gleason (Sheriff Buford T. Justice), Mike Henry (Junior Justice), Pat McCormick (Big Enos Burdette), Paul Williams (Little Enos Burdette), Macon McCalman (Mr. B), Susan McIver (Hot Pants), and George Reynolds (Sheriff Branford) Directed by Hal Needham.

Review: 

"I'll never win an Academy Award. But I'll be a rich son of a bitch." - Hal Needham

I first saw this movie at the age of fourteen in 2011. I found the movie (and I quote) "a load of fun.", one that proved quite humorous and captivating in its sequences involving cars, trucks...you get the idea. Over ten years later, it is interesting to consider how a film can age after 45 years. On May 19, 1977, Smokey and the Bandit premiered at Radio City Music Hall as a Rastar production from Universal Pictures. The way it came together might be as interesting as the actual film, since one has to remember that it was the brainchild of a former stuntman making his debut. Born in Tennessee, Hal Needham served in the United States Army as a paratrooper during the Korean War before entering Hollywood as a stuntman in 1956 (after stints as an airplane jumper and tree trimming), which resulted in work for various productions in television and film, and it was here that he met Reynolds while serving as his double on television in 1959, which soon resulted in a long-lasting friendship (to the point where he lived in the guesthouse of Reynolds for twelve years). He soon did stunt coordination and second unit action, most notably with The Longest Yard (1974). Needham approached Reynolds about doing the film based on his script (originally set for a B-movie target that would have had Jerry Reed as star) when he had trouble getting studios to take him seriously as a director. Reynolds, despite apparently calling it one of the worst scripts he ever read, decided to do the movie with Needham. For better or worse, this is the one film that Needham is best remembered for, despite the fact that he directed a handful of features and television work in the next two decades (his last theatrical film however was Rad (1986)). This would include further collaborations with Reynolds such Hooper (1978), The Cannonball Run films (1981, 1983), and Stroker Ace (1983). The Bandit series would continue with Needham, Reynolds, Field, Gleason, and Reed each doing Smokey and the Bandit II (1980). Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 (1983) saw only Reed & Gleason return for what was surely far less returns than the previous film (which was already a huge disappointment). One further Bandit came around with four made-for-television films that were all directed by Needham in 1994 before he retired in 1999 (perhaps fittingly, his last project was a TV film with Reynolds as the star). Needham died at the age of 82 in 2013, but not before he was celebrated with an Honorary Academy Award as a pioneer in stunt technology and procedures in safety. The writers for the film were Needham and Robert L. Levy (who also served as a producer) for the story while the screenplay was done by James Lee Barrett (author/writer/producer best known for scripts such as The Cheyenne Social Club), Charles Shyer (his first credit), and Alan Mandel.

I could go quite a bit about weird trivia about this movie (like Alfred Hitchcock saying it was one of his favorite films), but it helps to get to the point. The reason the film works so well isn't really because of any great tense moments or elaborate directing (as this is a movie full of improvisation more than anything) There is a good reason this was the second highest grossing movie of the year of 1977, and that is because it captures the essence of entertainment that comes with adventure and humor. It is probably up there as one of the best films with Burt Reynolds as a star (one he cited as the most fun he ever had in making) and definitely a movie you could nickname a "Southern classic". We are talking a movie where Coors Banquet Beer is something to get down to Georgia (at the time, one could not buy or transport the beer east of Oklahoma) in a hurry that features three former television stars, two award-winning singers, a football player-turned actor, and a comedy writer-turned actor. But the main point is this: it may have a loosely-developed story, but it doesn't cloud all the fun and excitement one manages to get from the film, one that is the definitive feature for both Needham and Reynolds in its execution of comedy and adventure. It isn't perfect, but then no movie truly is perfect, and it is the importance of picking movies that one can see again and again that truly matters when it comes to an appreciation of cinema or "Americana" in general; in other words, it wears its appeal and flaws on its sleeve with no filter or shame.

Readers and anyone familiar with cinema of the time know that Reynolds cultivated his lovable rogue persona into stardom with Deliverance (1972) after years of toiling in television and low-budget films. Of course, this film wasn't his first rodeo when it came to car-action films, since White Lightning (1973) was a well-regarded hit in the South. He has the comic timing and confidence required here for a "good ol' boy" movie that winks to the camera with the appeal to everyone (the folks that want to be him and the folks that want to go home with him). Sure, Deliverance might be a tight rival on the top tier of Reynolds movies, but this is the movie I find myself going back to again and again more than anything (besides, his other films with Needham never quite had the same magic). It does seem weird to consider that Field was actually a television presence before finding eventual fame in film, but it was this film, alongside the TV production of Sybil (1976), that helped her break out of just being known as the star of Gidget and The Flying Nun, for which you can credit Reynolds for fighting for her to be cast (arguing that "talent is sexy"). As such, she makes an excellent partner to Reynolds because of her own quick timing and energetic grace that make for instant chemistry (they would star in three other films together). And then of course there is Reed. The Atlanta native grew up with an ambition to be a star in Nashville from a young age, and he eventually proved to be successful in country music (both writing and singing music alongside his guitar-playing). As a close friend of Reynolds, he had appeared with him in a variety of films such as W.W. and the Dixie Dancekings (1974) and Gator (1976), but it is his singing (which won him three Grammy Awards) that he is obviously best known for, particularly with his singing of "East Bound and Down" (written by Reed and Dick Feller), which has endured in my mind for many, many years with its beat and singing, with his energy proving quite infectious as both actor and singer. Gleason was a television icon for two decades, and yet he had time to dabble in film roles alongside singing (his "mood music", I kid you not, actually had one album that stayed on the top ten in charts for nearly three years), and Reynolds personally wanted him for the film, for which Needham would allow him free rein to ad-lib. In fact, it was Gleason who came up with one of the best little sequences of the movie: the one and only scene where Gleason and Reynolds share a scene together, which the two setup with efficient timing; Gleason and Henry make a worthy 1-2 bumbling punch together, which also goes for McCormick (writer on The Tonight Show) and Williams (Academy Award winning songwriter), who each serve as a useful foil for Reynolds. The 96-minute run-time proves just right when it comes to not overstaying its welcome (editors Walter Hannemann and Angelo Ross earned the film's one Academy Award nomination), one that moves from scene to scene with charm that paces itself with its car sequences that are executed crisply without just being loud silly sequences that wreck cars just to wreck cars. There are a handful of scenes one could highlight, such as Reynolds and Reed bumbling through acquiring beer from Texarkana or when Field tries her hand at driving the Trans Am (which still exudes sleek excellence), but the best way to enjoy it is to see for yourself. As a whole, it is the kind of fun-loving movie that packed the right people together for the right movie at the right time for a movie that has endured for 45 years because of how it captures the Americana spirit of fun and good times in all of the excesses that come with doing so for one of the best movies in the career of both Reynolds and Needham, a pairing like no other.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

She (1935).

Review #1841: She.

Cast: 

Helen Gahagan (She Who Must Be Obeyed), Randolph Scott (Leo Vincey), Nigel Bruce (Professor Horace Holly), Helen Mack (Tanya Dugmore), Gustav von Seyffertitz (Billali, She's mortal Governor), Lumsden Hare (Dugmore), Samuel S. Hinds (John Vincey), and Noble Johnson (Amahaggar Chief) Directed by Lansing C. Holden and Irving Pichel (#617 - Destination Moon, #709 - The Most Dangerous Game, and #1374 - Quicksand)

Review: 

There are certainly a few weird distinctions that come with this film, if you think about it. For one, it was produced by Merian C. Cooper, who worked in film for over four decades in a variety of positions that ranged from director to producer; King Kong (1933) is undoubtedly the one he is remembered for and for good reason, so one isn't surprised to see Cooper involved with this film, which was meant to be an fantasy adventure epic (complete with a score by the same composer as Kong in Max Steiner). The movie is an adaptation of the 1886 novel of the same name by H. Rider Haggard (likely best known for King Solomon's Mines, which he wrote one year prior), with the screenplay written by Dudley Nichols and Ruth Rose; you may recognize the latter name as the co-writer of the screenplay for King Kong (she met Ernest B. Schoedsack, a collaborator with Cooper on numerous films on the production of Grass in 1925 and thus wrote a total of six scripts for Cooper's productions after Schoedsack and Rose married), and Nichols would win an Academy Award that year for another script with The Informer. The most unusual pairing of directors might be with this film, since it features a journeyman director in Pichel and Holden, with the latter being more known for his service in World War I for the 95th Aero Squadron, where he shot down seven enemy pilots. As it turns out, Cooper was also serving in the War as a pilot. For Holden, this was his first and only feature film while also serving as a production illustrator; he worked on two other films in the art department alongside one short directed before he died in a plane crash in 1938 at the age of 42. 

Of course, the main thing to remember is that the film was meant to be shot in Technicolor, complete with sets and costumes ready for its lavish fantasy adventure, but RKO Radio Pictures at the last moment cut Cooper's budget (instead of $1 million for this film and another production with RKO, he now had just $1 million combined to make two films). However, a recent re-release by Legend Films presents the film in "colorized" form by screen legend Ray Harryhausen, who was a friend to Cooper, so one technically has the option to see the film as it might have been if it the film was shot in color (having seen what the color print looks like, I cannot actually agree with the idea, but folks will be folks). RKO wanted to have Joel McCrea and Frances Dee for the leads, while Cooper wanted to borrow Greta Garbo from MGM for the title role, but Randolph Scott (borrowed from Paramount) and Helen Gahagan make a fair compromise. The film failed at the box office, costing the studio over $180,000, although it did break even after it was re-released in 1949 when paired with The Last Days of Pompeii (the other RKO production Cooper produced in 1935), although twelve minutes of the 102 minute run-time were cut. It was feared that the film was lost because of a fire that wiped out a print from the studio vault. The original film only exists because of the efforts of Raymond Rohauer. He had invited filmmakers and stars to attend showing and discuss their contributions to film, and it was during one of these tributes that he was approached by Buster Keaton, who asked him if he would be interested in his "garage full of film", and one of the prints found was this film.

Haggard wrote three further novels involving the title character before his death at the age of 68 in 1925. Five adaptations of varying length were constructed before the making of this feature, with the 1925 version (the first feature-length adaptation) even having intertitles written by Haggard himself. Since the making of this film, three further adaptations have followed, with one occurring in 1965, a sequel to that film in 1968, and a post-apocalyptic version in 1984. The striking difference between the film and novel is that the book was set in the Artic rather than Africa, and the film reportedly takes elements from the previous She works. So, we have a pursuit for a fountain of youth-I mean a Flame of Life involving Art Deco decoration and one prominent prop utilized from King Kong that features a dance sequence with choreography that was nominated for an Academy Award. It results in a production that obviously deserved better from RKO that nevertheless makes for useful spectacle. It eventually turns from general pulp to useful curiosity in romance when Gahagan finally appears, but the general trio of Scott-Bruce-Mack do prove worthy in setting the movie up without falling prey to all of the wooden dialogue they sometimes have to say to get the adventure going. Scott walks through the role with the kind of "strong, silent type" of patience that makes one see why he would become an ideal man for the Western for years to come. Bruce had moved to Hollywood from Britian in 1934, and he cultivates a stuffy but always diverting piece of the puzzle, while Mack makes for an assertive romantic interest that serves a worthy spark with Scott. Speaking of which, there is Gahagan to consider. A stage actress before she became a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, her icy demeanor in the face of immortality and diminishing humanity certainly jumps the movie's interest level when she shows up to engage with Scott; her appearance and cadence would inspire the look of the Evil Queen for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937). While the sets and effects generally work out well for the movie, I would say that the lessened budget does affect the scope of certain scenes, where one wonders just what would have happened with the right amount of staging, but I do think there is still a worthy flair for adventure and allure present to push the film with enough conviction to make the eventual climax more than just someone deciding their future on a flame. In that sense, She (1935) is quite the fascination to hear about along with actually watch as a whole, serving as an interesting example of the quest feature with dutiful fascination fit for a hidden gem.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

Review #1840: Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

Cast: 

Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Stephen Strange), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Karl Mordo), Benedict Wong (Wong), Xochitl Gomez (America Chavez), Michael Stuhlbarg (Nicodemus West), and Rachel McAdams (Christine Palmer) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2, and #1779 - Spider-Man 3)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember the film Doctor Strange (#874), since it was only released...six years ago? To reiterate from long ago, this is based off the character of the same name that was co-created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko that first appeared in comics in July of 1963. What I remember about the original film was that it seemed to dazzle my younger self with its effects and cast that had generated a bit of amazement and surprise in its sequences (whether an indictment of myself or perhaps the series, I haven't seen the film since the only time I saw it). That film was part of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, which is still kicking around after fourteen years after having gone through various phases (the 2016 film was one of the first of the "third" phase while this one is smack dab in the middle of the ongoing "fourth" phase). That film was written and directed by Scott Derrickson, who was known for films such as Sinister (2012) and The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2014), and Derrickson was slated to return for the film before stepping down in 2020; Raimi was signed on not long afterwards, and this is his first film as director since Oz the Great and Powerful (2013). This film was written by Michael Waldron, his first film credit. Times have changed a bit since then, since I guess one also needed to see superheroes appear in "miniseries" television as well (as opposed to their previous attempts at TV productions), with this film for example serving as a follow-up to WandaVision (2021). Of course, I will provide exactly one statement to the idea of trying to play catch-up to miniseries: movies are the ideal to engage my interest, so it seems too much like "homework" for my taste, but it is what it is. 

So, what does one think of a movie with a title long enough to abbreviate as "Doctor Strange in the M.O.M.?" Come to think of it, I haven't exactly been dutiful in actually seeing each of these Marvel movies in a few years. It isn't because they have degraded in quality, it just seems that the ones that look interesting are sequels rather than trying to introduce a hero (of course, if one stopped watching after Avengers: Endgame, I don't blame you). But hey, here we are with a supposedly "scarier" Marvel movie with a semi-interesting idea with an adversary quite familiar to viewers in going from "they are in that shot and sometimes talk" to "presence". Besides, anything that gives the character of Doctor Strange something better to do than what he did in Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) should work out, but this is the rambling of a man who just thinks a hero seems more interesting to view without being just a supporting presence. The best thing I can say is that for all the cynical rambling and thoughts I had going into the film, it at least covers some of the expectations it has for itself with useful thrilling imagery with a game cast and director. It isn't exactly a good result, in part because there is a far better movie out now involving a "multiverse", but admirers of Raimi will still find it worth their time as a minor messy work. Cumberbatch walks through the film handily with the confidence one expects from his sense of knowing and timing that handles the demands thrust upon him with worthwhile patience. Of course, Olsen is the one who ends up stealing the show a bit, since her single-minded desire makes for compelling engagement when with Cumberbatch, one who does manage to draw a slight shred of curiosity for the simple desire of wanting to shape the world to have their children with them (no matter how inevitable it ends up being); in that sense, one can say that there is a semi-compelling threat in a Marvel movie. Gomez turns out okay, but in the attempt at trying to mold a young hero, one seems that she is used more for exposition that means one finds more insight in other movies involving the dimensions of being a hero than this (see, I did find a way to reference Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse properly). Ejiofor and Wong are only fleetingly involved in the general action, which results in a fraction of interest when either person banters with Cumberbatch. It is nice to see McAdams, even if her quiet patience is only there to show the apparent differences that have come from six years of comic book movie mythmaking. Yes, there are a few appearances that may or may not be a surprise to you, depending on how much one is invested into the subject material. While it did draw a slight smile, it really seems more of a "coming and going" kind of appearance built to build a boost (and possibly used just to dump exposition) before inevitability sets in. Besides, it does help setup the defining interest that the movie gets for me: setting up moments of horror, or at least the idea of it. There are plenty of decent effects shots that one would probably expect for a movie that just manages to stick its welcome at 126 minutes without pacing itself for too long. I don't think it particularly improves on the original film, but it does at least maintain some of the interest that made the original work without turning into an excuse for reference mumbo-jumbo. At any rate, an average modern movie is probably better than having no movie experience at all, so that might be the best thing I can say for it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Double Door.

Review #1839: Double Door.

Cast: 

Evelyn Venable (Anne Darrow), Mary Morris (Victoria Van Brett), Anne Revere (Caroline Van Brett), Kent Taylor (Rip Van Brett), Guy Standing (Mortimer Neff), Colin Tapley (Dr. John Lucas), Virginia Howell (Avery), and Halliwell Hobbes (Mr. Chase) Directed by Charles Vidor.

Review: 

Sure, what is there to really expect from a movie that is billed in its opening credits as "The play that made Broadway gasp"? The play was written by Elizabeth A. McFadden and had been performed in 1933. The film script was done by Jack Cunningham and Gladys Lehman, who each wrote dozens of films in Hollywood. Who knows where the inspiration came from, but one can always wonder where the minds of eccentric millionaires go to wander, whether that involves the current age or famous ones like the Wendel family, a New York family with a famously frugal head brother that ruled over the affairs of his sisters with iron grip (the last of the Wendels died in 1931). Morris and Revere are reprising their roles from the original production, as done in New York for over a hundred performances. This was the third feature film for Charles Vidor (second credited). Born in Hungary, he developed an interest in film after serving in World War I, and he moved to the United States in 1922. He worked as an assistant to Alexander Korda alongside other jobs in productions before his first film in The Bridge (1929 short) got him his first chances to work with studios. He worked with a variety of studios such as MGM, Monogram Pictures, and Paramount Pictures before his death in 1959 at the age of 58.

Well, it is a chamber thriller full of petty domestic strife that seems ripe for a stage-bound film like this, one with name actors in a production that doesn't need many sets or much to really drive itself beside careful pacing. Think about it: you really would not change too much going from stage to film even now, if only because adding shades of gray to the lead character wouldn't really add to much to the overall story that can be boiled down to "crazy relatives with too much money and time to spend on people". The 75 minute run-time means a fairly efficient film that doesn't go off to any unnecessary tangents or become overdrawn in hysterics. Morris (not to be confused with the Fijian-British actress of the same name) studied at Radcliffe College and made her professional debut on stage in 1916 (where she would act for the next forty years); she made exactly one film appearance: this film, doing so at the age of 39. Yes, you read that right, because here she is playing a character likely twice her actual age and doing so with no real trouble at all. This results in quite a steely performance, one with the timing of a rattlesnake waiting to stalk prey that fits the bill of one loves to hate. Venable is technically the other main star (i.e. the outsider in a family drama), and she does fine in making a suitable presence to follow without just being a goody-goody broomstick actor. The climax between the two involving a soundproof vault door proves suitable in terms of wicked interest (seeming a bit like The Cask of Amontillado). Taylor is the man in the middle, and he does alright in maintaining balance for useful chemistry with Venable without being a pale square, capturing the machinations that come with trying to break free from what one was to become what one believes they should be. This was the first feature film for Revere, who would star in roughly three dozen features as a character actor alongside work in television and theater that resulted in an Academy Award and a Tony Award. She does well here in a performance built to be wrapped around Morris with desperation that proves quite convincing. Standing and the others are okay in being the neutral set-pieces to the action (that word is used for confrontations of words, remember), since no one really overacts or under-acts the scenarios presented. The final shot is a doozy, since it actually ends with someone giving out a scream before the "The End" title card appears. As a whole, the movie proves suitable for a watch for what it draws in its effective one-of-a-kind performance from Morris and the rest of the crew with useful pacing from Vidor that makes for a solid recommendation on a curious day.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Foolish Wives.

Review #1838: Foolish Wives.

Cast: 

Rudolph Christians (Andrew J. Hughes; Robert Edeson from the back), Miss DuPont (Helen Hughes), Maude George (Her Highness Olga Petchnikoff), Mae Busch (Princess Vera Petchnikoff), Erich von Stroheim (Count Wladislaw Sergius Karamzin), Dale Fuller (Maruschka, a maid), Al Edmundson (Pavel Pavlich, a butler), Cesare Gravina (Cesare Ventucci, a counterfeiter), and Malvina Polo (Marietta) Directed by Erich von Stroheim (#1782 - Blind Husbands)

Review: 

Sometimes you need a romantic epic drama. Yes, one with a person that serves as director, co-producer, writer, and star. And yes, one with Erich von Stroheim behind the wheel for his third time around the director's chair (all with Universal Pictures), with this following Blind Husbands (1919) and The Devil's Pass Key (1920, a lost film), which generated success with audiences and publicity alongside a raise. This would be a project that would feature an elaborate production of spectacle and melodrama with large re-creations built by the studio to try and mimic the French Riviera and the Mediterranean coast. This would turn into a production that would require the extensive attention of the studio with its technicians that drove Universal to promote Irving Thalberg to head of production to try and bring von Stroheim into control. Believe it or not, von Stroheim actually wanted the film to be released "as is", which would have run long enough to have to be shown on two consecutive nights. With a cost of over one million dollars that had a shooting time of nearly a year to go with half a year in editing with countless extras, interiors, and sets, it one perhaps isn't surprised to find von Stroheim as a possible successor to the legacy of D. W. Griffith, particularly since Griffith was a mentor to him for a time. However, this would be the last time that the director would have complete control over a film, as his next film in Merry-Go-Round (1923) would see him clash with Thalberg to the point where he was fired after six weeks (this time he did not have the luxury of using his power as star and director to create a stalemate, since he wasn't acting in that film); he was fired from Universal. Greed (1924) would have been his great epic...but von Stroheim would find himself clashing with the newly established man in charge of production in Thalberg; von Stroheim would direct five further times in the next eight years, but none were as successfully realized.

One wonders just how much von Stroheim enjoyed being at the center of all the attention when it comes to spectacle like this, because simply stating the plot may not be enough to get the whole point across about how oddly effective the film is, one century removed from its release. You can point at the fact that the director ordered actual caviar and champagne for banquet scenes, or the fact that he effectively is playing the devil with all of the romances he goes off on that go from married women to a half-wit to a maid, but my favorite little moment is the time a book is seen in a shot called "Foolish Wives by Erich von Stroheim" that ends up closing the film. It all seems to fit together for a movie built on facades, either in the time taken to make facades that look like the real locations or the facades of the people in the film to hide who they really are. The restored version of the film runs at 142 minutes, so you'd better believe you are getting plenty of time to spend with the oozing qualities of von Stroheim, because he easily is the best part of the film, controlling the camera whether in front of it or behind in terms of stage presence in conviction that you believe through and through (i.e. one sees a swindler that could swindle someone straight out of a melodrama). DuPont does okay as the romantic interest, filled with calm grace mixed with a bit of nativity that makes for fairly curious moments spent being pursued by the other main lead. Christians died midway through production, which means that the second half of the film features the character he was playing shown with his back to the camera (since Edeson is playing the character from the back). The performance is therefore murky to quantify, because the role is already one destined to be dwarfed as a "normal" foil to the director at any rate. George and Busch make fair facades of alleged dignity that pays off with the last scene in particular. Fuller and the rest are fine, even if it is the climax that is more memorable than actual sequences of chemistry attempted with the star, which features fires and sewer stuffing. As a whole, it may be more of a spectacle movie than a movie filled with deep plotting, but it is entertaining spectacle that generally rewards the patience of its viewer by pulling out the stops necessary to get where it wants to go in the folly of facades without hammering one in the head with piety. Instead, it presents a tale of decadence and stays where it wants to go right until it needs to stick the landing in appropriate measures that doesn't fall into mockery. Whether one likes this film or Blind Husbands, it is clear to see where von Stroheim gets his interests in terms of making useful spectacle with facades in human nature that make for distinct films that are very much his own (warts and all) that served its time well that could still reach a viewer today.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Thunderbolt (1929).

Review #1837: Thunderbolt.

Cast: 

George Bancroft (Thunderbolt Jim Lang), Fay Wray (Ritzy), Richard Arlen (Bob Moran), Tully Marshall (Warden), Eugenie Besserer (Mrs. Moran), James Spottswood ('Snapper' O'Shea), Robert Elliott (Prison Chaplain), Fred Kohler ('Bad Al' Frieberg), E. H. Calvert (Dist. Atty. McKay), and George Irving (Mr. Corwin) Directed by Josef von Sternberg (#1325 - Underworld and #1337 - Shanghai Express)

Review: 

It is interesting to consider what the turn of a decade or the turn of new technology can do to (or for) a director. In the case of Josef von Sternberg, going from silent films to sound would only keep him right where he needed to be to express his vision of filmmaking. This is his ninth feature film (three are lost, with two of them not even having a full release), one that started in 1925 that would span three decades over various studios; he had a distinct style that did not always lead to box office success, but most of his films generally still seem ripe for further research and curiosity, with the level of that depending on just what film of his you see, whether that was his debut with The Salvation Hunters (1925) or Underworld (1927) or The Last Command (1928, where he directed his lead actor to an Oscar) or The Docks of New York (1928). If you remember, Bancroft was the star in Underworld, and this film was the fourth and final collaboration between him and von Sternberg, with all of them featuring him getting swept up in crime (two as gangsters, one as a brawler, and one as a police captain) with two of them involving him trying to cope with the loss of his girl. He went from serving on merchant ships and a stint in the Navy to becoming an actor on Broadway and film, having a career in the latter for seventeen years, but it was the early parts of his career that saw him as a name star (complete with a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Actor with this film) before moving into supporting roles before moving into ranching full-time in 1942, which he did until his death at the age of 74 in 1956.

One can say that the transition into sound did not hinder the qualities shown by von Sternberg when it comes to making curious features of entertainment (there was a silent version of this film made for theaters without sound). He doesn't seem stilted by the addition of a microphone for sound, if only because he utilizes his sets and actors for interesting arrangements and dialogue that makes its 85-minute run-time go by fairly smoothly. The screenplay was written by Jules Furthman and Herman Mankiewicz while the story was done by Charles and Jules Furthman. So yes, the movie is about a guy named "Thunderbolt" and his attempts at trying to get what he wants from his girl and the law before a fateful climatic decision; the movie spends a good chunk of its time in a prison set with a small assortment of characters that used for a bit of humor, since a musical group does play in certain scenes, for example. As such, it is Bancroft who dominates the film with the way that he commands attention with his ego that makes him a curious figure to view in the lines of crime, because there are layers that come out in a rough exterior without falling into easy sentiments (granted, there is a dog that he has a soft spot for, but this isn't too distracting). Wray got into acting as a sixteen-year-old Canadian in 1923, which can't be forgotten in a six-decade career that saw her known for being a "scream queen". She does fine with what is needed here in terms of calm allure, one who seems perfectly fine with "normalness" without being wrapped in hokum. Arlen makes an ideal square without falling into mockery, looking just fine when paired with Wray for their scenes together (Besserer being paired as his on-screen mother is a bit amusing, if only because one doesn't usually see mother figures...for non-criminals in these kind of movies). Marshall proves a worthy foil for Bancroft in generating a bit of amusement as bumbling authority, such as letting a prisoner get out of their cell to subdue a prisoner who grabbed a gun...which results in a punch-out. No matter how much the climax could be thought of as inevitable, the movie does handle its final moments well without springing for maudlin overkill. As a gangster film, it proves okay when compared to his previous work Underworld was in terms of overall excitement, but even being a minor work in von Sternberg's lineup is still a nice compliment to hand it for recommendation, proving a useful curiosity with a suitable lead presence that makes for a relatively charming time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Street (1923).

Review #1836: The Street.

Cast: 

Eugen Klöpfer (Middle-aged man), Aud Egede-Nissen (Harlot), Max Schreck (Blind man), Lucie Höflich (The wife of the middle-aged man), Anton Edthofer (Pimp), Leonhard Haskel (Gentleman from the provinces), with Sascha, and Hans Trautner (Fellow) Directed by Karl Grune.

Review: 

Admittedly, the country of Germany has had plenty of spotlight when it comes to featuring them as part of world cinema on Movie Night, since it is the second most covered country next to Japan. And yet, there always seems to be another director to encounter for the first time that released a film first in that country, whether involving expressionistic nightmares or other things. This applies to the director for this film in Karl Grune, who was born in Vienna, Austria; he attended drama school and served in World War I before becoming a film director. He would direct 27 features from his first in Menschen in Ketten (1919) to his last in A Clown Must Laugh (1936, also known as Pagliacci). After emigrating to England in the 1930s, he died in 1962 in Bournemouth. He also served as a producer on four films and wrote nine films, with The Street (1923) being one of the films he wrote (doing so with Carl Mayer and Julius Urgiss, with the former responsible for the treatment), and it is generally the film he is most known for.

There are a few discussions one could have over just what kind of movie this is, with most describing the film as a morality tale or an expressionistic nightmare. It also is a movie dedicated to telling a story as visually as possible, since there are very few intertitles present during the film, which has a run-time just under 90 minutes. In that sense, one feels adrift for a time when it comes to absorbing the atmosphere of a chaotic street, complete with likely the most notable shot of the film: a man walking in the street encountering a optician sign with glowing eyes that glow near him. It goes well for a film with nameless people that might as well not even have clear faces when it comes to how things seem so murky, and it all starts because someone tries to find a "choice of excitement" in their lives, which only results in someone finding themselves trapped in a nightmare without many choices to make. The title of the movie may seem generic, but it really is a movie about just how much a street can absorb into one's soul with the blend of reality and artifice (the sets are sets but presented with plenty of flicker). In that sense, it ends up making a decent curiosity piece within a slow burn of city life. Klopfer is tasked with making a character full of bumbling curiosity without being tasked with just playing it for silliness or bombast, and I would say he does a fine job, because he carries the movie along with the right amount of earthy presence that is swept with the flow of the things around him with righteous timing. Egede-Nissen serves as the casual alluring presence to street life that works out well in the careful contrast to Hoflich (who is used for one scene in the start and the end as the patient figure for Klopfer). Meanwhile, Schreck accompanies the film for a time with piercing interest (using his time playing a blind man for good effect), while Edthofer makes a useful goon to the proceedings. It does plod a little bit in the middle win the club sequences, and the climax isn't exactly surprising with its conclusion (again, morality tale, not a dark musing piece). I can't exactly call it a great movie, but it is at least a semi-interesting average movie. As a whole, the movie generally works out in making the events that happen mean something without just pointing a finger or going for easy sentiments, which makes a movie that closes its lead character in the same way that a street feels narrower when the lights come on, which generally works out for those curious to see a perspective of the street in all the murky details. If you can find the movie online, you might find something you like here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Review #1835: Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Cast: 

Michelle Yeoh (Evelyn Quan Wang), Stephanie Hsu (Joy Wang / Jobu Tupaki), Ke Huy Quan (Waymond Wang), James Hong (Gong Gong), Jamie Lee Curtis (Deirdre Beaubeirdra), Tallie Medel (Becky), Jenny Slate ("Big Nose"), Harry Shum Jr. (Chad), and Biff Wiff (Rick) Written and Directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert.

Review: 

“We should be looking to a forward-looking multiverse, because right now this universe we’re in is on a very scary path. And the multiverse is actually a really beautiful, important metaphor for right now because we need to be looking at all the possibilities, not just the one that we think we’re in. And we definitely shouldn’t be looking backwards.”

You may or may not know the directing duo of "Daniels", comprised of two directors in Kwan and Scheinert, who met at Emerson College while studying film; they did a variety of stuff together, starting with two short films in Swingers (2009) and Puppets (2010), which can be found online. They did several other things together such as television episodes and music videos (such as for the song “Turn Down for What" by DJ Snake and Lil Jon) before they made their feature debut with Swiss Army Man (2016), which evidently involves a man and a farting corpse. Scheinert directed The Death of Dick Long (2019) solo, so this in effect makes this film Scheinert's third effort and second for Kwan. When they had shown Swiss Army Man to their parents and had numerous conversations about it, the reflections of the duo on their apparent need to make something so strange to go with the difficulty of their parents in understanding it that proved an inspiration. I had first heard of the film earlier last month, but it was only in the last week of April that I had the chance to see this film in my local theater (the result of a film that expanded from an initial limited release - go figure, expand a release and people like me might actually see it rather than flock to "streaming" like a defeated sheep), and it took little time to convince myself that this might be a useful curiosity to see.

As one imagines, sometimes you must sneak in sincerity under absurdity when it comes to a journey of finding balance and understanding within beautiful chaos. This is in a movie that involves hot-dog fingers and sentient rocks, for example. But describing things that happen to occur in a movie isn't exactly a succinct answer for a movie like this, one that threads itself carefully on the matter of choices, not so much just being a movie about multiple selves, since the "chosen one" to potentially save things is possibly just the one with the most failures, for example. It results in a movie that is a hodgepodge of genres fitting for its title - action, sci-fi adventure, thriller, coming of everything, black comedy...but it really can be construed as a movie of finding the middle ground between oblivion and meaning. Yes, it has a quick pace to action scenes at times, but it never loses sight of doing some philosophy to go along with things at the end. In the end, it results in a brilliantly messy movie that maneuvers its way through 139 minutes with a warm-hearted sense of self that may very well become a curiosity to watch again and again just to think about how far the rabbit hole can go. In other words: the key to everything in a movie about family strife happening everywhere all at once is communication, complete with a family triangle that is yearning to have things acknowledged by the other. In that sense, I applaud the movie for managing to not fall into the modern trap of trying to build itself so high only to fall on its own hype, or to put it in more blunt terms, not huffing its own supply and interrupting its own flow. As such, this seems just the right kind of movie ideal for Yeoh, one that requires an actress to put on many hats (as the expression goes) in being the key focus of an organic mold of melancholy and resolve that allows for both a flurry of action sequences alongside touching moments spent with either Hsu or Quan for family interest, whether that means trying to roll with the growing sense of genre anarchy or other things. You may remember Quan from his childhood roles in films such as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) and The Goonies (1985), but you might be surprised to hear that this is in fact his comeback feature, as he had actually stepped away from acting (due to a lack of opportunity for roles) for work behind the camera. It is evident fairly early that he has not lost a step here, since he proves quite endearing in keeping the balance of the film on the right level with kindness and charm in each of the three personalities he inhibits here (ranging from the husband wanting to sneak divorce papers for actual attention to the confident "Alpha" husband). Hsu provides the key center to the proceedings in terms of a family dilemma that essentially explodes into multitude family dilemma with suitable timing that taps well with Yeoh in expressing the doubts and fears that come within paths that could spring curiosity or nihilism (especially when one's trauma of disappointing a parent has sprung in two generations), and she balances well with the conflicts presented here for engaging drama that makes her a quality presence. The film is built on the main trio, but Curtis and Hong do partake in their own moments to share for interest that one would expect from veteran presences like them, whether that involves a dry auditor that draws a few amusing moments or an eccentric charmer, respectively. By the time the movie draws to its ending, it does so without becoming dripped in false notes, which works out when wanting to finish making a movie that uses the idea of a "multi-verse" as a metaphor that seems timeless and therefore right on target. Honestly, the rating for this film took a bit of time to think about, because it really is a fun time for anyone who wants to see something original in their movie experience that seems like a labor of love more than just a laborious experiment in filmmaking. It does so with a break-neck pace that rewards its viewers with a useful emotional journey that details the meaning of empathy in a weary world (or worlds, in this case) with the right cast to make a worthy adventure that may be one worth looking into again and again, a wonderfully messy mix of action and clarity. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.