Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

Review #2027: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

Cast: 

Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Helena Shaw), Mads Mikkelsen (Jürgen Voller), Antonio Banderas (Renaldo), John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), Toby Jones (Basil Shaw), Boyd Holbrook (Klaber), Ethann Isidore (Teddy Kumar), Shaunette Renée Wilson (Mason), Thomas Kretschmann (Colonel Weber), Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood), and Olivier Richters (Hauke) Directed by James Mangold (#912 - Logan and #1302 - Ford v. Ferrari)

Review: 

“I am interested in making something that works from beginning to end — to curtain. Otherwise, I’m working on the world’s most expensive television show.”

Before one gets to the inevitable, why don't I address the easiest question out of the way? Just which sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark is the best one? (If you just want to get right down to the film, skip the paragraph or enjoy a rundown). Let me look at the three sequels that followed up the classic 1981 feature film in a brief rundown while stating the obvious: Raiders of the Lost Ark, in the tradition of many franchises, is by default the most original of the films, which is saying something as a film that is a tribute to the old adventure serials that George Lucas had enjoyed in his younger days. He worked with Philip Kaufman on the original script before years of waiting eventually led to collaborating with Steven Spielberg, who used his rejection of not being allowed to do a James Bond film to influence his directing (complete with Lawrence Kasdan writing the screenplay). Needless to say, the resulting film is one of the best of its time, probably even the best film of its year (no human being seriously believes Chariots of Fire is a memorable Best Picture winner unless they happen to be born in England- think about it). The sequel film, as directed by Spielberg in 1984 as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is thought of as the lesser of the 80s films, and that may be true, but I enjoyed the hell out of it the second time around. Honestly, the complaint of it being too dark is a lazy one, because what the hell is wrong with that? Adventure serials were not chipper and friendly features, you know, and the last film had people's faces being melted off because they looked at the Ark, so don't tell me that one suddenly decided to get squeamish just because they saw a heart ripped out. I enjoyed it far more than I expected to when seeing it the night before seeing Destiny, to the point where I would argue that a 9/10 rating is more appropriate than the 8 I originally gave it. It was a film with all of the fun you could hope from trying to spook your friends on a thrill ride to counter the original in spectacle, and I will go to my grave saying that. Last Crusade (1989) is undeniably just as good as the first film, one that shows the power of adventure goes hand in hand with family and its touches of faith beyond being just an adventure for another artifact. The ending with father and son on horseback with friends into the sunset is probably the highest point of the whole series, and one would be forgiven for thinking that the series could have just ended right there. Lucas felt that the series was finished and thus focused his time on The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which ran from 1992 to 1993 that detailed a handful of young adventures, and it was shooting Ford for a guest spot in one episode that had got him to think of ideas for a possible fourth film that theoretically would be set in the 1950s (his "saucer men from mars" script isn't exactly a treat to hear about, but I digress). Eventually, he got Spielberg into doing something that would involve "interdimensional beings" (so no, not really just aliens) within a sci-fi B-movie tribute, albeit one with a bit of computer-generated imagery (such as in the jungle or with the alien). Fifteen years later, screw it, I actually think it is a fine movie, so spare me the complaints about "nuking the fridge, or space aliens or CGI monkeys" (okay the last one is corny). It is a nitpicker's dream movie, to put it mildly, but sometimes, even folks like me just let loose and take stock at the fact that a movie can sometimes be "fine" anyway. It captures some of what one might call a "lizard brain" energy required to make a tribute to older films with ridiculous execution, and as long as one respects the intelligence or patience of the viewer, you can get through with a number of things (Doom, if you recall, had a stunt where folks survived a freefall on an inflatable raft). Really, it only seems to flounder when a certain individual next to Ford is on screen that results in a 7/10 experience that was better than I remembered. But we are here to talk about a film from 2023, not just ones from 1984, 1989, or 2008.

Perhaps it is not surprising that four writers are credited here: Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth, David Koepp, and James Mangold (you may remember Koepp as a co-writer on Crystal Skull and the Butterworths for their work on Edge of Tomorrow). Plans for a fifth film technically started in 2016 with pre-production that had a target of 2019, which originally had Koepp write for Spielberg as intended director before both left (the latter is instead executive producer), which is where the Butterworths and Mangold come in. The first and immediate thought that came out after seeing the credits end was one of laughter. It is just as average as the film from fifteen years ago, with the only difference being that Ford is now 80 rather than 65 years old. Think about it: both films feature a secondary lead that takes up a good chunk of action stunts (for evident reasons) that have some relation to Ford that was just established in this film (secret son, goddaughter, whatever) while dealing with some sort of mystical/magical allure that mines the well a bit for nostalgia. Mangold may claim that the last film didn't really know what it was about when it came to an older Indy, but, respectfully, what the hell has he really done to improve on that? At 154 minutes, it is the longest of the five films, and I honestly don't know how they got to that point aside from the lengthy opening sequence involving a de-aged Ford in the 1940s. You know, sometimes, the old trick of using a lookalike or just a brief recasting (you know, like the opening to Last Crusade?) really is better than the alleged best new trick. Roughly 25 minutes spent with a CG face morph and action spent mostly in the dark (with some decent dialogue, but alas) is such a baffling way to get things going in establishing things to come back in play for the real ideal setting: the summer of 1969, right after man has walked on the Moon...and a nearly divorced and retiring Indiana Jones that seems ready to fade away with his joys and regrets. This is single-handily the most uneven film of the series, one that is technically fun when it comes to the overall entertainment level but as a whole is just a reminder that sometimes, you just have to let it go. People who think Temple of Doom is the "dark" one of the series will now get to eat a heap of humble pie with a film in Dial of Destiny that seems to want to top it in being the bleakest of the five in its initial trappings, where only the climax can provide a respite to what you damn well know is going to happen. I suppose if you never should see your heroes grow old, you surely don't want to see them end up the same place as everything else: vanished from the line of sight. 

The interesting thing is that there are no real bad performances in an Indiana Jones movie, with this one being no different. Ford obviously enjoyed the idea of doing this role one more time to wrap things in peace, one that seems him at odds with just where he should be in his life, and I enjoy it. He is still most of the measured force of dignity in the face of harrowing adventure, regardless of how many stunts he gets involved in. Waller-Bridge makes a quality presence to go along with Ford when it comes to generating amusement as basically a lingering grifter, one who matters to the story when it comes to asserting what matters most when interacting with people beyond cash. That involves a degree of humor, because Isidore is present as essentially the third part of a trio that comes there in the middle of the film to go with the two, which results in a mildly compelling rogues gallery that hit and miss at times. Mikkelsen (speaking of irony relating to Bond and Indy, he's now played a villain in both franchises just like Julian Glover) is a semi-compelling threat in the idea that being the flipside of the coin with Ford in the art of trying to re-write what made them who they were, which is inspired by Operation Paperclip in the actual relocation of German scientists, engineers, and technicians from the former Nazi Germany to America after World War II. As such, he calmly waltzes his way to what he feels is something he earned, something where cold and calculated victory is all that matters at his age with strength behind him to try to rewrite the lost cause.  Honestly, I think it is the final fate that I wish was handled better, because think about it, do you remember the villains in the series for who they are, or in how they are vanquished? Food for thought. Rhys-Davies turned down a cameo in the fourth film because he stated that "the character of Sallah is worth more to the audience than that." This seems ironic now, because he is in a grand total of two scenes (one that is basically right in the trailer anyways, but at least it is beneficial to the plot, so "eh"), so the cynic wiseass in me thinks "worth more" means "more money". But hey, he is just fine here in that aged warm presence. Banderas is basically a gloried cameo, but hell, that was the case with Rhys-Davies in those previous movies, but you still see him make a chuckle anyway. Jones closes it out with mild obsessive paranoia that is, well, one that comes and goes fine. When the film at last gets to its climax involving one particular revelation, I think that is where the film handles things at its best in not taking the complete easy out in paradoxical clumps that made me chuckle, right down to the meaning of "stacked deck".

There are various sources that make up the "MacGuffin" of the five films, whether that involves the Book of Exodus in an Ark, an off-shoot of Hinduism in stones, Arthurian legend about Christ and a Grail, alleged pre-Columbian Mesoamerican skull artifacts, or an ancient Greek discovery (which is actually referred to as an Antikythera mechanism). I would like to give credit for the big device of the film for reminding me of an egg timer. If one finds pieces of the egg timer and fixes it up, they could use it to help them figure out how much time is needed to cook (or go through time), and boom, you have made a plot device that amuses me to where I think, well, one will never top the search for the Holy Grail, but a search to maybe loop back to somewhere with an eggtimer-sorry, dial of destiny, is fine. The action is handled just fine in the kinetic sense, making for a modern ride through the past work in a way that will at least make you think Mangold wanted to make something that was not just a faux Spielberg hack. So yes, there is the basic thrill required within the inevitability that comes in the adventure. The world has outgrown Indy in 1969, but that doesn't mean his end is going to be a futile oblivion without some sort of fight. As a whole, the enjoyment of the film will depend on how you view your expectations when it comes to what you saw before in the last couple of films. If you desire one more return of the grand adventure with some of what you have seen before, you will do just fine here. The one thing that can be said about the Indiana Jones series is that five films are fine enough for anyone to view for themselves in curiosity without desiring a glut of more (anyone who tries a spinoff will probably be mocked into oblivion, please note). This is a movie that will surely inspire a barrage of discussion over just what modern Indy film was the more interesting adventure to try and forge their way of destiny that reminds me of a tired runner trying to make one more push for the finish line. It might wheeze and make an offbeat move, but I liked it enough to see it cross without waiting to tear them to shreds. With a franchise that inspires so much discussion over what it means to the viewer, you can take that for what it is worth and decide for yourself. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Twilight Zone: The Movie.

Review #2026: Twilight Zone: The Movie.

Cast: 

Opening sequence: Albert Brooks (the Driver), Dan Aykroyd (the Passenger), and Burgess Meredith (Narrator)

"Time Out": Vic Morrow (Bill Connor), Doug McGrath (Larry), and Charles Hallahan (Ray)

"Kick the Can": Scatman Crothers (Mr. Bloom), Bill Quinn (Leo Conroy), Martin Garner (Mr. Weinstein), Selma Diamond (Mrs. Weinstein), Helen Shaw (Mrs. Dempsey), and Murray Matheson (Mr. Agee)

"It's a Good Life": Kathleen Quinlan (Helen Foley), Jeremy Licht (Anthony), Kevin McCarthy (Uncle Walt), Patricia Barry (Mother), and William Schallert (Father)

"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet": John Lithgow (John Valentine), Abbe Lane (Sr. Flight attendant), Donna Dixon (Jr. Flight attendant), John Dennis Johnston (Co-Pilot), and Larry Cedar (Gremlin)

Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, #1465 - An American Werewolf in London, #1699 - Blues Brothers 2000, and #1718 - The Stupids), 

Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168-#170, #302, #351, #480, #563, #573,  #642, #958, #1068, #1305, #1478, #1520, #1528, #1560, #1843, and #2000 - Duel), 

Joe Dante (#007 - Looney Tunes: Back in Action, #096 - Gremlins, #097 - Small Soldiers, #1494 - Gremlins 2: The New Batch, #1744 - The Howling) 

and George Miller (#380 - Mad Max, #392 - Happy Feet, #493 - The Witches of Eastwick, #707 - Mad Max 2, #781 - Mad Max: Fury Road)

Review:

The Twilight Zone, originally broadcast on CBS in 1959, is generally considered one of the best television shows of its time, if not one of the best ever. There were 156 episodes of the anthology series, with a good majority of them (92!) written by series creator (and presenter) Rod Serling. He had come up with the idea for an anthology series that would use its "science-fiction setting" to have more freedom to write what he felt. Technically, the show was not meant to be scary, but it just happened to have plenty of twists within a mostly consistent show. Providing a list of what episodes are the best seems futile, but here is a list of episodes that would be neat for one to check out if they want to see just what the show could do in its format (most are a half-hour long, minus the hour-long fourth season): "One for the Angels", "Walking Distance", "A Quality of Mercy", "Printer's Devil", and "One More Pallbearer" (one could also go for Serling's reported favorites in "The Invaders" and "Time Enough at Last"). Rod Serling had an interest in doing a Twilight Zone film for quite some time prior to his death in 1975. Various cast members that had appeared in an original episode appear in the film: Burgess Meredith, Patricia Barry, Peter Brocco, Murray Matheson, Kevin McCarthy, Bill Mumy, and William Schallert. The movie was marked by tragedy in the making of the first segment of the film due to an accident involving a helicopter crash during filming on July 23, 1982. Two children, Myca Dinh Le, Renee Shin-Yi Chen were hired to do a scene at night (under the table) that involved pyrotechnics and a helicopter. This resulted in an accident that saw the death of Morrow and the two children. Various people, which included Landis, were tried and ultimately acquitted on manslaughter charges in a trial that spanned 1986 and 1987. Of course, the tragedy as a whole sparked a movement for fire safety regulations and entertainment industry requirements, complete with a safety committee made by the Directors Guild of America about safety bulletins and a phone hotline. The film was released 40 years ago in June of 1983, and it was a mild success with audiences. It would inspire CBS (who had the rights to the show because Serling had sold it to them) to go forward with a second rendition of the show in 1985. After its end in 1989, two further shows came and went in the following decades (2002-2003 and 2019-2020). 

The opening segment (roughly eight minutes) features Albert Brooks and Dan Aykroyd in a car conversation that eventually talks about the show within the movie and the question of if one wants to see something "really scary"? It is, uh, a strange way to start a movie, mostly because when I think of Twilight Zone, I don't think, man suddenly finds a surprise in a car. But it is with two folks that I like, so there's that. Burgess Meredith, who appeared in classic episodes of the show such as "Time Enough at Last", introduces each story in narration, which is a nice tribute to Serling's previous method, although they do use Serling's voice for the ending as a whole. John Landis directed this sequence alongside the first segment in "Time Out". The segment, lasting roughly 18 minutes, involves a racist and resentful man that goes to a bar after being passed over for promotion that finds himself wrapped up in the past, more specifically places such as Nazi-occupied France, a racist Klan rally, or in Vietnam. Evidently, the segment is a mishmash of the classic stories "Back There" (namely the time travel) and "A Quality of Mercy", with the writer being none other than Landis.  The original scripted idea obviously couldn't be completed due to the tragedy that occurred, which apparently was meant to have a resolution that would've tried to find redemption for the racist that saw him try to help two children out of a helicopter attack in a Vietnamese swamp. Instead, it ends on him going through a frenzy of terrifying events before being sent off by a train despite yelling out to his friends that he can see out of the slats. As such, the story is mild because it requires a bit more bite than what is required to either reach a payoff of redemption...or the opposite, and a segment that doesn't even last the time of an actual TV episode isn't going to cut it. As such, Morrow is essentially trapped in a segment with an unavoidable pall over the entire thing, but you can see the glimmer in one part of the diner scene. There he is, blithering around with a dirty mouth, and for a moment you can see him for what he is beyond the epithets: a loser who really thought the world owed him one because of what he looks and sounds like "as an American". Intended redemption or not, there obviously was something that could've been done here beyond what you know.

"Kick the Can" (lasting roughly 21 minutes) is based on the third season episode of the same name originally written by George Clayton Johnson. The segment screenplay was written by Johnson, Richard Matheson, and Melissa Mathison. It was directed by Steven Spielberg. Apparently, he had plans for an ambitious segment before the helicopter tragedy led to him curtailing plans...for a remake of an episode that I honestly can't remember watching to begin with beyond the phrase "old people get young". It has been rumored that Spielberg, under contract but having lost the heart for the project due to the tragedy, made only a half-hearted effort here. All of this is meant to subside the actual thoughts of the story about "the day we stop playing is the day we start getting old", which I vaguely remember seeing in my neighborhood park when I was a kid. If the Landis segment could be thought of as perhaps a bit too short, the Spielberg segment can be best described as half-brained and half-effective. I can't tell what is more annoying, its cloying sense of "cheer" for such an average effort, or the very rumor of Spielberg half-assing a story just to get out of a dilemma. Crothers actually does provide a decent performance here, pulling some of the mysterious requirements necessary to make a story telegraphed to us in every step of the way not nearly as painful as it could be, and Quinn is at least a quality foil the basic arguments made involving the inevitability of age. By the time the segment gets to the ultimate decision made, the lesson put there is at least one that isn't sapped of hokum...and then of course Crothers does a fourth wall bit before leaving. As a whole, it's just an okay segment, one that makes you wonder if being the "light segment" of the film is really a compliment.

"It's a Good Life" (roughly 27 minutes long) is loosely based off the third season episode of the same name (as written by Serling that was based on a short story by Jerome Bixby). Matheson wrote the screenplay for this segment (which Serling had discussed prior to his death as writing a draft to make into a film), with Joe Dante serving as director. The story involves a lady schoolteacher finding the company of a young boy at a rural diner when she helps him after he is accosted only to then accidently back her car into his bike. She gives him a ride home and meets the rest of his family, who all seem nice. Heck, I like Kevin McCarthy, what could go wrong with his character presence? Despite having quite a hill to climb in trying to remake one of the most famous Zone episodes, Dante has provided something special here: an off-beat and weird segment that seems to take you on a trip of not just sight and sound but of mind. It is a delightful and deranged segment, headlined by a useful cast. I of course dig the presences around the supporting folks like McCarthy, ever the panicky one in trying to keep appearances as essentially the elder statesmen of character presences here, made clear when he tries to figure just how a magic trick with an imaginative boy is going to go. Quinlan and Lichy make quite an effective pairing in the realm of dealing with such a funhouse of creativity that invites a tragic quality not present in the earlier adaptation (of course, since this adaptation uses an eight-year-old rather than a six-year-old, why not?), which seems like a suitable twist. It's a neat story as a whole.

"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" (22 minutes) is a remake of the story of the same name (based on the short story by Richard Matheson, who also wrote the screenplay for this segment) that had premiered in the fifth season of the show, which I'm sure you remember had William Shatner as star. George Miller serves as director here. The key change is to the circumstances of the man in the predicament of seeing a gremlin on the plane he is flying in: the TV episode had him travel with his wife after just spending time in a sanitarium while the film features a man with a fear of flying traveling alone. The segment is all about the tension that comes with what you know of the person observing a nightmare right in front of their eyes that obviously could be just our nightmare too: what if you saw something that no one could see that could lead to your death? The gremlin costume is the biggest evident difference in adaptation, mainly because it actually looks quite spooky in the moments it is seen in the dark rainy night, which only add to the fear portrayed excellently by Lithgow. This segment is probably the one that hews closest to the original spirit of the TV episode, which either makes it the best segment of the film or a pretty close second and one can't go wrong there. The movie begins and ends with the same man asking if one wants to see something really scary. Friends of anthologies with varying quality such as O. Henry's Full House (1952) or Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965) will be just fine with this movie, one that will have enough peaks and lows to make the 101-minute runtime seem useful to perhaps step further into the realm of the Twilight Zone and see just how fun anthology can be in the right hands.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Elemental.

Review #2025: Elemental.

Cast: 

Leah Lewis (Ember Lumen), Mamoudou Athie (Wade Ripple), Ronnie del Carmen (Bernie Lumen), Shila Ommi (Cinder Lumen), Wendi McLendon-Covey (Gale Cumulus), Catherine O'Hara (Brook Ripple), Mason Wertheimer (Clod), Ronobir Lahiri (Harold), Wilma Bonet (Flarrietta), and Joe Pera (Fern Grouchwood) Directed by Peter Sohn.

Review: 

"My parents emigrated from Korea in the early 1970s and built a bustling grocery store in the Bronx...We were among many families who ventured to a new land with hopes and dreams — all of us mixing into one big salad bowl of cultures, languages, and beautiful little neighborhoods. That's what led me to Elemental."

Before I start, here is a list of each and every Pixar film released since Toy Story 4 (2019): Onward (2020)- released in theaters, but in the infamous month of March 2020...Soul (2020)- released in the US on Disney+ but with a theater release for countries without streaming service...Luca (2021)-same process, Disney+....Turning Red (2022)- same process, Disney+...and Lightyear (2022)- actual theater release (but lack of interest by me to actually get around to watch it). I am stating this to basically say that Pixar (or more specifically the Disney machine) are reaping what they sowed with the financial failure that has occurred with this film by what they did with the use of putting animated films on a streaming service while barely promoting Elemental, a film about elements of nature within a melting pot of a neighborhood. Peter Sohn and his experiences as a son of immigrants in New York City in the 1970s helped to shape a seven-year production cycle, for which he co-wrote the story with John Hoberg, Kat Likkel and Brenda Hsueh. Sohn studied at CalArts before working at Pixar, in the mid-2000s, which namely involved the art and story departments; he directed his first film with The Good Dinosaur (2015), which is probably notable as being considered Pixar's "first audience flop".

Admittedly, I picked the movie because I really did want to call streaming an abomination and not have it seem like an off-topic tangent. That, or perhaps to talk about the fact that it helps to be really selective in picking movies-No, not really, I picked it because sometimes going on a lark and picking a movie with little buzz after a week of release has a good chance of surprise. With this one, I would say the film was pretty average in ambition and ultimately decent in mild entertainment. Granted, I wish there was a bit more to the movie more than a mild attempt at detailing just what matters most to growing on one's path, but it still should be a decent experience for 109 minutes. Lewis and Athie make a quality pairing in shaky ground for romance that make for a quality meet-cute without seeming forced or too out of place that shows the nature of their upbringing in making decisions and interacting with people. In short, they make a neat couple for what is needed, even if you and I probably know how it is going to go when the first reaction to fire and water touching is not, well, a blaze of peril and doom. The movie doesn't really have a villain because, well, its only dilemma involves how Lewis will cope with the idea of not being just like her on-screen dad in del Carmen in terms of dream and/or interests. I do like del Carmen here, because even in his distrust of water-folks, you can see where he comes from when it comes to a warping of what is right and wrong in terms of treating more than just your fellow neighbor (at least one that looks like you) the right way. So yes, what matters more than living within certain places and with certain folks only? Making sure that you have raised an offspring that you are proud of in some way. Ommi and O'Hara make for interesting maternal figures in support of that, and one can at least say each element family is somewhat distinct without being too cookie-cutter about emotions and how to handle oneself. In general, the movie does better when not trying to dwell on its attempt at stakes (a flood), which generally means it has a few chuckles and a semi-solid duo to hold the most basic of immigrant allegory together. As a whole, it won't go down as one of Pixar's best movies, but a decent Pixar movie is a still a decent movie to go along with for any day.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Redux #352: Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Cast: 

Bob Hoskins (Eddie Valiant), Christopher Lloyd (Judge Doom), Charles Fleischer (Roger Rabbit, Benny the Cab, Greasy and Psycho), Stubby Kaye (Marvin Acme), Joanna Cassidy (Dolores), Kathleen Turner (Jessica Rabbit), Alan Tilvern (R.K. Maroon), Lou Hirsch (Baby Herman), David L. Lander (Smart Ass), Fred Newman (Stupid), June Foray (Wheezy and Lena Hyena), Mel Blanc (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Tweety Bird, and Sylvester), Joe Alaskey (Yosemite Sam), and Wayne Allwine (Mickey Mouse) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express)

Review: 

On June 22, 1988, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was released in theaters. It was a solid movie that marked a new high point in integrating animation and live action in cinema. There had been a handful of films that had animation within a primary live-action setting, such as with Song of the South (1946) and Mary Poppins (1964). But this was something quite special, from its director in Robert Zemeckis all the way down to a lead actor that had to spend several scenes having to act again thin air. A graduate of USC Film School, Zemeckis had directed four films before this one: I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978) and Used Cars (1980), Romancing the Stone (1984), and Back to the Future (1985). The success of Stone had been preceded by two audience flops (both of which were produced by Steven Spielberg), but even before then he had an interest in directing a project that was to adapt the novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, originally published in 1981 by Gary K. Wolf. Shortly after publication, Walt Disney Productions (as headlined by Ron W. Miller at the time) bought the film rights to the mystery fantasy novel in an attempt to make a blockbuster production. You may remember that this is the period where Disney tried to branch to more interesting work beyond what they had done in live action, which namely involved films such as Tron (1982) to go with a small collection of animated features. Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman wrote a number of drafts that eventually became a screenplay that did away with the original setting that involved comic strip characters (and a darker ending) for an alternative 1947 Hollywood with Golden Age animation characters. Disney tried to make to test footage with Darrell Van Citters as animation director (and Paul Reubens as voice for the title character). However, by 1985, Disney (who ousted Miller, champion of the project) decided to partner with Amblin Entertainment (headlined by Spielberg), which was a deal that would see a budget just under $30 million (after a projection of it being for $50 million) and complete creative control for Zemeckis and Spielberg...and the former decided to pick who he called the best animator in the world to do the film: Richard Williams. The son of an illustrator and painter, Williams was inspired by a childhood showing of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) to become an animator, and by the time he was a student at the Ontario College of Art he already was a commercial artist. He did a variety of short films and segments after the success of The Little Island (1958), with his work on the short film A Christmas Carol (1971) garnering him his first Academy Award. He did not like the idea of moving to the States to work on the film with the Disney bureaucracy, so they shifted production to London (they also made a deal to help him finish a film he had been making on-and-off since 1964 with The Thief and the Cobbler, but that is its own can of worms); his intent of breaking the animation rules (for which one stressed to not move the camera, which Williams felt was animators just being lazy) was helped with Industrial Light and Magic, who dealt with optical composition  as explained by the supervisor for the film in Ed Jones here (if one wants to hear a perspective within animators, click here). At any rate, with a budget that ballooned to over $50 million, the film (released under the Touchstone Pictures label, which had been created by Miller) was a major success in its time, garnering four Academy Awards that dealt with editing (Arthur Schmidt), sound effects editing, visual effects (Ken Ralston, Williams, Edward Jones, and George Gibbs), and a special achievement award for Williams.

As explained by associate producer Don Hahn years later, Zemeckis had an intent to do animation with live action in a "very contemporary way", which mainly involved a camera that would move to go in a moody film noir. There would be various methods used to help with making sure the live actors (Hoskins, mostly) would interact with something that could be transferred to making it look like he is at eye level with the toons (there were also a few sequences with blue screen, which can be seen in a certain home Blu-ray release as a special feature), such as: mime artistry, puppeteering, and robotic arms. Charles Fleischer dressed up in a rabbit costume and acted as a stand-in behind camera for a wide variety of scenes. As a whole, it is a hodgepodge movie that is one part cornucopia of cartoon characters from the past such as Betty Boop or Yosemite Sam, one part film noir and also one part comedy. What a wonderful film to view through the lens of interaction, one that is consistently on edge to either play noir or comedy without breaking out one false note in its 104-minute runtime. Oh sure, the scenes and bits spent with the toon characters are a delight (because they aren't mere cameos for the sake of being there), but it is the performance of Hoskins (who had plenty of theater experience before doing film) in versatility that makes the whole magic act work as well as it does. Imagine having to act in a film where you have to do mime training to go along with having to interact with characters that aren't really there on set beyond a stand-in. As such, he excels at interaction on eye level and in his timing when it comes to both noir and as straight man when paired with Fleischer (remember, he was in a bunny suit on the side), who makes for a quality comedic presence in blustering clownishness with rapid-fire pace. Turner was actually not credited for her role in the film (nor was Amy Irving for the introductory song), which she described as one where "the whole body is the breath". It certainly is a relaxed way of doing a sultry-but-moral noir player. Lloyd is perfectly stiff as one would hope from such an imposing figure that makes the resulting climax all the more interesting within its payoff (who better to turn a place of cartoon mayhem into one of business mayhem than a judge?). The other live action players do well within the detective story reaches that mainly involve a strait-laced Cassidy or oddballs in Kaye and Tilvern. The Ink & Paint Club probably represents the best opportunity to show just how far one could go in devastating brilliance of the link in animation and live action for quality enjoyment that keeps your attention in humorous elegance. The build-up to actually reaching Toontown makes for quite a quality payoff when one gets to see a sequence of Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse on the same screen (with the same amount of time together, per agreement), which is particularly special because it still remains the only time the two have been in the same screen (this was the last appearance of Bugs Bunny as voiced by Blanc in a feature before his death in 1989). It isn't a movie just about seeing what character shows up, of course, because the main point of the film is to show just how much fun one can have in the art of blending animation and potboiler adventure that is neat in its manic execution. As a whole, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a treat to watch from start to finish, one that benefits from a wonderful performance from Hoskins and the contributions of Zemeckis, Williams and company to deliver a highly watchable movie in all of the right ways that stands the test of time.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Crazy.

Review #2024: Movie Crazy.

Cast: 

Harold Lloyd (Harold Hall / Trouble), Constance Cummings (Mary Sears), Kenneth Thomson (Vance), Louise Closser Hale (Mrs Kitterman), Spencer Charters (J.L. O'Brien), Robert McWade (Wesley Kitterman, Producer), Eddie Fetherston (Bill - assistant director), Sydney Jarvis (The Director), Harold Goodwin (Miller), Mary Doran (Margie), DeWitt Jennings (Mr Hall), and Lucy Beaumont (Mrs Hall) Directed by Clyde Bruckman (#908 - The General, #1304 - Welcome Danger, #1621 - Feet First) and Harold Lloyd.

Review: 

I will admit that there it has been slow road to cover the talkie era of Harold Lloyd, who certainly deserves to be remembered for his contributions to comedy. He made the transition to sound at the age of 36 after countless silent comedies two-fold: Speedy was initially released as a silent feature in April of 1928 before a version that added a few sound sequences came out in December. The following year saw the release of Welcome Danger. Movie Crazy is the third Lloyd talkie film of the seven he would do as star, most of them with him as producer. Clyde Bruckman was recruited to direct Lloyd once again, having directed him for three previous features (which involved the sound version of Speedy, Welcome Danger, and Feet First). He had gone from would-be sportswriter to intertitle writer to gag man for Buster Keaton and later director for various comedy production. However, Bruckman soon fell under the influence of what curtailed his career: alcoholism. As such, it fell to Lloyd to assist in the directing chair (which wasn't too odd, as he had co-directed a few of his own films, such as The Kid Brother, which had four directors), although he did not claim credit. The dialogue and screenplay was done by Vincent Lawrence while the story was done by Agnes Christine Johnston, John Grey, and Felix Adler. Lloyd and Ernie Bushmiller also contributed un-credited work on the script. After Bruckman was relegated to writing for comedy rather than directing it by 1935, he got into the habit of "re-utilizing" certain gags from his older productions for comedy short-subjects that he was doing at Columbia Pictures (such as for The Three Stooges), and one of them is the magician's-coat sequence in Movie Crazy. He would crib the scene for multiple productions and was sued by Lloyd each time for copyright, which Lloyd would win (one might wonder why Lloyd was so easy to sue, but imagine being put in a spot where your director and usual gag-assistant is too drunk to really direct and then he decides years later to crib a scene that originally had you as star). Bruckman committed suicide in 1955 at the age of 60.

Stop if you have heard this before: a well-meaning boy or fumbler type of character tries to make it good in a place that seems to be too much for one too oblivious to know how to play the game. Lloyd may have been the shrewdest in marketing himself for selective appearances in the early sound era, but that does not certainly mean that he fared the best among the silent-to-sound transitioners. The film has been labeled by some as one of Lloyd's best in the sound era, and I suppose we shall see if that is fully true at the end of the road, although truthfully, I am salivating at the prospect seeing Leo McCarey direct him in The Milky Way (1936), just two films after this one. Of course, when compared to Feet First and Welcome Danger, Movie Crazy is practically an ice-cold water bottle on a hot day, so take that for what it is worth with a 98-minute movie built on a handful of sight gags and the classic misunderstandings that I am sure you all know from certain comedies and so on and so forth (such as the aforementioned use of a magician's coat to wreak havoc for a dance). Anyway, let's get to the point: the movie is fine. It definitely seems a bit more reliant on visual gags to go along with the fact that the movie is basically two-fold: the fumbling young man that stumbles through the motions of trying to make something in Hollywood and the fumbling young man that stumbles through his feelings for two totally-not similar looking women. Honestly, I could really do with more stuff involving him bumbling as an "innocent" when it comes to the movie industry rather than when trying to not fumble between "romances", because if he wants me to believe in something for a guy that doesn't exactly have that much time to make me think he is still the picture of innocence (the man was near 40), I would rather have the first part, but I'm sure getting the girl is giving what people want, not more scenes involving him try to not cause the camera to explode when he forgets a line or makes for a terrible extra. Actually, Cummings does do a pretty good job in terms of being as an assertive contrast required to help set the tone of what goes on with a rough industry that demands everything everywhere all at once, and her treating Lloyd as a relief rather than a hinderance makes it a curious experience. Of course, she is also playing a character that Lloyd also falls for and go figure that she has a problem with him falling for the "Mexican character" that she is playing in makeup. Thomson is a decent foil to the proceedings in terms of being someone for Lloyd to counter against when it comes to the most interesting sequence: the fight scene at the end, one told with little dialogue that takes place on a dripping wet ship set that is executed quite well in execution and pacing. As a whole, whether serving as Lloyd's best sound film or not, it is a fairly decent comedy film from its time that will prove just how long he had a grip on an audience that needed a laugh and found him comforting to go along with.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Jurassic Park III.

Review #2023: Jurassic Park III.

Cast: 

Sam Neill (Dr. Alan Grant), William H. Macy (Paul Kirby), Téa Leoni (Amanda Kirby), Alessandro Nivola (Billy Brennan), Trevor Morgan (Eric Kirby), Michael Jeter (Udesky), John Diehl (Cooper), Bruce A. Young (M.B. Nash), Laura Dern (Ellie Sattler), Taylor Nichols (Mark), and Mark Harelik (Ben Hildebrand) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger and #322 - Jumanji)

Review: 

Thirty years ago in June of 1993, Jurassic Park managed to, well, become one of the biggest hits of its time. You already know that it was a hit adaptation of the Michael Crichton novel, and you already know its success inspired a follow-up novel that in turn became its own film with The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997). After the release of the film, Steven Spielberg, who directed both features, had no interest in doing any more films in the series as director, but he had someone in mind to do the third film: Joe Johnston, who apparently expressed an interest to direct a Jurassic Park sequel for years (Spielberg would serve as executive producer). The Austin native had been involved with special effects from a young age, most notably beginning his career as a concept artist and effects technician on Star Wars (1977). He became a director with Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (1989), the first of his "effects-driven" films, although October Sky (1999) was a noted exception. The timeline from announcing a third film in 1998 to actual release in summer 2001 is a convoluted but fun one to get around to. Various writers were approached with trying to make a draft, starting with Criag Rosenberg, who made a draft that involved teenagers being marooned on Isla Sorna. Peter Buchman was then recruited to do a rewrite when Johnston rejected Rosenberg's draft. Buchman had a two-pronged story: dinosaurs somehow killing people on the mainland and a story where Alan Grant and company crashing on Isla Sorna. Weeks before shooting was supposed to begin in mid-2000, however, the script was rejected by Johnston and Spielberg, with the former having asked David Koepp (who had written for both of the previous films) for ideas, where Koepp suggested making it more of a rescue film. Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor (fresh off an Academy Award nomination for Election (1999)) were then brought in to do a script for a couple of weeks to deal with characters and story (due to an influx of action); it is because of them that you see Laura Dern for two scenes rather than none at all. This script was then fiddled with by Buchman and an un-credited John August to the point where Payne was later quoted as saying that the script basically went for action and then took "the rest out". It probably isn't a surprise that Johnston called the production "a living hell on a daily basis", and there would not be another Jurassic Park film for fourteen years.

Jurassic Park III basically takes the series to the most B-level of desires and decides, screw it, run with that. The second film is a movie where almost everyone is a specialist of some sort, and the best actor is the one who is only present in the middle in Pete Postlethwaite. Well, that, and a nice little sequence in San Diego for the climax. The third film, now in the mode of just finding a way to set up getting to the (second) island of dinosaurs, seems the freest of the two sequels in just going with the flow.  Two things are true here with the third film: it is somehow too short of a film, and it also is debatably better than the second film in entertainment value. If the second film was a movie that accomplished 70% of its grasp, the third film probably accomplishes 71% of its grasp, and that is totally fine with me for one sitting. The first two films dealt with scientists liking to play God or corporate stoogery, so I am totally fine with a ridiculous little ride with people that I like a little better than the previous attempt at spectacle-chucking that tries to play itself as a family adventure. Neill was happy to be back for the third film, not so much because of the paycheck (insert your joke here), but apparently, he was most enthused to see if he could do a better performance than he had done in the first film. I enjoy him here, mostly because his cynical attitude works just as well in riding the coattails of being stuck in fresh dinosaur hell without coming off as an imitation of what was done before (or at least being just a schlock B-hero, which is not really an insult). How can you go wrong with a guy who is doing a speech at an auditorium (about humans that probably would've been wiped clean by velociraptors to walk the earth if not for that one big asteroid) and decides to only field questions that don't talk about that dinosaur attack he went through? Macy and Leoni make for a capable bumbling act to serve as the key figures of a would-be rescue mission that is really more of a "get your head together" mission, which does grow on me to make me eventually stop thinking, "hmm, which one could get a dinosaur nibble?" Nivola apparently called his part the only one in his career at that point that he "had nothing for me to latch on to, character-wise". I can't really argue the point, but I will at least say that he doesn't fall by the wayside in flexing to the whims of ambition, which at least makes him out to not being a cardboard villain. It is evident that the 92-minute runtime hinders the film more than it should, as if they really felt the sequence in the driving weather (complete with having just enough for one call) plus a scene exchanging eggs (don't ask) was going to be enough to forgive it ending with abrupt finish. As much as it would be funny to call in the military only to see dinosaurs play friendly with tanks, I suppose you have to keep some things a possibility for another brainstorming session. Or take a long break, I guess. As a whole, the third film is totally fine under the mildest of expectations when it comes to lean spectacle with few bumps in the road in getting to making a ride that won't make you want to jump right out before it arrives at its destination, and I would say that should be enough for those into that sort of thing.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

She Devil (1957).

Review #2022: She Devil.

Cast: 

Mari Blanchard (Kyra Zelas), Jack Kelly (Dr. Dan Scott), Albert Dekker (Dr. Richard Bach), John Archer (Barton Kendall), Fay Baker (Evelyn Kendall), Blossom Rock (Hannah, the Housekeeper), and Paul Cavanagh (Sugar Daddy) Produced and Directed by Kurt Neumann (#618 - Rocketship X-M, #710 - The Fly, and #832 - Kronos)

Review: 

You may or may not be surprised to hear that this falls under the web of film producer/cinema chain owner Robert L. Lippert. In 1956, he struck up a deal with 20th Century Fox that saw his Regal Films company make films that would be distributed by Fox. Lippert and Fox would do countless films together, and She Devil was released as a double bill with Kronos that had the same director in Kurt Neumann, who directed four features with Lippert as a producer (contrary to what it says in the film, which lists just Neumann as producer/director, since Lippert was trying to escape a rule about residual payments and TV). Both films happen to share the same cinematographer in Karl Struss, who shot various productions over the decades that ranged from Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) to The Great Dictator (1940). Regal managed to convince Fox to let them use their CinemaScope format for their films (which were in black-and-white), which they did under the name of "RegalScope". The film is based on the short story "The Adaptive Ultimate", written by Stanley G. Weinbaum, which first appeared in print in November of 1935, one month before Weinbaum's death from lung cancer at 33. Prior to this film, it had adapted to radio (1949) and television (1949, 1952, 1955). Kurt Neumann and Carroll Young wrote the screenplay together. The story and film are a bit different in little details. Her first act of trouble is killing an old man in a park for money that she gets away with by changing her hair color before the trial begins. Also, she apparently can intensify her beauty as a mode of adaptation, which she either uses on a politician (story) or a millionaire (film). Of course, the mode of trying to take her down is the same in story and film: carbon dioxide.

It really isn't a horror film as it sometimes is labeled with being "sci-fi horror". It seems a bit too closed in to be anything other than a mild thriller, mostly because they have established a threat so clear that the only way to win is basically cheating. I mean, you've created someone who is probably immune to getting diseases worse than tuberculosis that can heal from bullet wounds and change their hair color, so the fact that she has a small body count seems more of a surprise than anything. Sure, you could interpret the film as one of attempted liberation, because she really is someone who is given newfound power (by men) that simply takes what she wants. But really it is just the doomed idiocy of two folks who should know better than to look away at the threat that grows until it has gone on a bit too much (such as admitting to bonking someone on the head when asked). The movie can't really pull a dilemma that you haven't already thought you saw in "insert Frankenstein feature/ripoff". Hell, what's the point of having "devil" in your title? Blanchard had been cast in various supporting roles throughout the 1950s, such as Abbott and Costello Go to Mars (1953) along with various B-movies such as Son of Sinbad (1955). Sadly, she was diagnosed with cancer in 1963 and passed away in 1970 at the age of 47. Blanchard might be pegged as the femme fatale type if this was actually meant to be a noir, because she does prove quite entertaining in a role that overshadows everyone around her, one that sees her as both brunette and blonde in hair (truth be told, dark hair always looks better) while finding just how much it means to be alive and ready to get what they want. Undeniably, having the ability to take on a leopard and not have a lingering wound could make an interesting god complex, and yet the movie can only find the smallest of threats to establish with the destruction of a marriage, but Blanchard still shines in watchability right down to the end. Kelly and Dekker are just too ordinary in their foolishness to really make them interesting beyond the fact that they made the simple choice to not murder people and that's it. Granted, the killer is supposed to be interesting when it comes to stuff like this, but man, you need even the tiniest bit of tension or interest when they aren't on screen, which is surprising when one of the actors ended up starring in Maverick that same year and the other was known for various adversarial roles such as The Killers (1946). It probably seems a bit too convenient that the 77-minute run-time comes with an ending where the threat is basically neutered without much trouble (of course, they include a reference to religion within the last few minutes when wondering just what will happen to the neutered she-devil, which is rich when it is revealed that she has tuberculosis again). As a whole, the movie falls just a bit short to really make a consistent enjoyable time, but it surely would be a decent double feature with another B-movie where one can sit back and look upon the wide frames and see for themselves how much a lead performance matters for both good and terrible films.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Campaign.

Review #2021: The Campaign.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Representative Cam Brady), Zach Galifianakis (Marty Huggins), Jason Sudeikis (Mitch Wilson), Dylan McDermott (Tim Wattley), Katherine LaNasa (Rose Brady), Sarah Baker (Mitzi Huggins), John Lithgow (Glenn Motch), Dan Aykroyd (Wade Motch), and Brian Cox (Raymond Huggins) Directed by Jay Roach (#133 - Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, #134 - Austin Powers in Goldmember, #490 - Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery)

Review: 

I had considered watching the film a couple of years ago, because the 2010s certainly were a time for some odd-duck political movies and now the movie is over a decade old and maybe merited curiosity for what reputation one might see from a film that was moderately successful upon release. It was the eighth feature film directed by Jay Roach, who first started out working in production for music videos after film school at USC. His first film was Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1999), the first of a string of comedy films that were pretty successful. Of course, he did do a few drama films in between the comedies, most notably with two HBO productions with Recount (2008) and Game Change (2012), which detailed a key moment in the 2000 and 2008 U.S. presidential election, respectively. The screenplay was done by Chris Henchy and Shawn Harwell, who also did the story with Adam McKay (like Henchy and Ferrell, McKay was a founder of the comedy website Funny or Die). I suppose it is a sign of the times if a comedy film like this ends up being made for $95 million.

I wish I liked the movie better. I don't even think it reflects the time we live in when it comes to a supposed increase in the insanity of the political circus, because the movie is not nearly clever enough to justify only being 85 minutes. If you want to be a neat and tidy satire, one should probably save it for television rather than make a film that is mild in crude effectiveness. I don't want this to sound like a wish for better presences at the lead, because Ferrell and Galifianakis do generally make for amusing moments, but could you just imagine a more serious actor trying to play things off such as their opponent having a beard just like a terrorist group? (Incidentally, John Goodman makes a cameo appearance late in the film, and it only made me sad). It probably doesn't help that the film's cameo appearances of contemporary public figures (which also happened with films such as The Candidate (1972)) only helps to remind me to avoid the brain rot of cable TV without really laughing. At least one can credit the fact that the two leads are meant to play folks trying to win in such pathetic ways that can only mean one can laugh at them without too much trouble, although Ferrell probably proves better. Both are basically playing a "bit", but one isn't seemingly playing it with a higher pitch and "quirky" habits, so there is that. Ferrell just ends up doing better in pathetic ridiculousness, a perfect career politician stooge. Coincidentally, Galifianakis had an uncle who was a U.S. Representative in North Carolina. He is fine in the film, getting some of the schtick down in terms of demonstrating how it feels when one is thrust into a world of mudslingers. The best presence in the movie besides the main two is somehow McDermott, who makes for an amusing heavy that looms around the foreground more often than Aykroyd and Lithgow, who play their roles with shockingly little hammy qualities that I kind of thought would come from playing the not-Koch brothers. The rest of the cast are okay in the background of political lunacy, whether that involves LaNasa and Baker being adequate reactionary presences to the on-screen duel of idiots or a worthy straight man to the withering sense of dignity in Sudeikis. The film wants to have little moments of crudeness (such as say, mouthy voicemails or slo-mo punching of babies and dogs) but not go too far with hammy-ness, and that mostly means the movie ebbs and flows through average middle ground, right down to its ending that is okay. It probably would work fine as an educational tool when trying to understand just how far one can go if they ride a message of "America, Jesus, freedom" with a little bit of showmanship (and perhaps a certain type of funder). At the end of the day, it is mildly amusing, one that for better or worse could inspire one to look further into how much one can mine in the realm of satire or with politics, if one cares for that sort of thing. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The House of Yes.

Review #2020: The House of Yes.

Cast: 

Parker Posey ("Jackie-O" Pascal), Josh Hamilton (Marty Pascal), Tori Spelling (Lesly), Freddie Prinze Jr (Anthony Pascal), Geneviève Bujold (Mrs. Pascal) Directed by Mark Waters (#151 - Mean Girls, #204 - Freaky Friday (2003), #236 - Mr. Popper's Penguins)

Review: 

"Basically, what we wanted to achieve was a heightened reality. The situations and characters are out there, but the actors are always coming from a real place. They're not wacky cartoon characters."

Oh hell, sometimes you have to go outside the box when it comes to picking movies involving directorial debuts and, uh, movies with one standout cast member in a limited ensemble. The film is based on the play of the same name by Wendy MacLeod, which originally was brought to the stage in San Francisco for 1990; various productions have been done over the years, which included one run on off-Broadway. Mark Waters adapted the play to the screen to direct, which came after years of waiting. He had seen the play and apparently saw immediate things that he would do to make it cinematic. When he was a student at the University of Pennsylvania, he got the attention of MacLeod and got a manuscript copy from her while saying he was a film producer. It took five years and graduation from the AFI Conservatory with a master's degree in filmmaking, but he eventually found his way to making the film, which was his feature debut. Aaron Spelling and his company Spelling Entertainment helped to finance the film for who else but his daughter Tori to serve as one of the key actors (Waters had planned to fund the film from foreign pre-sales, but hey, why not Spelling and his considerable television presence?). The film was shot over the course of 24 days for a budget under $2 million. Miramax apparently liked what they saw when it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in 1997 and bought the rights to distribute it, which did not turn out to be a success in limited numbers. Perhaps an attempt at making a Gothic tale with macabre taste about an assassination was doomed from the start to do anything other than mild attention, but this was the year of other "family" films such as The Ice Storm and The Myth of Fingerprints (the latter had also premiered at Sundance that year). Of course, maybe I could do a teensy, tiny, little primer of what the film involves. It is set on Thanksgiving in 1983 and involves a main character that dresses up like Jacqueline Kennedy (Onassis) that has their own neat little secret to go with trips to the funny farm (footage from her tour of the White House is utilized with a young version of "Jackie-O", as played by Rachael Leigh Cook). Oh, and she and her brother have a certain connection that involves details of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Waters would return to the director's chair in 2001 with Head over Heels.

You know, I had a feeling that this film was going to be an interesting experience, even with its stagey execution with odd dealings. It grew on me for its 85-minute runtime beyond my expectations of just being a mild experience with only a taboo to stick out or just hints. Of course, emotional obsession can make for quite a fun time for those who take investment into that sort of thing for their dark comedies, and it works out just fine for this feature, which goes into the jaws of psychosis and finds that one really cannot stop at the bottom, regardless if one belongs to the class of the rich, who might as well be called "the house of yes". So it isn't a movie about the Kennedys but merely the myth that centers around them. Of course, the film is carried most by Posey, who was once called "Queen of the Indies" for her work within various independent films, such as Party Girl (1995). She is the best part of the film because of how confident she is with such an unpredictable role, one that is extravagantly dangerous without being pegged down as a simple loon. She is captivating in how she grips your concerns for how much obsessive and irrational love can inflict their claws on someone that could pervade everything around them until that is all there is. As such, the scenes spent with Hamilton in the throes of mental anguish provide a quality tete-a-tete between the attempts at trying to be "normal" on one side and trying to, well, see how much things having in common really matters. Bujold is the ever-watching eye that can only help but pay attention to the charade of affluent breeding. Spelling was known for her role on Beverly Hills 90210. I suppose it makes sense that she ends up playing the most "normal" of the limited cast, and she actually holds her own pretty well in being the perfect plain contrast that has the biggest crime of being "normal". Prinze Jr was actually in his second film role here, having gotten into show business because his grandfather told him to in order to "fix what your father fucked up". He may not be close to the best thing about the film, but his odd duck youthfulness gels just fine when it comes to uncomfortable amusement, spent mostly with Spelling in a different kind of charade built on warped desire. As a whole, the film doesn't become too warped in sincerity or camp value to lose sight of what matters in a film about people who are never told no that go with snappy dialogue and useful pacing to make a darkly enjoyable surprise for those who buy into that sort of thing, especially with its final fateful decision. I dug it and where it went in its stagey foundations with a good dark chuckle.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Ringer (1952).

Review #2019: The Ringer (1952).

Cast: 

Herbert Lom (Maurice Meister), Donald Wolfit (Dr. Lomond), Mai Zetterling (Lisa), Greta Gynt (Cora Ann Milton), William Hartnell (Sam Hackett), Denholm Elliott (John Lemley), Norman Wooland (Inspector Bliss), Dora Bryan (Mrs. Hackett), and Charles Victor (Inspector Wembury) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, #291 - Goldfinger, #293 - Live and Let Die, #612 - The Devil's Disciple)

Review: 

Admittedly, Guy Hamilton really is just known for his work with the James Bond films if he is mentioned among British directors for random conversation, and that is fine. He directed 22 films, and four of them were part of the Bond series, but it never hurts to give focus to other works that someone does beyond saying that he directed one of the best Bond films in Goldfinger (1964) (and probably one of the lesser of them with Diamonds Are Forever, but thats another story). He had an ambition to become a filmmaker from a young age, but he had to deal with other matters first, such as serving in the Royal Navy in World War II with the 15th Motor Gunboat Flotilla. After the war, he found work as an assistant director (under the hire of Alexander Korda), which saw him work with people such as Carol Reed and for films such as The African Queen (1951). Hamilton would get his first chance to direct with this film when Reed inspired him to play hardball with Korda unless he got a directing job. Hamilton never looked back and directed for the next three decades in a variety of genres, such as the POW story The Colditz Story (1955), the historical drama The Devil's Disciple (1959, done after he replaced Alexander Mackendrick) or countless action flair like Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985). The film is an adaptation of the 1929 play of the same name by Edgar Wallace, which was in turn was a re-working of his 1925 novel The Gaunt Stranger. Wallace was a prolific writer of his time in the early 20th century that ranged from journalism to nearly 1,000 short stories to even screenplays, which includes the original first draft for King Kong (1933) before his sudden death from diabetes that year. At any rate, there were four prior adaptations of Wallace's work in 1928, 1931, 1932, and 1938 (one was a silent and one was even a German-Austrian film). This was made on the tail end of the career of Alexander Korda as a producer, who made hundreds of films as either director/producer until his death in 1956 (by sheer coincidence, Korda actually expressed an interest in making a film of Ian Fleming's 1954 novel Live and Let Die, which Hamilton would later get to do as director in 1973). 

It is evident how stage-bound the film is, since it basically utilizes two places for most of its 78 minutes, which seems about right for a low-budget British production. I can say this much: it is a pretty decent way to start a career for a first-time director, one with a share of composed thrills and a solid cast to make a useful curiosity for those who like quick films to view from an age long ago. I do applaud the fact that Lom is given some room to play the lead role as a heel. He was a versatile presence in film for years because of the way he carried his voice in any type of role. It works here with a role that probably would've been an adversary in a different thriller but is instead one that is being stalked (British "stalked", not really stalked). Wolfit was actually an actor-manager who toured Shakespeare productions for many years, but he did do his share of acting from time to time (this was the second film he did from his return after not doing one from 1939-1951), although his legacy is perhaps best captured in The Dresser, a play-turned-film about a dresser close to an actor that was written by a one-time dresser of Wolfit. He fuzzes about as someone who seems to have nothing better to do than lurk between the foreground and background, which is mildly interesting when interacting with Gynt, who has charming curiosity for someone who is basically there to see watch potential downfall. It is a calm cat-and-mouse game, not one for scene-chewing. With that in mind, Zetterling is also pretty charming in a role meant to counter Lom when it comes to "normal folks". Hartnell once described himself as a "legitimate character actor" when it came to work in theatre and film, and given that he played a mix of police, solider or toadies in film, it isn't surprising to see him here, albeit with him trying to do a Cockney accent, which goes over fine for a mildly amusing role. You may or may not have a good guess on who ends up being the title character, since "master of disguise" is something that has little room for hard questioning with the amount of people who have lines in the film, but the film at least doesn't throw many red herrings to play tricks. There aren't any scenes that distract from the mystery or drive on to start waving their hand in the "move it along position", which generally means it is on the right foot. It is a quickie represented, not one going on mayhem, which is probably best represented by the eventual turn in its climax, which is quite enjoyable in the curious amoral way it closes things out without being too neat and tidy. As a whole, it probably won't be the first pick on anybody's list for thrillers, but if you came across it, you would be just fine with what you end up seeing, and it makes some sense to see Guy Hamilton go on to better things.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Trading Places.

Redux #328: Trading Places.

Cast: 

Dan Aykroyd (Louis Winthorpe III), Eddie Murphy (Billy Ray Valentine), Ralph Bellamy (Randolph Duke), Don Ameche (Mortimer Duke), Denholm Elliott (Coleman), Jamie Lee Curtis (Ophelia), Kristin Holby (Penelope Witherspoon), Paul Gleason (Clarence Beeks), Robert Curtis Brown (Todd), Alfred Drake (Securities Exchange manager), and Jim Belushi (Harvey) Directed by John Landis.

Review: 

From my review on January 1, 2013: 

What else to start the new year of 2013 but with a film review (I hear one small whisper of yay and more crickets.), and how about an 80's flick (Gee, I haven't done 63 times before. Oh wait...) to start off the new year. (Fun fact: This is my first review on New Year's Day. I must either have been lazy the last two years or I just didn't care. I still think I'm both options.) So how is this film? It's pretty good. This is Aykroyd and Murphy at their best, always seeming to change from serious one minute to comedic in another. The supporting cast is good, and even the one bit characters have a funny line. It has a serious and comedic feel to it, always tiptoeing the lines flawlessly, and having fun. Fun stuff after almost 30 years.

"It took me a long time just to understand the con, what was going on. It's just so funny, it's so long ago now, the chicanery is so much more arcane now. At least in ‘Trading Places,’ at the end of the day, there was the commodity." - John Landis

Admittedly, having young memories of watching a film like this is probably a weird thing to admit when you first watched this movie over twelve years ago when you were barely in the middle of being a teenager. But this was the first John Landis film that I ever watched, which actually was released 40 years ago today. As mentioned before, his viewing of The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) inspired him to become a director, and he would grow up to work a variety of film jobs that ranged from mail boy to production assistant. He made his first feature film with Schlock (1973). The next couple of comedy films that he found his way to directing went better, and I'm sure you are already familiar with Animal House (1978) and The Blues Brothers (1980). At any rate, he came across a script treatment labeled "Black and White" by Timothy Harris and Herschel Weingrod (writers of Cheaper to Keep Her (1981), a flop) that was being sold around at Paramount Pictures. Harris had been inspired to make a script based on his experiences with two wealthy but frugal brothers that he often played tennis with that liked to bicker about everything. He approached his writing partner in Weingrod about it with the presentation of two brothers bickering over nature vs. nurture, and research in the commodities market helped shape the film in setting while not making it the whole film. Landis saw the script as one that honed familiar to films in the 1930s such as screwball comedies or ones directed by Frank Capra that dealt with societal issues with distinctly amusing and strong characters (of course with the 1980s, the changes now involve a bit more swearing and nudity, which I imagine irritated the still-living and bitter Capra). This was the seventh feature film directed by Landis, who also served as director for Twilight Zone: The Movie in 1983. Landis worked again with Murphy with Coming to America (1988) and Aykroyd with Blues Brothers 2000 (1998). Harris and Weingrod would go on to do a handful of screenplays together, which resulted in films such as Brewster's Millions (1985), Twins (1988), and Space Jam (1996).

If you think about it, there really is something special about the fact that five of the main six actors in this film (Murphy, Aykroyd, Ameche, Curtis, and Elliott) would go on to receive Academy Award nominations after the release of this film (the only one who did not was Bellamy, who already had been nominated - in 1937!). It always is interesting to see what the more interesting challenge is, comedians trying to play drama or folks trying to play comedy, but I imagine what is more challenging is to make a movie about finances that actually turns out funny. It is safe to say that Landis and company made a worthy comedy with a strong cast and entertaining direction and script that makes it an enduring screwy kind of comedy. Debate all you want over what Landis film ended up being better in terms of laughs, but it is safe to say that when in the right element, it perhaps never worked out any better in distinguished intrigue than this film. The American Dream may involve a bit too much love of money, but with this film, well, why the hell not? Next, you'll be asking if it is a dated feature when not seeing it for yourself for a film that involves folks playing nationality dress-up. Landis also saw inspiration in the basic dynamic within Mark Twain's novel The Prince and the Pauper (which involved two look-alike kids born on the same day to swap clothes). 

The original actors in mind for certain roles involved Gene Wilder & Richard Pryor for the main two roles, Ray Milland for the elderly brother role opposite Bellamy, and either John Gielgud or Ronnie Barker for the role later played by Elliott. Oh, and Curtis wasn't even a preference of the studio, because they had her pegged as a "scream queen". Ameche hadn't even acted in a film since Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came (1970) because apparently nobody had approached him about one (which meant that he had spent his time doing roles on stage and TV). And yet each prove quite amazing in their roles in terms of contribution of laughter that makes any scene count in conviction that really does outline how much it matters to have money in the rat race (regardless of race or class). Aykroyd in particular does a worthy job at playing the role to haughty brilliance that can be both mark and heel in consistent watchability, even when playing a miserable man watching past parties in the driving rain. Murphy, fresh off the heels of 48 Hrs. (1982), is enjoyable with spry timing (he ad-libbed a good deal of his own lines) that utilizes his talents for more than just silly humor, in part because he makes a worthy distinct image of Aykroyd when it comes to adapting to the situation around him (whether involving money or, well, you know). Oh sure, he is a scene-stealer much like his prior film appearance, but that is part of the fun. While it might have been interesting to see a pairing of Pryor and Wilder after the success of stuff such as Silver Streak, it is evident that Aykrord and Murphy were more than ready to deliver the screwball requirements. Apparently, Landis had an interesting time casting the role eventually played by Curtis because he felt it was the one character in the script that he had a problem with (because a "hooker with a heart of gold" seemed a bit on the fantasy side). I think we can say Curtis made the role count more than anyone else would have done, if only because her knowing charm and talent clearly shines through. The power of human nature is one thing, having the means to do things their way is another, basically.

The more established names are just as efficient, because Bellamy and Ameche make the ideal adversaries that you would believe would have both the attitude and insanity required to ruin a person's life over a bet to settle the pettiest of all arguments (look nature vs. nurture could make a good argument for a film, but most don't go around betting money on it). Ameche in particularly seems to relish the chance for a chance at amplified snobbery, and it is evident to see how he made an on-screen comeback with this in his credit. Bellamy is no slouch of course, because he is just as crafty in timing, and the last scene they share involving them at their new point of lowness is a worthy punchline that they each contribute well to. Elliott plays a role of such clear distinction (a butler) without coming off as just another cliche to pass off, and that I think comes from his resonance in caring about what he is doing on the screen on instinct (incidentally, he was known in previous films in a over three-decade film career as a scene-stealer).. Gleason plays a character with loose inspiration from G. Gordon Liddy and he proves quite well in scuzziness. The 116 minutes roll off pretty effectively, balancing its time with its main group to where the eventual leadup to the climax comes off without any hitches that has the task of making commodities something to watch and follow with chuckles. If you have to have folks talk about how the endgame at the market (filmed at the New York Mercantile Exchange with a good deal of actual traders participating) and are then referenced in Congressional testimony about commodities, clearly, you have done something right. It is safe to say that watching the film now has only strengthened my thoughts on it being a pretty effective film from its time that shows Landis and company at their strengths for worthy enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

It really is 40 years to the day since this film was released, so what better way to say a movie is really good than to do a re-review? There will be a handful more redux reviews to come in the following months, so I hope you enjoy them.