An Officer and a Gentleman.

Review #1867: An Officer and a Gentleman.

Cast: 

Richard Gere (Zack Mayo), Debra Winger (Paula Pokrifki), David Keith (Sid Worley), Robert Loggia (Byron Mayo), Lisa Blount (Lynette Pomeroy), Lisa Eilbacher (Casey Seeger), Louis Gossett Jr (Gunnery Sergeant Emil Foley), Tony Plana (Emiliano Santos Della Serra), Harold Sylvester (Lionel Perryman), David Caruso (Topper Daniels), Victor French (Joe Pokrifki), and Grace Zabriskie (Esther Pokrifk) Directed by Taylor Hackford.

Review: 

It is hard to believe the age of some movies from time to time, probably more so when you get older and older. Released forty years ago in the summer of 1982, An Officer and a Gentleman manages to elevate material that seems destined for the old-fashioned bin into quality entertainment that makes for a useful romantic drama with solid casting and direction behind it. The movie came from director Taylor Hackford, doing his third film effort and second feature; his debut was a short called Teenage Father (1978), which won an Academy Award for Best Live Action Short Film. The Santa Barbara native was a graduate of the University of Southern California for pre-law and even served in the Peace Corps, and his spare time using a Super 8 camera got him into changing his interests. Douglas Day Stewart wrote the script for the film, which he based on experiences as a Naval Officer Candidate that saw both tough training and dating a factory girl when training in Rhode Island. Stewart did not get to fly nor get the girl, but he did do some time as a ship's officer before he became a writer on television, and his first film credit would come with The Blue Lagoon (1980). It is Hackford that elected to keep the ending of the film despite the objections of Gere (who thought it was overly sentimental), with the rehearsals of the scene ending up being the final persuasion for it.

Admittedly, it is the professionalism in its romantic drama settings that carry the film more than anything, showing its working-class pairings with general honesty. In an older time, a movie about Aviation Officer Candidates (AOCs) might have been ripe for the war effort, but this is a movie that actually wants to show growth with its lead performances and romance as something that isn't just point A to point B. Gere (fresh from his star role in American Gigolo (1980), which like this film was originally offered to John Travolta, who turned each down) makes for a quality hustler to watch grow, one wrapped in jaded pride. It is the vulnerability seen in one scene with Gossett Jr about who he would be without the training required that proves the most poignant. Of course, him and Winger make a quality pairing together, since they each have to show just why they aren't just only good for romantic scenes, which namely involves dueling prides from messed-up people with daddy issues. You aren't quite sure what will happen next with them, but they resonate well with each other that it becomes a moot point. It should be noted that Gossett Jr wasn't actually the original choice in mind for the Sergeant role, as R. Lee Ermey (a Marine drill instructor before becoming an actor) was originally cast, but Hackford decided to cast Gossett Jr instead while having Ermey serve as a technical advisor (alongside Buck Welscher, a drill instructor for AOCs). Gossett Jr proves exactly right for the role, hard driving but always on point for what is needed in emphasis. Any scene he is in, he commands it with no sense of hammy overtones (naturally, Gossett ended up with an Academy Award for his performance). Keith and Blount make up the other side of the romance angle in terms of superficiality that works best for the former in doomed charm. The others in the cast are generally interesting to see in bits and pieces, such as the spry Plana or Eilbacher, or with Sylvester and Caruso, while Loggia is only utilized for the opening sequence with Gere to show just how far the difference is between father and son. The second half does end quite well for itself, although it certainly has to strain itself a bit just to make it worth without folding into complete predictability, and I think the first half generally worked better in deliberate pacing, but it still works. For a 124-minute movie, it does utilize its time wisely in building the main and supporting characters necessary to make the final result all the more worth getting there. In the end, it carries itself to a general triumph of stirring romance and military drama that is worth the curious look all these years later.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Ace of Hearts (1921).

Review #1866: The Ace of Hearts.

Cast: 

Leatrice Joy (Lilith), John Bowers (Forrest), Lon Chaney (Farallone), Hardee Kirkland (Morbius), Edwin N. Wallack (Chemist), Raymond Hatton (The Menace), and Roy Laidlaw (Doorkeeper) Directed by Wallace Worsley (#850 - The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) and #1617 - The Penalty (1920))

Review: 

Admittedly, when I think of Lon Chaney, I do think of the times where he put some sort of elaborate makeup for dramas and the occasional horror flick. But there were countless other movies besides that involved Chaney for the silent era. So, yes, here we are with a silent romantic drama that happens to tread on familiar material. Remember The Penalty (1920)? As with that film, it is an adaptation of written material that was written by Gouverneur Morris, with his short story The Purple Mask being the basis for this film; this was also done at Goldwyn Studios, where Chaney worked for five films between his stints at Universal and MGM. The plot, if you want to know, involves a couple who got married because he got selected to dispose of a "The Man Who Has Lived Too Long" that will give him confidence, and Chaney's character happens to be part of the love triangle and part of an explosive climax, which results in a movie that lasts 75 minutes. Apparently, the original ending included a character that survived an explosion only to say how right it was about how the world needed love (i.e. construction rather than destruction), but Samuel Goldwyn balked at how preposterous it sounded. 

It is entirely possible that the secret society presented in this film was really something in 1921 to worry about when it came to censors, particularly with fears over anarchists. The effect is a movie that seems very amusing when not thinking about the context of the time, because hearing about a loosely defined society with people that look like a bunch of librarians who assemble to take down vague rich guys for ill-defined reasons is more amusing than the actual film itself. Simply put, the movie just isn't as interesting as one would hope, because its attempts at romance grind the movie down to a boring halt. It's incredibly predictable to see where the movie goes, because obviously a sudden romance is going to impact any chance of curiosity, even if it is attempted murder. Hell, I'll even accept a failed assassination, but the movie doesn't even lend that your way, as if the examination of just what the world needs through the eyes of "Cause" members gone good is enough (this isn't to say one needs an explanation for everything, because film doesnt need to do that, but even a BS try is better than zero). Hell, if these two are established members of the group-with-loosely-defined-goals, then the idea of them escaping to a new life would be horrifying, as if folks who sent out bombs to take out people can get a second chance just because they found love - the woman initially resisted marriage because of her devotion to the "Cause", so either she served as just a card shuffler or she got to do missions of death. You would actually want to hear more about just what is behind their desire to drive off these rich folks (again though, try doing that without stoking censorship) than hear more gobbledygook about the alleged chemistry between Joy and Bowers, who have as much energy together as two broomsticks that became sentient for ten minutes; they look at each other, and you look at your watch. Chaney is the highlight, but only because every other actor is on autopilot more appropriate for a mime show, as Chaney does manage to convey a slight bit of tragedy with sacrifice and loneliness. After all, what better way to show a lonely person than to have them stuck in the rain for hours before waking up to pet a dog on the steps. The final scene where he muses about getting the card that bears the title of the movie (marking him...to kill) is at least a decent one to close the movie out on, since one would hope to close all movies out with a bang. In conclusion, this is an average movie, lacking in true sentiment or meaningful depth besides an amiable effort from Chaney that makes for a century old clunker. In a sea of other choices where Chaney plays a man wrapped with dilemmas and self-sacrifice, you can do better.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Nope.

Review #1865: Nope.

Cast: 

Daniel Kaluuya (OJ Haywood), Keke Palmer (Emerald Haywood), Steven Yeun (Ricky "Jupe" Park), Brandon Perea (Angel Torres), Michael Wincott (Antlers Holst), Wrenn Schmidt (Amber Park), Keith David (Otis Haywood Sr), and Donna Mills (Bonnie Clayton) Written, Directed, and Produced by Jordan Peele (#909 - Get Out and #1203 - Us)

Review: 

"I wrote it in a time when we were a little bit worried about the future of cinema. So the first thing I knew is I wanted to create a spectacle. I wanted to create something that the audience would have to come see."

Admittedly, Jordan Peele has made an argument for being the modern example of an auteur director, one with a distinct approach to his material that he has written, directed, and produced for three feature films in the span of five years, with each falling along the lines of horror (debatably, Nope is more of a genre-crosser than the other two, but more on that later). For the most part, these films have worked on their ambition to tell a story that would probably make Rod Serling give a compliment to (I say this knowing Peele was behind a reboot of Serling's The Twilight Zone, (2019-20) although I never saw it). For me, Get Out (2017) was the clear distinct captivator in staging and social critique (so in non-pretentious terms, a movie for the age that doesn't forget to be scary without forcing it). This time around, Peele aspired to make a movie involving spectacle that touches upon human nature in the art of alien encounter: trying to take an image of it in flight. Oh sure, there are other things that happen too involving strange clouds and animals running amuck, but the nature of spectacle isn't too far from one's attention. A good chunk of people seem to have a habit to take photos of something that looks interesting every day (for better or worse) that has come ever since the chronophotography days of the 18th century, as referred to in the opening with the showing of Eadweard Muybridge's The Horse in Motion (1878), which were a series of cabinet cards that (as mentioned in the film) feature a black jockey on a horse. There are a handful of inspirations that Peele has listed such as King Kong (1933), Jurassic Park (1993), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Signs (2002), and The Wizard of Oz (1939), although one could also make a case for seeing seeds of Jaws (1975) in there as well. This is more of a compliment than anything, not saying the movie is a shameless patische, since it does play with the expectations lended out by Peele to useful effect.

I think it works out decently for the goals laid out by Peele to do spectacle that generally rewards the viewer's patience for 131 minutes with a semi-solid outline and a decent ensemble to carry things around in the pursuit for whatever is out there for sensationalism without just being a movie making easy targets. Was it anything special? It is a good movie, but I believe it to be firmly in the middle between his previous works (probably a bit above Us for execution), and it says something worthwhile about the director when his first three films are each pretty good in unsettling its viewer with the foibles of modern times that makes a quality sci-fi horror movie with a look upon the age we live in the art of filming things where the line between being the viewer and being the one viewed can be blurred where one can be tested with filth and possible contempt. Truthfully though, I think I appreciated the movie best in the scope of images one can see and hear rather than the dialogue itself, which is fine. Kaluuya makes a quality lead performance in understatement, a strong-and-silent type who might've fit for a Western (such as say, Buck and the Preacher), which means he is the ideal straight-edge presence in the face of a chase. Palmer has a bit of charm in energy that makes for a quality sibling-pair in terms of the occasional bit in horror or humor. Strangely enough, Yuen makes more of an impression than Perea despite not being the key support of the ensemble, probably because his huckster attitude to what has happened around him, indicative of being a participant of spectacle in numerous ways. This isn't to say Perea is the weak link, it just means that his moments aren't exactly as captivating in spectacle relief, particularly when Wincott is the understated dry gem used sparingly as a look upon the filmmaker from a filmmaker (meta, if you want to say that). 

For me, the movie takes a while to really get going in staging attempts, and it can be said that your highlight scene is probably different from my highlight, which involves a chimpanzee that may or may not relate to the story. But maybe it relates to the bigger picture of what one might expect (or don't) for a film in spectacle, horror or not. The aerial sight depicted in the film is an interesting one, since it lurks around with only eyes on its target much like a viewer that has eyes only on what could pop up next on screen that has no time for dialogue (that, or the Medusa legend). Sometimes it isn't all about blood and guts, although you will find it worthwhile in unsettling nature with a scene spent trying to make a show out of UFO bait with horses being particularly well-done in timing. The climax is handled pretty well, in the general pursuit of how you would hope it goes in carefully planned staging that leaves a worthy final shot. As a whole, the patience required for what Peele wants to say about spectacle and the people who look to show it makes for a fine payoff, one that unsettles its viewer in ambition and a quality staging to make a solid movie that will reward some spectacle viewers better than others.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

The Lego Batman Movie.

Review #1864: The Lego Batman Movie.

Cast: 

Will Arnett (Batman / Bruce Wayne), Michael Cera (Robin / Dick Grayson), Rosario Dawson (Batgirl / Barbara Gordon), Ralph Fiennes (Alfred Pennyworth), Zach Galifianakis (Joker), Jenny Slate (Harley Quinn), Jason Mantzoukas (Scarecrow), Conan O'Brien (The Riddler), Doug Benson (Bane), Billy Dee Williams (Two-Face), Zoë Kravitz (Catwoman), Kate Micucci (Clayface), Riki Lindhome (Poison Ivy), Eddie Izzard (Voldemort), Seth Green (King Kong), Jemaine Clement (Sauron), Ellie Kemper (Phyllis), Channing Tatum (Superman), Hector Elizondo (Jim Gordon), and Mariah Carey (Mayor McCaskill) Directed by Chris McKay.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember the Lego movies, if only because of how bright and colorful they were. This was the second Lego-themed movie released by Warner Bros through their animation department, with the first being The Lego Movie (2014). That movie featured Will Arnett in a supporting role as a Lego version of Batman. A sequel was evidently planned for this movie, but the acquisition of the film rights by Universal Pictures in 2020 scuttled those plans. Admittedly, the Arnett Batman was meant to be as amusing as possible with a gravelly voice and macho characterization, so a movie wasn't particularly out of the element, self-promotion for Lego or not. This was the feature debut of Chris McKay, who had had studied at Southern Illinois University and Columbia College Chicago for film. He worked a number of years for video and equipment rental companies before starting his own venture into making videos and small movies; he also worked on television programs such as Robot Chicken in animation and direction. McKay served as animation supervisor on the aforementioned 2014 Lego movie, and he also served as a co-editor. The movie was written by Seth Grahame-Smith, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Jared Stern, and John Whittington.

Honestly, I kind of just forgot to consider the movie when it came out five years ago, a casualty of just being the odd man out when it comes to spending time and money at a movie theater. I'm not sure I missed too much when it comes to looking upon the saturation of Batman movies in the last ten, twenty, thirty, forty years (or so). It may be the lightest toned of the movies since the 1960s Batman, all things considered (complete with a handful of references, such as having the "POW!" graphic show up near the end). It's a Batman movie that you can show the kids with no doubts (at least ones who get antsy about PG-13 ratings), which means you have a 104-minute movie with a few silly jokes that plays its family angle (or more specifically, family message) to moderate effect. Arnett plays the gravelly loner to basically what you would expect in heightened ego-pull that inevitably gets to learn a lesson and yadda yadda he has the timing required to carry it through. He won't exactly be included in the discussion for the ideal Batman (no animated version gets their due, no matter how much I can argue for Kevin Conroy), but he sticks out in showing the ideal version of what a Batman can be: confident and vulnerable. Cera proves quite eager to serve as partner to Arnett in a few chuckles that would probably make Burt Ward smile, which actually works in the favor of the movie when it comes to the lack of Robins in film to begin with. Dawson does fine here, a calm presence among the oddballs that does what is needed without delay, which can apply to Fiennes and his precise pinpoints of a role played again and again (one that is hard to mess up anyway). Galifianakis makes a quality foe in the vein of campy folks from long ago, hamming it up in ways expected when chewing scenery and counteracting Arnett in an attempt at hero-villain chemistry that lends some deranged charm (maybe not quite Cesar Romero charm but close enough). The other villains aren't exactly given more than a line or two but seeing the handful of references to the colorful assortment of villains through the Batman years is worth a chuckle or a view (along with non-Batman properties, which is kinda funny to see in Lego spoof). It's a Batman movie that happens to feature Legos, as long as one doesn't see the seams of a joke wearing thin (i.e. making too many of those jokes or movies) or sticking in bland mud, you have a good case to entertain your audience, and I think the movie works well in that regard. With a not-too cloying message about togetherness that makes a bright and cheery success, The Lego Batman Movie does pretty well for itself as a real one-of-a-kind look into Batman that does exactly what it aspires to do.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

History Is Made at Night.

Review #1863: History Is Made at Night.

Cast: 

Charles Boyer (Paul Dumond), Jean Arthur (Irene Vail), Leo Carrillo (Cesare), Colin Clive (Bruce Vail), Ivan Lebedeff (Michael, Vail's Chauffeur), George Meeker (Mr. Norton), Lucien Prival (Private Detective), George Davis (Maestro), and Pierre Watkin (Commodore Eldridge) Directed by Frank Borzage (#1611 - A Farewell to Arms)

Review: 

Admittedly, some genre-bender movies work a bit differently from others. Particularly if they are romance movies that also happen to have a climax that echoes the Titanic disaster to go along with the towering power of love (or something like that). Who else but Walter Wanger to bring such an enterprising production to the screen? Wanger, who started his producing career with The Sheik (1921), certainly liked to bring both message movies and romantic melodramas to the big screen over an extensive career that saw him work both on his own and with studios, with this being distributed by United Artists. He presented the title and a bare script to Borzage (known already with 7th Heaven (1927) and Bad Girl (1931) for romance triumphs) to pitch him the film, which apparently got him on board. The eventual movie was written by C. Graham Baker while the screenplay was done by Gene Towne, Vincent Lawrence & David Hertz. This wasn't exactly a new idea to have a melodrama infused with a natural disaster, as evidenced by films such as Cavalcade (1933) and San Francisco (1936).

It's a pretty good melodrama, all things considered, if only because it actually has a little fun playing screwball humor to go with its eventual turn of suspense to encapsulate a 95-minute experience that mostly gets it done in the ways that matter. The classic melodrama of the time may have had its contrived moments, but one can always find something energetic or dazzling when it comes to the right hands at director or in the chemistry of its stars. It results in a tender experience wrapped with plenty of warmth that carries itself well without becoming wrapped in all of the contrivances possible. Sometimes one requires a bit of sacrifice and struggle when it comes to romance...one that makes us fall for these two folks in how they are together, right down to each of them getting to engage the other with a hastily created hand puppet. Boyer makes for a charming rogue, one who glides through the film with charisma to spare in a down-to-earth sort of way that we gravitate to pretty quickly in ways slightly different from what he wound up doing in countless other movies. Arthur had been acting on-and-off since 1923 with fleeting notice, but The Whole Town's Talking (1935) and Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) put her on the radar, and she certainly excels at making a sort of every-woman kind of role. It is the foibles that each one shows (mostly in Arthur) that we grow to appreciate, where her vulnerabilities are our vulnerabilities, and her dancing in a vacant restaurant (while fiddling with her heels) certainly makes for one of the more interesting sequences of their fluorescent whirlwind together. This was the penultimate role for Clive (who had gone from the stage in 1925 to both stage and film by the 1930s), who died from complications of tuberculosis a couple of months after the release of this film at the age of 37. He makes for a conniving third lead, one perverted in obsession that believes in how righteous they are all the way to the bitter end, which makes a suitable cold ham performance. Carrillo dazzles well in support by acting as the partner for Boyer for sequences involving high-strung people making the best of interesting scenarios, such as exploring the differences for waiters in France compared to America or a cook finding an old friend on a boat. It's a warm and crispy kind of movie, one where all the parts move with resourceful zip and energy to the proceedings. By the time it maneuvers to the ship for its climax, I was having a pretty breezy time enjoying the surroundings that around these folks that is engaging without being overbearing. Sure, one might know where the end road goes, but the path to get there is the enjoyable part and seeing them have to deal with impending ship doom is still a fine way to handle entertainment. As a whole, it is a nice experience lifted by Borzage and company for a solid gem of smiles all the way around that would be ripe for curious filmgoers everywhere.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Love and Thunder.

Review #1862: Thor: Love and Thunder.

Cast: 

Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Christian Bale (Gorr the God Butcher), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), Taika Waititi (Korg), with Russell Crowe (Zeus), and Natalie Portman (Jane Foster / Mighty Thor) Directed by Taika Waititi (#1009 - Thor: Ragnarok)

Review: 

Do you remember Thor: Ragnarok (2017)? Well, it has almost been five years since that movie came out, so one could be forgiven for wondering just how there are now four Thor movies in the span of eleven years that all seem to be a bit weirdly different with interpreting its title character, as originally created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby in 1962. The previous movie was some sort of weird space opera pastiche while this one is a pastiche of adventure that was written by Waititi and Jennifer Kaytin Robinson. Let be me honest: each Thor movie has the unique experience of being watchable for once without really making me yearn to really see it twice. I think the original 2011 film was probably the most interesting experience I had with the main Thor films (the 2013 sequel is a blank), even if Ragnarok might have been the better of the films in actual execution (emphasis on execution, since it is likely the most average 8/10 movie seen in a movie theater). Of course, the renditions seen in the Avenger films are there too, but do you really count those? The fourth film has been described the director as apparently doubling down on the crazy that had been seen before in a quest for inner peace for the character, which Hemsworth has now played eight times. There are a handful of connections to other Marvel properties and potential ties for future things (which features the Guardians of the Galaxy), but I generally prefer to care about the actual title character rather than things on the side, because if I want to watch the Guardians, I would simply just watch Guardians of the Galaxy; in other words: I am trying to get pickier and pickier with what I see in a theater to use my time (it is summer, which means a possible pennant race sandwiched between finding ten movies that merit curiosity).

You know, if it was a movie about just finding inner peace with a quality villain for a tale that wants to imitate 1980s adventure in the vein of a Conan movie, one could be fine with that. Of course, in the search for finding some sort of feeling to fill oneself rather than nothingness, all that is found is a mediocre movie that you wish would get a grip and stick with one thing at a time for its 119-minute runtime. Perhaps this is unintentional irony, where the pursuit of inner peace is constantly interrupted by annoying quirks that refuse to simply get out of the way...which can be said about the directing style or the plot. Bale is the best part of the movie, and of course he only is present for about a half-hour, because the muddling mud of the movie means needing to shoehorn all of these other characters there to make it work without overloading itself for two hours (imagine the one playing the most listless character being the director). It may prove for some wild interest for those who are into what Waititi is selling, which is making a movie that presents spectacle without trying to hesitate in "ha-ha" moments of self-awareness and pathos...or it might prove nothing of interest to those who weren't already tuned to what had been done before with the previous Thor rendition. I am firmly in the middle in believing that the movie did prove decent entertainment while also being an inferior sequel that is average. Hemsworth does do well with what is needed in a mid-life crisis Thor in the best manner possible, which is to say that he still has the quality timing required for this role that he has cultivated beyond just being a beefy actor, serving his best Kurt Russell impersonation to suitable results. For someone who has seen plenty of destruction and changes (while only losing and later gaining an eye in all that time), his pursuit for some sort of meaning beyond just whupping people is at least something worthwhile. Portman was in the first two features to moderate effect, in that she was the one notable aspect of the non-superhero castmates before bowing out for a time from these kinds of films. Now taking elements from Jason Aaron's run of Thor comics for the character, one is reminded that she is a pretty good partner to rumble with Hemsworth, crisp in timing that uses her time in the mantle of Thor for a few moments in spectacle sandwiched with romcom that works for enough of it to make the actual endpoint...okay at best. One likes to see them together rather than whatever spectacle-ball could be thrown up next, especially when compared to something as clearly interesting as "screaming goats" or "knowing how rock creatures procreate" or "communicating with one's hammer". Silly is one thing, smirking at it is another.

Bale is the best villain of these movies because he brings a quality lacking in a number of these spectacles: humility and being more than just a name actor playing a special effect. It begs for more of him in the film, since he is present for basically ten minutes of the first hour (starting with a lengthy sequence to start the film) before it gets more interesting, as he brings a striking edge to a killer role with some sort of useful POV, one that looks for an end to his accursed situation. The fact that the climax isn't solely built on "effect-show" makes the conclusion at least makes the experience mostly worth it, as Bale has elevated a decently scripted role requiring effects work into something compelling (my favorite is him spooking some children who are trying to cheer up by listening to a story of Thor in conquest). Oh right, there is meant to be a supporting cast. This is where Thompson and Waititi come in, serving as mannequins that occasionally try to lend a hand to Hemsworth and Portman in relief. To be nice: at least they seem to be enjoying themselves? Interesting how the only useful one proves to be Crowe, putting on a Greek accent that fits the role in tremendous ego that of course isn't meant to be there for quite long. Sure, you could tease more of him later on, but it only underlies the point that some bits work better in actually lending charm or the feeling of anything than others. As a whole, it serves the spectacle crowd just fine while lacking that special spark in the element of depth or restraint to be anything other than an expensive mediocre movie, one that hopefully will not show signs of weariness when the inevitable follow-up lurks into theaters.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde.

Review #1861: Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde.

Cast: 

Reese Witherspoon (Elle Woods), Sally Field (Victoria Rudd), Regina King (Grace Rossiter), Jennifer Coolidge (Paulette Bonafonté), Luke Wilson (Emmett Richmond), Bob Newhart (Sid Post), Bruce McGill (Stan Marks), Dana Ivey (Libby Hauser), Jessica Cauffiel (Margot Chapman), with Moonie the Dog (Bruiser), and Alanna Ubach (Serena McGuire) Directed by Charles Herman-Wurmfeld.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember Legally Blonde (2001), the movie that dealt with forging a path for oneself with confidence that was pitched at one point as "Clueless meets The Paper Chase", based on the material of the same name by Amanda Brown. It was a feel-good movie that Robert Luketic directed as the feel-good legal hit of its time. Or something like that, because I remember it surely could have reached further in the departments of humor and legal mumbo-jumbo besides what it did. Yea, subverting the expectations of a perpetually smiling lawyer that bounces off snide comments as it was just another sunny day in lawyer land. It was more interesting in the small attempts at awareness rather than its goofy hand at comedy. The less you predict, the better it went. Herman-Wurmfeld is probably best known for this film alone, despite the fact that this was his third feature film (Kissing Jessica Stein (2001) had attracted attention on the indie circuit). Kate Kondell served as the screenwriter.

It is evident that someone watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) and thought, hey I can do a movie kind of like that, complete with cribbing footage from it too. But this movie has an idealism about it that manages to come off as the equivalent of too much cotton candy at the fair that only leads to simple vomit. It is a movie that seems to have been nicked and tucked in re-writes to where one would hope it is taken out to pasture with the mix of sitcom lines and characters to go with. absolute zero meaningful drama. Taking something like the issue of animal testing and making one bored to tears is quite the achievement in dubiousness. It begs for a cynical hand at the wheel to deal with politics or some sort of inspiration beyond cribbing dynamics from the first film in being yet another fish out of water story. Beyond (million dog) marches and congressmen changing their mind on things because their dog is gay, one simply finds themselves wishing these scenarios were, well, funny. Witherspoon fares the best out of everyone in the same way that a shirt with a dirty spot looks cleaner when washed but doesn't really get rid of the spot. The cheery disposition presented here only works to the fishbowl level of sitcom times here, where one would rather see more scenes between her and Wilson because of the interesting dynamic between sunny charm and a dry Wilson. Sally Field (accompanied by a goofy wig) seems lost with material that has her say at one point "don't worry Bob, I'll get her ... and her little dog too." At least the secret adversary mentor in the first film was suitable for what was needed. Here, she seems there more for name recognition and a nice check rather than something useable. King plays the snooty foil that was already done before in the first film, and it is evident that nothing really changes for the better beyond what you already know what is going to happen in bla-bla land that King can't elevate too much. Newhart as a doorman with key knowledge to help Witherspoon in the ways of politicking sounds like the lead to a joke, but this is one is at the expense of the audience who find themselves rolling their eyes at whatever paycheck was used to waste his time here. McGill is nice and dandy in the easy cliche role, one that might have been a better fit for the second lead role rather than Field in terms of smarminess...instead he gets to play a guy swayed in protecting dogs from getting animal tested because damn it he loves his gay big dog. As a whole, the original movie has been dissected and had some of its aspects repeated here within a fish-out-of-water story where the lead gradually wins the respect of her peers with her can-do attitude to adapting to the environment that uses her know-how (i.e. fashion sense) to get what she aims to do before giving a speech at the end while everything goes exactly right for her. It is the equivalent of chewing gum for 95 minutes, where one will find a bit of sweet release on two points: the one moment where chewing it is cool, and the moment when you finally decide enough is enough and spit it out. Folks big on the original might find something okay with this one, but others would do better to look elsewhere.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Born Losers.

Review #1860: The Born Losers.

Cast: 

Tom Laughlin (Billy Jack), Elizabeth James (Vicky Barrington), Jeremy Slate (Daniel 'Danny' Carmody), William Wellman Jr. (Child), Jack Starrett (Deputy Fred), Robert Cleaves (Mr. Crawford), Paul Bruce (District Attorney George Davis), Robert Tessier (Cueball), Paul Prokop (Speechless), Jeff Cooper (Gangrene), Stuart Lancaster (Sheriff Harvey), Anne Bellamy (Mrs. Prang), with Ruth Warshawsky (Nurse) and special guest star Jane Russell (Mrs. Shorn) Directed by Tom Laughlin (#1196 - Billy Jack)

Review: 

First, one needs a few facts. Born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Tom Laughlin was actually into football first, even playing two positions at Marquette University; seeing a production of A Streetcar Named Desire pushed a desire to act, and he transferred to the University of South Dakota to major in acting. It was in the summer of 1967 that Tom Laughlin got his first crack to do a movie with the character of Billy Jack, which he first thought of in 1954 after seeing the mistreatment of Native Americans in the hometown of his wife Delores Taylor. Over the next couple of years, he would do a handful of performances on television and film, which included his first starring role in The Delinquents (1958). He got his first chances to direct with The Proper Time (1960) and Like Father, Like Son (1961) that saw him write and produce along with star, but neither were particularly successful. Laughlin left the film business for five years to dedicate all of his time to the Montessori preschool that he and his wife had established in 1959 in Santa Monica, California. The school, which had received national publicity from the press, closed in 1965 due to bankruptcy. Perhaps not surprisingly, he returned to film. Laughlin intended to fully produce the movie alongside directing and acting as well. However, he ran out of money in post-production, so he had to see if he could get some funding from who else- American International Pictures, masters of the exploitation circuit. Given the fact that Laughlin decided to hone right into the boom of the biker movie that had been seen with schlock such as The Wild Angels (1966), it fit right in for AIP to fund and release. The movie was shot in three weeks for roughly $160,000, complete with using rented houses and a real motorcycle gang in The Devil's Disciples. AIP intended to distribute Billy Jack (1971), but the studio refused after seeing the final cut, which led to Laughlin making a deal with Warner Brothers (after 20th Century Fox made a deal and reneged on Laughlin). That release did not succeed well, but Laughlin's decision to sue the studio and re-release it himself two years later did work well for him to the point where AIP did a re-release of The Born Losers and riled Laughlin up by having ads that called it the original Billy Jack. 

Remember Broken Arrow (1950)? You know, the movie that tried to feature a balanced story involving Native Americans and someone on the frontier that seemed different from the "Cowboys and Indians" type of Western? In a sense, Laughlin is making a Western with this movie, but the idea that his self-described half Native American who is also an ex-Green Beret is anything special when compared to previous movies is just as silly as it would be for the following feature. This one also took inspiration from real-life events, as it was based on an incident from 1964 where members of the Hells Angels were arrested for raping two teenage girls in Monterey, California. This results in a movie that shows the fuzzy contradiction that encapsulates Laughlin as a director within the character he created: he can make a decent action scene with its setup, but the values that come with his bully pulpit make for moments that are amusing to laugh at rather than actually engage with at face value. In trying to teach some sort of weird pacifism in the face of violence, one simply brushes the anti-establishment stuff with a yawn and a chuckle - to say nothing of the scenes where victims are depicted as actually enjoying their encounters with the bikers because of how their parents raised them. This was the only starring role for James, who actually shows the semblance of "charm" and "engagement with the material", one who surely deserved better things than being in a bikini and having to share time with mono-Laughlin. Slate actually makes a quality villain in the exploitation angle for weird crass influences, even if the presentation of him with his family muddles things a bit (when I think about exploitation movies with bad guys, I don't think if they have kids); one just needs weirdos that love James Dean but dress up with Nazi stuff to raise hell. Russell is there to chew scenery for tears that Laughlin uses to about what you would expect for a movie that dares to have a guest star.

Seeing the 1967 Billy Jack before the 1971 sequel is a hell of a trip, if only because the earlier film is somehow a better movie in execution despite being made to cash in on the exploitation craze as opposed to the weirdo movie that was done later (of course, if you saw the 1967 movie second, the whole argument about quality is even more pronounced); in short, the B-movie is better than the passion project. The exploitation angle is far more interesting to consider than seeing Laughlin in a setup that makes him look like he robbed Marlon Brando but forgot to get the talent factor; you could probably do an entire dub of the movie and have the same amount of charisma as Laughlin (while also making up a whole new background to explain the lily-white weirdo who is our lead). He does better in the action sequence in part because that involves him not having to come up with the attempt of empathy or timing. For a movie at 113 minutes, he also managed to make a movie that is way too damn long, as it lags in the second half (there's a sequence where an astrologer asks them about their birthdays!) before limping to a siege climax that only barely delivers the actual reason to watch - exploitation! Urgency is what is needed, not shots of dead animals. If Laughlin wants to play cowboy-sorry, weird pacifist/asskicker, the best thing one could have done with the character is to take the script from him and have a real discussion over what the hell he wanted to do that wasn't just fanfiction of himself (case in point: shooting the villain between the eyes in one shot). In other words: subtle measures of staging a message within action works way better than throwing everything together and hoping it sticks for some moral revolution bullshit that might actually make an argument for studio system films. In the end, Laughlin may have been a maverick film director who did what he could to get his point across in filmmaking, but it doesn't mean that his failures should be outweighed by his intentions, which is the case with a mediocre movie in the case of The Born Losers. It may prove interesting if you want to spend nearly two hours of your time trying not to make fun of its star/director, so take that into consideration.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Tron.

Redux #098: Tron.

Cast: 

Jeff Bridges (Kevin Flynn / Clu), Bruce Boxleitner (Alan Bradley / Tron), David Warner (Ed Dillinger / Sark / Master Control Program), Cindy Morgan (Dr. Lora Baines / Yori), Barnard Hughes (Dr. Walter Gibbs / Dumont), Dan Shor (Roy Kleinberg / Ram), and Peter Jurasik (Crom) Directed by Steven Lisberger.

Review: 

“Tron is so idealistic. It was the digital frontier and we were seeing it and exploring it for the first time. We were very, very idealistic and you can feel that when you watch ‘Tron.’”

The art of making a good film, or at the very least a memorable one, comes from how one uses their imagination and circumstances to get there. Born in New York City but raised in Hazelton, Pennsylvania, Steven Lisberger studied at Tufts University within its Fine Arts school, where he soon formed an animation studio that bore his name. Their first animation project in Cosmic Cartoon earned a Student Academy Award nomination in 1973, and the studio eventually made a handful of projects such as commercials, title sequences, and feature segments. Probably the most noted production the studio did was Animalympics, a series of two specials commissioned by NBC to pair with both the 1980 Winter and Summer Olympics (one special worked out better than the other, but the studio did cobble together a theatrical version for overseas and home video), which had a staff of animators with connections to bigger and better things (such as animator Brad Bird and art director Roger Allers) along with slight connections to Tron. Lisberger would direct two further features after the release of Tron in Hot Pursuit (1987) and Slipstream (1989), although neither approached the audience curiosity of Tron (he of course would serve as a producer on the eventual release of Tron: Legacy in 2010). Lisberger had seen the potential for computer animation with the video game Pong in the last 1970s that came from a sample reel from a computer firm, which went nicely with the creation of a backlit neon character for an advertisement for a radio station by Lisberger and company. The effects presented here feature use of computers that could only give you static images that resulted in coordinates for each image having to be entered in for each image in say, a light cycle. The movie is actually a hybrid of animation and live-action rather than just a movie of computers (there is 15-20 minutes of actual computer animation in a 96-minute movie), what with the use of hand-animation and filming certain characters with light sources to go alongside backlight and diffusion (take a look at the actual look of the suit without the glowing colors sometime) and special animation cels with Kodaliths. On a level of costumes and sound, folks were dazzled by its execution, for which the film won two Academy Awards while being shut out for effects because of a perception that the film cheated by using computers. The influence of Tron can't be understated in the four decades since its release, with John Lasseter being quoted as saying that without Tron, there would not have been Toy Story (1995).

In a summer of movies such as The Thing, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and E.T., Tron was only a mild success with audiences, making $50 million on a $17 million budget. You know, it is entirely possible that the best audience for this movie is a teenager in 1982. For one, they certainly would gawk at the dazzling spectacle that came from computers and believe it to be one of the best creations of its time in an era where Walt Disney Productions actually tried making movies with some sort of daring sensibility. Now, I imagine if you show the movie forty years later, one will try to consider the fact that spectacle goes only so far for a movie that seems to consider what would happen if your Pong console had people in it. Of course, Lisberger wrote this movie in a time when IBM was the dominant technology company to go along with being a spiritual allegory as his parents (both half-Jewish) had died when he was young. The film was written by Lisberger and Bonnie MacBird. MacBird had done multiple drafts and outlines before numerous writers ended up dabbling into the script, as she did not have involvement with the production of the movie after the script had been sold to Disney (for her part, she had written the film with Robin WIlliams in mind for the lead while having the themes of the folly of hubris to go along with the danger of going along with the status quo). So, with an interpretation of Alice in Wonderland with computers, particularly since every main actor is playing a double role, how does it hold up? Your mileage may vary, depending on one's patience. Some of the amazement I had when I first saw it a decade ago is still there, but it definitely is a movie that lives on the strength of presenting its effects and world more than any great acting or general coherence. Bridges is and always was a tremendous presence with charm to spare, which means he does just fine with the hodgepodge of whirring lights that might as well make one seem lost in the land of electronic Oz. Boxleitner and Morgan have the trouble of being key leads that are separated from Bridges for a portion of time that barely make a distinction from surface to computer characters. It is amusing that it is Boxleitner who is playing an electronic gladiator, which works out to the minimum in stirring interest; Morgan is just kind of there for the ride, with even Hughes seeming more interested in the experience of being the pseudo Wizard of Oz. Warner does pretty well in the corporate/computer stooge role because he excels in generating ooze to counteract the others playing Oz for some sort of meaningful fun. I give the effects credit for the time and effort taken to try and create a computerized world, one that seems to serve as a first step in further movies built on the steps of CG to create further inventive worlds to immerse oneself in, for better or worse. The plot is a jumble, one that tries to play parable while trying to fascinate the viewer about the world of computers in a time when a good chunk of people either didn't know how to use one or were scared by it. This results in a decent movie that happens to look prophetic in the age of computers where one can type sentences out from one's lap. In that sense, Tron is the ideal hybrid movie after four decades because of what it ventures to show within a scramble of ideas and views, living and dying on how much one cares for its execution- take that for its splash of idealism.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Grosse Pointe Blank.

Review #1859: Grosse Pointe Blank.

Cast: 

John Cusack (Martin Q. Blank), Minnie Driver (Debi Newberry), Alan Arkin (Dr. Oatman), Dan Aykroyd (Grocer), Joan Cusack (Marcella), Jeremy Piven (Paul Spericki), Hank Azaria (CIA Agent Steven Lardner), Barbara Harris (Mary Blank), Mitchell Ryan (Mr. Bart Newberry), K. Todd Freeman (CIA Agent Kenneth McCullers), Michael Cudlitz (Bob Destepello), and Benny Urquidez (Felix La Poubelle) Directed by George Armitage.

Review: 

Yes, this was a movie script that was first written by a man who received an invitation to their 10th high school reunion. Michigan native Tom Jankiewicz worked as both an advertising copywriter, a substitute teacher and cashier when he was developing a script that would become this movie, which he started in 1991, which had a variety of characters that were based on people he had known (no, not the lead character). The script, when finally picked up for production, would feature re-writes that saw three people credited alongside Jankiewicz in the final version: John Cusack, Steve Pink, and D.V. DeVincentis. In the end, this was the only feature script that Jankiewicz would see made into a film, although he did serve as a script doctor on a handful of scripts while working primarily as an advertising copywriter and news-writer. In 2013, while participating in a question-and-answer session with college students about the movie, he collapsed and died; he was 49. Now, a film does need a solid director, which is where George Armitage comes into the picture, since Cusack sent him a copy of the script to see if he was interested. Born in Hartford with a move to California as a teenager, he started the road to filmmaking as a film fanatic who happened to study political science and economics at UCLA before being offered a mail room job at 20th Century Fox. He would do work for the studio on television while writing his first scripts in the mail room, most notably with Peyton Place. It was Roger Corman, who was there at the studio to make The St. Valentine's Day Massacre (1967), that helped inspire Armitage on his way to become a filmmaker, particularly his style of letting the actors improvise while getting his day in of shooting; he would write Gas-s-s-s (1970) for Corman (while also serving as an associate producer), and he was impressed enough to have Armitage direct his first film with Private Duty Nurses (1971). Armitage, when presented the script by the four writers, found himself having to guide them to cut down the script in pre-production in order to get it right for shooting (in a sense, he was doing un-credited script work, although he did not want to deal with the Writers Guild and their way of handling credits). It was shot three ways: the written version, a mildly understated version, and an over-the-top version, with the latter being generally utilized to go alongside actor improvisation. This was the fifth feature he directed in his career.

It's funny how you can make a movie about a morally flexible assassin trying to not satisfy their urge and end up having to do so anyway for a solid and clever movie, one that manages to get the finer points of what it really means to try and go home again. It is a coherent black comedy that rewards its viewer with solid characterization in the art of detachment and wry behavior that happens to also have a soundtrack by a member of the Clash. The strength comes from Cusack, wrapped in curiosity and well-placed timing in a character role that requires someone who can eke out something worthwhile in a mess of a character that isn't simply just a calm and collected mercenary. It all comes with the eyes of watching someone who has seen the other side of life and wants to come back, with a little bit of shooting on the side. Driver makes up the other part of the captivating chemistry that comes with the movie in passionate cynicism that has tried to re-invent themselves again and again only to find frustration and hesitancy, complete with sharing a kiss with Cusack from the get-go only to throw a mic on him to do on-the-air blasting in ten years of irritation. Of course, the other members of the cast lend a hand in curious charm, whether that involves Cusack and Cusack sharing brief scenes together or on the phone that matches stoic and chipper attitudes. Arkin makes a reluctant pairing with Cusack that results in a few good moments in the art of attempted conventional therapy. Aykroyd is enjoyably deranged here, making for a quality (union man) ham that makes a quality contrast to Cusack without overstepping him. The setup to get to the climax might be a bit convenient, but one could also find a variety of situations to be a series of convivences and coincidences, which it is really a dandy way of saying that some things are just fun enough to go with things. The 107 minute run-time makes for a pleasant breeze, one that carries its time back home with memories and long-gone people with select moments of action, most notably with a locker-room fight that is executed effectively. As a whole, Armitage and company cultivated a movie with plenty of lasting appeal that has not diminished in the 25 years that have followed the release of this film, one with capable wit and timing from its characters that make it a lingering classic worth checking out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

It's a Gift.

Review #1858: It's a Gift.

Cast: 

W.C. Fields (Harold Bissonette), Kathleen Howard (Amelia Bissonette), Jean Rouverol (Mildred Bissonette), Julian Madison (John Durston), Tommy Bupp (Norman Bissonette), Tammany Young (Everett Ricks), Baby LeRoy (Baby Elwood Dunk), Morgan Wallace (Jasper Fitchmueller), Charles Sellon (Mr. Muckle), Josephine Whittell (Mrs. Dunk), Diana Lewis (Betty Dunk), and Dell Henderson (Charles Abernathy) Directed by Norman Z. McLeod (#688 - Horse Feathers, #1346 - Topper, and #1829 - Topper Takes a Trip)

Review: 

There are quite a handful of movies one could watch that feature W. C. Fields (silent or sound), whether it features him playing a hard-drinking misanthrope or an everyman. Generally, the characters he played in those movies (starring roles at least) were in the former category, but this is one of his roles in the latter. Jack Cunningham is the credited writer for the movie, although it is the adaptation material that matters most. J.P. McEvoy was the original author of the musical revue that became The Comic Supplement, a 1925 production that had W.C. Fields write his own scenes (incidentally, when he did film scripts, he liked to go under false names like Otis Criblecoblis); you may remember that Fields had done many years of vaudeville and Broadway before he did movies. Fields was a vaudeville star. Fields cribbed routines from the 1910s and 1920s with this film, most notably with the sketch involving a back porch that he had done in It's the Old Army Game (1926). Fields was quite busy in 1934, with this being the sixth feature he appeared in that year, with a sudden decline in health eventually leading him to less roles over the next couple of years.

Fields obviously knows what is best when it comes to light fare that feature select wisecracks for 68 minutes that has the bare minimum in plot for a decent experience. He handles the routines presented here with careful timing and preparation that stages things exactly the way one hopes for, whether that involves a scene where he tries to go to sleep amid a series of inconveniences. Being the hen-pecked man in the middle works out for the most part when paired with Howard in razor-sharp edge more so than the child presences in Rouverol and Bupp that are more in the background with occasional bits to pop in (such as a picnic or a winding sequence with a mirror). This is the third and final feature to feature Baby LeRoy in a Fields movie (he and Fields also made cameo appearances separately with Alice in Wonderland (1933), also directed by McLeod), with the first two being Tillie and Gus (1933) and The Old Fashioned Way (1934). Yes, there was a time when babies were billed like this; Ronald Le Roy Overacker was featured in ten movies from 1933 to 1935. McLeod stated that Fields had a phobia of the baby (and infants in general) to the point where he swore at the baby in front of the camera. Honestly, there isn't much to really say about him, since it's just one scene of a baby doing things that are meant to be wacky like touching a molasses spigot or whatever. Young, Wallace, and Sellon are all featured in one scene with the grocery store: one plays a blind man that Fields tries to make him not suffer mishaps, one who really wants kumquats, and a bumbling fool. This works out for a couple of chuckles in a vignette Fields handles with worthy consistency to the foils presented to him in arrangement. In total, a steady amount of sequences that run for a few minutes at a time make for a decent experience, one that goes pretty much the way you think a movie ostensibly about a man trying to buy an orange grove. The fun is seeing what gets accomplished in generating humor with its key man freewheeling his way through for leisure and laughs that make for a decent experience to breeze through for those with an hour to spare or for those who want to see a Fields movie in his era of effectiveness.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Kid from Cleveland.

Review #1857: The Kid from Cleveland.

Cast: 

George Brent (Mike Jackson), Lynn Bari (Katherine Jackson), Russ Tamblyn (Johnny Barrows), Tommy Cook (Dan "The Kid" Hudson), Ann Doran (Emily Barrows Novak), Louis Jean Heydt (Carl Novak), K. Elmo Lowe (Dave Joyce), John Beradino (Mac), with Bill Veeck, Lou Boudreau, Tris Speaker, Hank Greenberg, Larry Doby, and many more. Directed by Herbert Kline.

Review: 

Let's be honest: the baseball material is the only drawing point of curiosity. That isn't to say that detailing the history of a young role for Russ Tamblyn is a bland experience, but one really does have to strain hard to not just immediately ask about how the Cleveland Indians (now known as the Guardians) got their own feature film. Well, I'm sure the answer is simply just Republic Pictures thinking that the 1948 club, who won the World Series over the Boston Braves, would possibly draw in a few local profits, complete with select footage utilized from the Series and bit lines from the stars on that team (along with certain moments with the 1949 team, who finished 3rd). Truthfully, the only reason I picked this movie was to talk about the 75th anniversary of Larry Doby making his debut in Major League Baseball, the second African American to play in the league and first in the American League. The Camden native had played five seasons for the Newark Eagles in black baseball before Cleveland owner/club president Bill Veeck signed him to a contract. The day of July 5, 1947 was three months after the debut of Jackie Robinson, and Doby's debut was serving as a pinch-hitter that saw him strike out on four pitches (contrary to Veeck's statement at the end of this film, Joe Gordon did not strike out after Doby to save face for his teammate, as Gordon was on base when Doby struck out). The next day, in the second game of a double-header, Doby started his first game in MLB at first base at Comiskey Park in Chicago, collecting his first hit and RBI. Doby had a tough first year, but he bounced back in 1948 to bat .300, and he was the first black player to hit a home run in the World Series in Game 4. Combining his statistics from his first season in 1942 to his last in 1959, he collected 273 home runs with 1,094 runs batted in while being named an All-Star eight times; after a long wait, Doby was named to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1998, finally cementing his place as one of the best players of his era and certainly the most underrated player. 

The film was written by Herbert Kline and John Bright (a founder of the Screen Writers Guild). Born in Iowa, Kline started his career as an editor for a magazine called New Theater before moving to New York to join the Photo League. Over time, he did manage to make a couple of features alongside documentary work, such as his work involving covering political crises in Europe such as the Spanish Civil War; he once described himself as a "foreign correspondent of the screen". The Fighter (1952) and the aforementioned Cleveland film are likely his most noted features, owing to his blacklisting in the 1950s due to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The movie went by "The Cleveland Story" and "Pride of the Indians" before finally settling on the title we know now, which is a pleasant snooze in all of the average ways possible. Did I mention that this is a movie about a troubled teenager that finds help from the baseball team? This seems like it could have been made about any random sports team, even with all of the location shots of Cleveland Stadium and bits of League Park sprinkled in (which only begs the question if someone would have gone with "The Kid from Boston" if the Braves had won the Series instead?). For me, I would rather be sitting at Cleveland Stadium watching six future Hall of Famers try to play actor (to go with more interesting baseball footage) than watching Tamblyn trying to play juvenile delinquent. This was his first credited role for the Los Angeles native, who was fifteen years old when this film came out, although it would be a couple of years before he didn't have to go by "Rusty" Tamblyn. At any rate, his performance isn't much to write home about, probably fit for a morality play or an unintentional comedy than this hodgepodge. Brent and Bari don't exactly lend a hand to help either, since neither really elevate the drama beyond first gear nor generate interest in the material that a broomstick would do. Doran and Heydt don't exactly move the needle either in parental figures to Tamblyn. One knows exactly what they are going for in 89 minutes with no real particular surprises present, no matter how they try to play the juvenile angle or the inevitable custody battle.

The reason to maybe see the movie is to see the Cleveland of yesteryear, to see a winning ball club that had star power with distinct names and faces, whether that involved player/manager Lou Boudreau, or star batter Joe Gordon, or Doby, or star pitchers Bob Feller (a Hall of Famer and also a guy who devised a sign-stealing plan with fellow legend Bob Lemon involving a telescope) and Satchel Paige (who is seen depicting his hesitation pitch for one scene). Of course, they come off pretty stiff when a camera is focused on them besides baseball, but maybe the curiosity factor about their baseball stories can forgive some of that. Bill Veeck, the revolutionary showman owner, is probably the most curious presence in the film, even if one knows they are watching a showman rather than an actor. As a whole, it is more interesting to talk around the movie known as The Kid from Cleveland than it is to actually watch it, which is not a ringing endorsement unless one is a sentimental Clevelander. Average may be better than a portion of bad movies, but it still isn't enough to recommend over other (better) baseball movies.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Black Phone.

Review #1856: The Black Phone.

Cast: 

Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Ethan Hawke (The Grabber), Jeremy Davies (Terrence), E. Roger Mitchell (Detective Wright), Troy Rudeseal (Detective Miller), James Ransone (Max), Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin), Rebecca Clarke (Donna), J. Gaven Wilde (Moose), Spencer Fitzgerald (Buzz), Jordan Isaiah White (Matty), Brady Ryan (Matt), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy), Brady Hepner (Vance), Banks Repeta (Griffin) Directed by Scott Derrickson (#874 - Doctor Strange)

Review: 

Every now and then you need a good scare, particularly one that tries to draw upon the 1970s in terms of stranger danger. One good thing that came out of Scott Derrickson leaving the production of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) is that he was thus free to start production on this film rather than wait until after trying to cobble a sequel, which was shot in 2021 with a debut screening in September before eventual release this month. The Black Phone is based on the short story of the same name written by Joe Hill (who served as a co-executive producer), which had been included in his collection 20th Century Ghosts; the story is mainly focused on just the lead child character trapped in the basement (the story apparently ends right after a call comes in for the killer). Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (collaborators on films such as Sinister (2012), which also featured Hawke in a lead role) were thus tasked with writing a screenplay that extended the material beyond just the short story. One might be thinking of familiar things when it comes to a 70s tale involving a clown that traps children or with a phone that has the voice of dead kids, or with a secondary lead that may or may not have psychic abilities. Well, Hill is the son of Stephen King, so that might help things, since King described the movie as "Stand by Me in Hell". 

Technically speaking, the movie isn't as particularly dark as the story, but I do think the movie will work most people's taste in horror, particularly in terms of execution. One doesn't get taken for a fake-out ride or confronted with incessant horror tricks. I'm not going to go out on a limb and say it is one of the scariest films of the current decade, but I will say that it is one of the best executed features I have seen in quite a while, a solid period piece with a suitable cast and staging that never wavers in its building of terror in 103 minutes. It helps that the movie is lifted by solid performances from both kids and adults. Thames never wavers from the degree of believability required from a "kid gets spooked" movie while McGraw has sharp presence and timing on the other side of the pursuit coin. The belt scene with Davies (solid in scuzzy screen presence) might be the most striking scene with any of them outside the parts when Thames is paired against Hawke. Hawke apparently had reservations about playing the character because of how evil it was, but he reconsidered by saying "Villains might be my future." He does really well here in playing a pillar of evil that is confined to wearing a mask (each designed by Tom Savini) for all but one scene, doing so with a voice that pierces through with sneaking terror that is never overplayed for one second. I especially like the sequence where he turns on Thames in the midst of a dark street and reveals his complete nature with a few quiet words for tenseness. The sequences leading up to the main kidnapping are fairly solid building blocks in making one care for our lead besides just throwing them into danger right from the get-go (which works best in a short story rather than a full-fledged story), as it lends time to let one absorb the atmosphere of what is shown without leaning into complete reference-preaching to the choir. One just watches a movie about a phone with the voices of dead kids without needing to think hard about why this is happening, with one appreciating the guidebook approach in an escape attempt. Granted, it is more of a coming-of-age movie rather than a straight descent into abject terror, but it does so with solid conviction that makes one curious for what Derrickson wants to show in horror on a certain scale with suitable timing and framing that makes for a clever and anxious ride.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.