The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

Review #2405: The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

Cast: 

Pedro Pascal (Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic), Vanessa Kirby (Sue Storm / Invisible Woman), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Ben Grimm / The Thing), Joseph Quinn (Johnny Storm / Human Torch), Julia Garner (Shalla-Bal / Silver Surfer), Sarah Niles (Lynne Nichols), Mark Gatiss (Ted Gilbert), Natasha Lyonne (Rachel Rozman), Paul Walter Hauser (Harvey Elder / Mole Man), Ralph Ineson (Galactus), and Matthew Wood (H.E.R.B.I.E.) Directed by Matt Shakman.

Review: 

Sure, you might know that 20th Century Fox was behind those ridiculous attempts at making Fantastic Four movies based on the team that on each occasion (2005, 2007, 2015) somehow managed to flounder more than if the unreleased 1994 movie had been given the shot it deserved.* It took six years from the acquisition of that studio (and subsequent pausing of any plans to do a Marvel-based movie) and one cameo from a different Reed Richards (hey, remember when they let Sam Raimi do a movie with Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness [2022]?) but here we are again. The director for this film in Matt Shakman (remember that Jon Watts was once tapped for the film before dropping out) had previously directed one film with Cut Bank (2014) that was in the midst of plenty of television from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia to whatever "WandaVision" is (his family-centric pitch, for already established heroes is what you get here, and you can infer further here). For whatever reason, there are five writers listed for this film: Eric Pearson, Jeff Kaplan, Ian Springer, and Kat Wood for the story and Josh Friedman, Pearson, Kaplan, Springer for the screenplay.

I wanted to wait a while to see the movie because what the hell is this movie doing being released so close to the other superhero movie of the summer? Was this movie rushed in the belief that it just had to meet a late July slate? It can't even last for over two hours (114 minutes might sound like I'm only technically correct, but still), what exactly happened here? Sure, it does have a few interesting moments to go with a resourceful style (speaking of which, how idiotic must one be to not have included H.E.R.B.I.E. in one of these previous movies?) and so on, but there is something that you either will believe should've been done years ago or is not nearly as grand as it should be. Maybe it is the over-saturation that had been present in the past few years (if I have to spend time streaming a show in the attempts at going with an alleged film universe, I would rather learn how to knit instead), maybe the general feeling that setting it in a different Earth when an "Avengers movie" is already imminent seems a bit silly, maybe it just is an okay film. Do you ever watch something and in your mind, you think it is making all the "right moves" and yet somehow just doesn't click every box you want for a really good time rather than just "fine time for a rental"? Was the bar so low for a Fantastic Four movie that didn't suck (in a way, the best family-led group of superheroes for a film...is still The Incredibles [2004])? But let's at least start with positives: it does have a neat quartet of characters, mainly thriving on the qualities of Quinn and Moss-Bachrach in interactions that protrude worthwhile confidence (as one does for a hothead and a guy that happens to be a rock-man) to make the Pascal and Kirby seem just as interesting to contrast in "staid" nature. I like the look of the movie quite a bit, right down to the hero costumes that protrude confidence in actually wanting to stick out for a period piece. Garner makes a quality Surfer in  The showing of powers (mostly with the Invisible Woman) do look pretty good and actually give credence to the idea of this family being a formidable, nay, fantastic group to possibly see further (not exactly in "Avengers", I mean a good ol' Fantastic Four sequel). 

My quibbles may probably ironic: in its attempts to feature a different main adversary (i.e. no Doom) and different "hook" (i.e. a baby Franklin), there is a mish-mash of ideas that are begging to taken to bigger levels that somehow feel short of greatness. I don't care what folks say about comic book logic, "Earth-insert number here" does undercut things a tiny bit ("oh, the Earth is in trouble! Not our Earth, some other Earth that happens to have different names and people that look like us, but an Earth!") in tension, but my real complaint is that I don't find the idea of tying the movie around Franklin to be particularly refreshing. It just seems like something cribbed from the second or third movie of a rejected pitch more than what is meant to be high tension because it (to me, anyway) undercuts the fact that I want to see the core four that one saw in the opening that dealt with, well, villains. I like seeing Hauser as a Mole Man, what was wrong with that as a main villain? Don't tell me that the Fantastic Four only has two villains (look, we can talk about the next Doom antoher time) man, sometimes you want a small plate before you get to the main course (Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), a better example of the "let's not do the whole origin thing", didn't choose friggin Doctor Octopus or the Goblin in the first movie, they went with the Vulture). Galactus (you might remember in the 2007 film resembled a cloud where here he towers a bit over the Statue of Liberty) only has, what, three whole scenes? I like Ineson fine, but this is ridiculous. Hell, maybe the movie would've been better if he actually won in consuming the Earth, what else is the point of having a "Earth-whatever" if you're just going to swing the Four onto a different place anyway? Multiverses and different timelines should be for animated material or maybe, just maybe, we just have a group of heroes that just go with the flow of being a tight-knit group. The movie looks and sounds nice and has some entertainment (i.e. pacing out its effects sequences for patience that I'm fine with, albeit with quibbles for the climax*) that may just be neat for you. As a whole, it may not hit as many of the marks you would want in for a truly spectacular movie (or even a cosmic soap opera), but it has enough to ultimately carry it to the finish line of general entertainment to inquire further with these folks.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

You might wonder what exactly the theme is for August: What better way to whip up another month of Season 15 than to also celebrate five years of trying to have an interesting theme for August than to just throw any theme imaginable for the month. Yes, for All-In-One August, you'll see a few movies reviewed for their "Anniversary in August", or as "Action in August" or "Around the World in August or "Acknowledged in August", or, well "2025". 

*Incidentally, the main four of that movie actually have cameo appearances in this movie, which just raises questions over why they hadn't been given their due years ago.

*SPOILER (in lighter text): it feels ridiculous to have a character die and make their sacrifice...only to be resurrected. By a baby. Blah blah blah Franklin is this in comics, again, I feel like they really wanted to do a family angle just so they had the trick of killing someone off only to see them revived right in hand. I assumed, with the Thunderbolts* "credits scene", that the Fantastic Four were going to escape their world after either Galactus won or something happened to make them go into our Earth. Instead, you get a bullshit revival of Invisible Woman, who you know wasn't going to die anyway! Really, only guys with barely a name or ones picked out of a hat (i.e. not Hawkeye, who was never cool) die in these movies! Or am I just insane?

Rififi.

Review #2404: Rififi.

Cast: 

Jean Servais (Tony "le Stéphanois"), Carl Möhner (Jo "le Suédois"), Robert Manuel (Mario Ferrati), Jules Dassin (César "le Milanais"), Magali Noël (Viviane), Claude Sylvain (Ida), Marcel Lupovici (Pierre Grutter), Robert Hossein (Rémy Grutter), Pierre Grasset (Louis Grutter), Marie Sabouret (Mado), Dominique Maurin (Tonio), and Janine Darcey (Louis) Directed by Jules Dassin (#1043 - The Naked City)

Review: 

'What I loved and really enjoyed was to see the film in public in Paris. All the nice bourgeois people who go to the movies were rooting for these guys to succeed. I had one of the gang hit a single piano key and the audience jumped. When I was writing it, I knew you had to have that rooting interest; the film would work only if I made people want them to succeed. First I introduced the element of friendship, because if you're going to care for the people who are going to be crooks, you have to have some sympathy for them as people. But part of it is also thinking that these guys are real professionals and work well together. It's like wanting a great star to come up to bat and hit a homer.''

It helps to refresh my memory of certain filmmakers. The son of Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire, Jules Dassin was raised in New York and became involved in acting from a youth with the Yiddish Art Theatre and studied abroad for years. He first became a director with radio plays in the late 1930s before moving to stage plays such as the Children's Theatre. It was around this time that he joined Communist Party USA. Later, he signed to become a studio director for RKO Radio Pictures that saw him work only as an assistant director before Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer eventually had him direct. He made his first film as a short with The Tell-Tale Heart (1941) before Nazi Agent (1942) became his feature debut. Dassin directed eight films for MGM in five years that he felt were fine. However, he soon directed a handful of films in freelance/20th Century Fox that he really felt was his growth, as highlighted by The Naked City (1948) and Night and the City (1950) Unfortunately, Dassin was blacklisted by the 1950s because of his name being connected with organizations connected to the "Communist-front" but at least never appeared before the "Un-American Activities Committee" like some of his peers. He was offered a job in France to direct movies and went with it, although there would be such difficulty in finding work that didn't involve American film distribution companies that his first film there was with Rififi (1955). Dassin directed twelve further movies that concluded with Circle of Two (1981); Dassin died in 2008 at the age of 96. The movie is, shall we say, based on the novel of the same name (okay it actually is known as "Du rififi chez les hommes" but I imagine it makes sense people know it by the shorter title, because the word means fight or bust-up) by Auguste Le Breton, once described as "the prince of argot". Apparently the slang used in the novel irked Dassin, and he once described the book as being "all about Arab bad behavior, including necrophilia", but the small chapter about a heist was interesting enough to whip up a script (incidentally, one praise of the film came from critic-turned-director François Truffaut that said Dassin made the best crime film out of the "worst crime novel I ever read"). The result is as such for writing: Dassin for the adaptation, René Wheeler and Le Breton for collaboration and Le Breton for dialogue. Apparently, the movie was only available on videotape for quite a few decades until a restoration in the 2000s.

 

It is an efficient movie, that's for sure. Dassin made a noir as grey as one could do, one that didn't need a big fistfight or music to convey a stone-cold thriller. Sure, it wasn't the first of its kind with elaborate heists, since the decade started with films such as The Asphalt Jungle (1950; Dassin contended he saw the movie only after making Rififi). You see the streets in winter and see a natural atmosphere of doubt within listless souls. It works pretty well in swift ice-cold entertainment (115 minutes) and it does so with a litany of actors that aren't necessarily big names (well, at least Servais appeared in multiple Dassin movies) but still manage to make the movie roll along with relatively few troubles. It helps the heist sequence was based on an actual burglary in Marseille in 1899, where a hole in the floor was cut of a travel agency's office in order to dig onto a jewel shop while catching the debris with an umbrella to make off with valuables. You just have to see it to believe that a director can make a heist sequence (in the midst of the film, not at the end) seem so fascinating with no need for music or dialogue to make it clear of efficient professionalism*, at least with what you get from these folks. Servais is probably the most dependable of the presences in the film, which is comprised of wayward people trying to make a living that can only find jagged edges with the tiniest bit of hope there even among the rugged flaws that come out in prideful figures in a movie like this; it helps to pay attention to a movie that has fate as the villain lurking behind the thugs, if you think about it. It does make it a bit distinct to have the climax involve a litany of crosses and quick decisions without need for just having authority clamping down even when you know that some crimes don't pay and it has the swiftness to close right down the road as if it would make a worthwhile companion to The Wages of Fear (1953) in sudden fates, if you will. As a whole, this is a pretty neat noir, building its tension and shrouded curiosity to meaningful execution that will prove a worthwhile time down the line for classic world cinema.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Incidentally, Dassin's other caper with Topkapi (1964) had a heist sequence that apparently proved some inspiration for the 1966 TV series Mission: Impossible, and the 1996 Mission: Impossible movie in turn featured a scene inspired by Topkapi.

Next in August: a new theme, of sorts...

Catch Us If You Can.

Review #2403: Catch Us If You Can.

Cast: 

Dave Clark (Steve), Barbara Ferris (Dinah), David Lodge (Louis), Robin Bailey (Guy), Yootha Joyce (Nan), David de Keyser (Zissell), Clive Swift (Duffle), Ronald Lacey (Yeano), Hugh Walters (Grey), Michael Gwynn (Hardingford), with Lenny Davidson (Lenny), Rick Huxley (Rick), Mike Smith (Mike, and Denis Payton (Denis) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz, #975 - Deliverance, #1210 - Excalibur, #1915 - Exorcist II: The Heretic, #2224 - Point Blank)

Review: 

The 1960s had plenty of room for rock and roll bands to get their shot, so of course here is a movie coming off the heels of the "British Invasion". The Dave Clark Five actually started as a backing musician group in 1958 before becoming their own real band in 1962 in London that had each member play varying instruments (Clark for example, played drums while also being the manager and song co-writer while the vocals were done by Mike Smith). The band had a handful of songs that made the charts, most notably with "Glad All Over", and they were the second group to go on the Ed Sullivan Show after the Beatles had done so in early 1964 (apparently, one band manager of the time argued that the early success of the Clark Five was actually a rival to the Beatles). The band disbanded in 1970, but Clark kept on with another self-titled band for a few more years. Apparently, the impetus for the movie that became known as "Catch Us If You Can" in some markets and "Having a Wild Weekend" in places such as America was because Nat Cohen had missed out on producing A Hard Day's Night. He found a producer with David Deutsch to helm the movie. The movie was written by playwright Peter Nichols, who apparently did it in need of money. The result of a script that Nichols labeled a "pretentious odyssey about middle-aged entrepreneurs exploiting young talent, crammed with irony, philosophic overtones and three-syllable words" was filmed with apparently few of his words actually filmed, probably because of having to work with actors that weren't particularly experienced. The director would be John Boorman, a clerical instructor in the British Army-turned-journalist-turned-newsroom man-turned-documentary filmmaker. Catch Us If You Can wasn't a major success, but Boorman followed it up with 1967's Point Blank (as co-written by Alexander Jacobs, who was an assistant to Deutsch on the aforementioned Catch movie) and 1968's Hell in the Pacific.

I do wish I liked the movie, but for whatever reason, my memory of the film started to diminish in what I actually liked about it the more it stuck around in my brain. Being sandwiched between band-related ventures such as A Hard Day's Night [1964] and Head [1968] (speaking of movies featuring groups with curious observations about people that are far better than Catch Us If You Can) probably does not help matters. It isn't so much that the movie isn't a subdued mess, it just so happens the movie is a puddle of ideas that only come across in vague terms that aren't helped with the lack of one commanding performance. You have Clark and Ferris going around in episodic adventures encountering varying levels of weird people (read: British) that is sometimes curious but not nearly as interesting as it believes itself to be. Ferris had a handful of roles in her career, mostly in the 1960s, and she does relatively fine in hurried timing, as one does when the camera (read: Boorman focusing on the actor) likes to focus on her worries in the prism of youth. It might be taken as being a commentary of fame and the culture of the time that mostly involves a bunch of weird people, I suppose. It just doesn't feel incisive enough to really make any interesting observations beneath the obvious that is pretty hollow (oh don't go with "but that's the point", even movies that like to talk about hollow people at least have venom) and it barely feels enthusiastic enough to make one inquire further of the Clark Five (get it, they play stuntmen in the film rather than musicians). It just comes and goes with the vibes of someone trying to make the best of muddy thoughts that is too elusive to actually hold on to. At least it looks nice and has a few "heh" gags, at least, mostly in strange timing and the ending is at least elusive enough to invite curiosity, but it just never feels like a complete experience. As a whole, it might be more of a curiosity for the road later travelled with Boorman than as some sort of great experience, which is both a blessing and curse for those who like to check out movies now celebrating sixty years.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!

Review #2402:  The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!

Cast: 

Hugh Grant (the Pirate Captain), Martin Freeman (the Pirate with a Scarf/Number Two), Imelda Staunton (Queen Victoria), David Tennant (Charles Darwin), Jeremy Piven (Black Bellamy), Salma Hayek (Cutlass Liz), Lenny Henry (Peg-Leg Hastings), Brian Blessed (Pirate King), Russell Tovey / Anton Yelchin (Albino Pirate [United Kingdom] / [United States]), Brendan Gleeson (Pirate with Gout), Ashley Jensen (Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate), Ben Whitehead / Al Roker (Pirate Who Likes Sunsets and Kittens [UK] / [USA]) Directed by Peter Lord (#160 - Chicken Run) and Jeff Newitt.

Review: 

"We had one of those meetings that you have in development departments where there’s 30 books on the table, people discussing if any of them will make a TV series or a movie, and I picked this thing up off the table and I read five pages. It made me laugh so much. Seldom, indeed, have I read anything that’s had so much fun in it so quickly. So I thought, “Well, we’ll do that!” That’s just the start of a very long process because it wasn’t really as much of a story in the book, so that was two years to get the draft together."

Sure, why not. It's been a very long time since I covered a feature made by Aardman Animations*, and this was their fifth one released to theaters and a bit of a return to stop motion, as their last two movies (Flushed Away [2006] and Arthur Christmas [2011]) were done in CG. This movie was planned to be in CG, but their partners in Sony saw the models used as reference that seemed better for stop-motion, albeit with computer generated imagery used for scenery, such as with the sea (at any rate, art of the film does exist to view for oneself). The source material is a book series that English novelist Gideon Defoe first created with The Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists in 2004 that lasted for five more novels in eight years, and it perhaps is not a surprise to see that Dafoe wrote the screenplay for this film. Outside of the United Kingdom, the movie was released under the title of "The Pirates! Band of Misfits", and it is where you get two different voice actors for select characters. The movie was a mild hit with audiences, but apparently its failure to make more money internationally led to Sony (who apparently had high expectations) not going forward with partnering for a second Pirates movie, which would've apparently been about cowboys. This was the 2nd of two movies Lord (the co-founder of Aardman) has directed, as he since has spent time as an executive producer on a variety of Aardman projects, while co-director Jeff Newitt worked on Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget (2023). The next movie made by Aardman was with StudioCanal for Shaun the Sheep Movie in 2015.

I don't really care for using the word "cartoon" for a movie, but I'm sure this type of movie would fall under that label for most people with its intent of just having fun with pirates in the 19th century (1837, specifically) that goes with the flow of living dodos and adversarial queens for 88 minutes. The animation is nice enough to serve as the backdrop for quite a few charming gags (mostly visual) and it clearly will work enough in patience for anybody that got a kick out of Cutthroat Island (1995), despite a few limitations. You can't really take it seriously as a historical movie, but I do wonder if we see that many movies that make light of old dead presidents (some of whom actually owned slaves when in power) as much as others make light of dead monarchs (just to throw one random fact down the hole, Darwin married in 1838 to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood and had ten children). At least Grant* seems to be having a fine time playing a wayward pirate, one that is fairly goofy but endearing enough to go with the evident road to go down in generally good timing (namely dry). Freeman and Tennant accompany him with varying levels of success in timing to react to the teetering absurdity that is fairly dry and yet still sly enough to make it a good bit to go with. Staunton makes for a fairly quality adversary in snooty amusement (as one does when playing a figure of a particular design in rotund-ness). There may be a wide variety of name actors popping in here and there that are mostly fine for tiny gags (it does warm the heart to see a bit role for a booming actor in Blessed). The general line of action for the film most revolves around setting up amusing little situations, whether that involves time spent with, well, scientists and a climax that is relatively engaging in setup to at least give the folks something to be happy with when all is said and done. As a whole, it just is a movie you either roll with in its whimsical type of timing and style, for which it does look quite accomplished in the sense that it never looks tired or too desperate to get the jokes to land. 

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Hilariously, this is yet another actor finally featured in a review, it never occurred to me I never saw Hugh Grant in a movie before. Also, I suppose I forgot to mention that Aardman has done a few short films. Here's your cookie.

The Fantastic Four.

Review #2401: The Fantastic Four.

Cast: 

Alex Hyde-White (Reed Richards / Mr. Fantastic), Rebecca Staab (Susan Storm / Invisible Woman; Mercedes McNab as Young Susan Storm), Jay Underwood (Johnny Storm / Human Torch; Phillip Van Dyke as Young Johnny Storm), Michael Bailey Smith (Ben Grimm), Carl Ciarfalio (The Thing), Joseph Culp (Victor Von Doom / Dr. Doom), Kat Green (Alicia Masters), Ian Trigger (The Jeweler), and Annie Gagen (May Storm) Directed by Oley Sassone.

Review: 

“I just sent an email to the cast. We’ve remained really good friends over the years, and we’re still astounded that this movie won’t die, 25 frickin’ years later, man. We’ve been interviewed by I don’t know how many outlets, magazines, the BBC, you name it. It just keeps coming.”

Time enough at last. You might wonder just why I would elect to do this movie, one that was not released in theaters but has persisted with bootleg recordings. Well, it seemed apt to deliver justice in the smallest form possible to a movie that unfairly shelved, so screw it. You might know that the team was created by Stan Lee (writer/editor) and Jack Kirby (artist/co-plotter) in 1961 that apparently had its first steps come because magazine/comic publisher Martin Goodman heard about the growing success of the comic series Justice League of America in 1960. In the 1980s, Bernd Eichinger and his production company Constantin Film obtained an option for a movie based on the comic book series The Fantastic Four. Apparently, Constantin's option was to expire on Christmas Eve 1992 and he either needed to start shooting or lose the option. Enter Roger Corman, who agreed to join forces on a production that was to be done for $1 million with New Horizons Pictures to help distribute. Production started three days before New Years Eve 1992 (after starting casting in December of that year) under the directorial work of New Orleans native Oley Sassone, who went from being a musician to actually shooting music videos and even doing a few cheapie movies with 1991's Final Embrace and Bloodfist III: Forced to Fight. The movie apparently was shot in less than four weeks in California with a screenplay by Craig J. Nevius and Kevin Rock. So yes, the movie was shot quick and cheap, but there were people making it that at least wanted to try and make it look like a comic book (such as its costume designer). The trailer of the movie was shown in theaters, and the cast and director did a promotional tour for the movie, by the way. There was meant to be a world premiere on January 19, 1994 that would have charity proceeds. Then the studio confiscated the negatives and told folks to go home. It apparently was exhibited once on May 31, 1994 before it was eventually purchased by Marvel executive Avi Arad and "burned". People have argued over whether the movie was meant to be released. Lee (who visited the set and even mentioned it to people in public) said it wasn't, Corman said it was and his contract had to be bought out, Eichinger said it was meant to be released. Hilariously enough, the next attempt at making a Fantastic Four movie would take a long time to do, since 20th Century Fox spent ten years in hiring people to try and direct / write the thing. In 2005, with Constantin Film as one of the production companies involved, Fantastic Four was released in theaters. Twenty years (and two more Fantastic Four flops) later, the next attempt at making a film adaptation is coming with The Fantastic Four: First Steps, the first of these films that isn't set in contemporary times. Sassone never got to direct a big movie, but he didn't leave the film business, directing a litany of small films and plenty of television. Somehow, somewhere, someone made efforts to do a bootleg for people to spread around of the film and it has been that way ever since, with a red-carpet showing of the movie (no paid tickets) even being done in New Orleans as late as 2019.

You have to be kidding me, right? This is the movie that couldn't get released? Even with all of the "good" movies I've seen, there are still movies I've also seen that are considerably of lesser value than what you see here. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) was basically an unfinished product, and it still got released! Besides, was it really going to be a bigger low point for Marvel than the 21st Century Film Corporation flop with Captain America (1990)?* I don't know if I could go as far as to say this is better than the turgid 2005 Fantastic Four movie, but it is so funny to see a movie that deserved better in its inspired efforts. The names of Hyde-White, Underwood, Staab, and Smith / Ciarfalio should be remembered as the first live action Four or at least acknowledged by Marvel; Arad apparently didn't even watch the movie before it was burned but thank heavens that bootleggers have persisted in making sure one can see the movie at all. It's almost a punk thing if you think about it, a movie that exists for the public as if it was an act of defiance. Criticizing the movie is like asking the guy who smells like he has beer in his pants if he is drunk: you already know the answer. The movie doesn't quite have the pacing to really make for great drama, but there wasn't exactly a great outline to work out a team comic book movie yet; having a ten-year gap that has a young Sue is not exactly ideal if you think about the age gap between her and Reed (notice how she apparently isn't a scientist here). The effects are wonky in the sense that The Thing is probably the highlight effect in looking and sounding adequate, at least when compared to the "trick" used for the Invisible Woman or the computer effect used at the end with the Torch, and the less said about Mr. Fantastic, the better. Due to, well, not being completely and totally finished in post-production, the voice work for Ciarfalio and Culp is, well, not ideal, but at least they look pretty cool for a bit. As a movie, it is all over the place in hokum that couldn't quite go with "mole men" but could do "jewelers" and it definitely lacks tension, but a little polish and a little more appreciation beyond "make this quick" in a era where you really needed time/more money to make an adventure, and maybe you would have the recipe for a "cult classic". As a movie, it is a corny one but it also is a well-intentioned attempt at making a movie for folks to enjoy that clearly deserved better than what it received.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Supplemental (i.e. no rating but just for you guys): as a treat, I also viewed the 2015 documentary Doomed!: The Untold Story of Roger Corman's The Fantastic Four, which was directed/written by Marty Langford as funded in some part by Indiegogo that interviewed the cast, Sassone and several others. The documentary is pretty cut and dry about a subject matter that is, well, distinct from the usual "making of / story", but at least you hear from people who at least seem interested in getting their words out there about a production that sure seemed like it was going to be just another job (or for some, one they wanted to use to springboard further). The documentary may just be a "heh, we did make a movie", but you don't exactly have people clamoring to hear about the 2005 or 2015 Fantastic Four productions, do you? I can't exactly give it a rating, because it is more a thing you would watch on the Internet (85 minutes) rather than compare it to say, "The Making of [X]", but if you are curious about the 1994 movie, this will be interesting to view right after that as a solid "fine" curiosity.

*In 1993, Arad was named the president and CEO of Marvel Films, which did eventually become Marvel Studios in 1996.

The Baron of Arizona.

Review #2400: The Baron of Arizona.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (James Reavis), Ellen Drew (Sofia; Karen Kester as child Sofia), Vladimir Sokoloff (Pepito), Beulah Bondi (Loma), Reed Hadley (Griff), Robert Barrat (Judge), Robin Short (Lansing), Tina Pine (Rita), Margia Dean (the Marquesa), Jonathan Hale (the Governor), Edward Keane (Miller), and Barbara Woodell (Mrs. Lansing) Directed by Samuel Fuller (#1790 - Park Row, #2234 - The Steel Helmet)

Review: 

"The cameraman is master of his own kingdom. I feel the same about the rest of my crew: sound technicians, makeup people, hairdressers, costume designers. We'd discuss the kind of picture I wanted to make. Then I'd give them ample freedom to get the job done. They always did, no matter the budget or time constraints. I was always lucky with my production crews...The Baron from Arizona wasn't a big success. At least it was fun to make." - Samuel Fuller

Once ago, the West was a weird place. There once was a man named James Reavis that claimed to be a Baron of Arizona. The Missouri native apparently first learned he was good at forging signatures when enlisted in the traitorous Confederate Army as a teenager. He soon decided to surrender to the Union and served briefly there before doing a variety of jobs, one of which was real estate. It was only in 1880 that Reavis visited the then-Arizona Territory. He soon honed his plan that would see him file papers involving grants, deeds, and a claim that would've effectively nullified all existing land titles within the grant. Complications arose in the grant that saw him go to a second plan: an heiress to the grant that he could marry. Finally, in the year of 1889, the ball was rolling for nailing down the lack of validity of the claim, most notably with surveyor general Royal Johnson that noted the irregularities such as using a steel-nibbed pen rather than a quill for 18th century documents. Reavis did sue the United States government that went down the toilet in 1895. He was tried for forgery and found guilty in 1896, where he served prison time until 1898. He died in a pauper's grave in 1914. Incidentally, the tale of Reavis loosely inspired the 1939 film The Night Riders. According to Samuel Fuller's autobiography, he came across the Arizona story in the 1930s when drinking in New Mexico, as one does when on the writing beat. At any rate, years later Robert Lippert, satisfied with I Shot Jesse James (1949), was ready to produce another of Fuller's films and liked the pitch Fuller (who aspired to not leave Lippert after having one good time with him) gave to him. To beef up the curiosity, the movie states a source with a 1949 article in The American Weekly by Homer Croy, which had apparently also had material from Sam White that had been published earlier in True magazine. By Fuller's own admission, he wrote a script that he believed was more interesting than the actual Reavis story, particularly in the planning and with the love story.  Fuller even had the benefit of James Wong Howe as cinematographer because Howe, a friend of his, didn't care about the money for shooting a film and just wanted to do it. 

Admittedly, even though the movie is fine at best with the overall experience, you can clearly see the development present in a growing talent. The movie does take a bit of time to really get going with its setup (with narration present in setting certain things up, as they say), but the 97-minute runtime is generally watchable to make things worth it. Obviously first choices don't come to most movies, as Fuller had Fredric March in mind first for the lead role, but Lippert couldn't afford him. Instead, Fuller went with a gentleman that he saw on Broadway with a worthwhile voice and movements: Vincent Price. Fuller wrote a lead character that is arrogant and a conniving swindler to nearly everyone he meets and he has the absolute right guy for the film to work when you consider that Price was more than just a guy in horror movies (which happened later in the decade, as we all know), he could even do comedy in films such as Champagne for Caesar (1950). Simply put, Price makes me smile anytime I see him in a film because the mannerisms and voice just fit right from the word go even when playing a swindler. You love to see him in how the cogs turn in his head about where to jump to next in zest that in some way we all wish we had. The rest of the cast by comparison is okay, as if somehow looking at the film behind them (because Howe's cinematography is nice to experience, for one) is more interesting, but nobody detracts from the experience. You can at least believe Drew's character really does have affection for Price even with all that comes with someone who constricts an entire narrative about being descended from great things. The ending is the old fashioned "leave 'em happy going home", but it is definitely the result of a director that wanted to show that even con men can make schemes they didn't see coming work in their favor (besides, the part beforehand involving revealing ink is charming). As a whole, Fuller's second effort as a filmmaker is relatively fine, telling a worthy enough yarn of a conman and the spirit that it takes to carry things as long as it takes to get what they desire most in the game of life. For those who want a curious type of Western that plays fast and loose with history in the most curious of ways with an icon (for me, at least) in his young years, The Baron of Arizona is practically right up your alley.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Superman (2025).

Review #2399: Superman (2025).

Cast: 

David Corenswet (Clark Kent / Superman), Rachel Brosnahan (Lois Lane), Nicholas Hoult (Lex Luthor), Nathan Fillion (Guy Gardner / Green Lantern), Edi Gathegi (Michael Holt / Mister Terrific), Anthony Carrigan (Rex Mason / Metamorpho), Isabela Merced (Kendra Saunders / Hawkgirl), Skyler Gisondo (Jimmy Olsen), Sara Sampaio (Eve Teschmacher), Wendell Pierce (Perry White), Beck Bennett (Steve Lombard), Mikaela Hoover (Cat Grant), Christopher McDonald (Ron Troupe), Pruitt Taylor Vince (Jonathan Kent), Neva Howell (Martha Kent), María Gabriela de Faría (Angela Spica / The Engineer), and Zlatko Burić (Vasil Ghurkos) Written and Directed by James Gunn (#626 - Guardians of the Galaxy, #932 - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, #2006 - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3)

Review: 

"Over the years, I'd think, 'How was I going to do Superman if I ever had the chance to do it? How can you take a character like this, who's perceived as old-fashioned by many? There have been so many different permutations of the character throughout the years, so how could you do it for a modern audience? I knew what I wanted to do in creating a story that was both utterly human and utterly fantastic at the same time – and I think the movie bounces back and forth between those two poles in a relationship that's incredibly complex. It also has all the fantastic elements that we've never really seen in a Superman movie: the flying dog, the giant Kaiju, pocket universes, science and sorcery, and all these things that were in the old Max Fleischer cartoons."

Oh, has it been a while since we had a Superman (as originally created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster) movie? We all know that the comic book movie owes a great deal to Superman (1978) when it comes to the great spectacle of worthwhile storytelling and special effects that Richard Donner stated had the aim of "Make a love story...and prove a man can fly.” Three different directors all tried to make their own follow-up to that movie to varying results. Man of Steel (2013) was an endeavor to make a "modern Superman...in his relationship to society and/or the modern world" that resulted in a hard-headed but curious movie fit for die-hard admirers of its director Zack Snyder and, well, others. But the pursuit of the dollar had Warner Bros. craving a mashup for the next Superman-related movie rather than a straight sequel, which resulted in the film formerly known as the last movie with Superman in the title, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice in 2016. Long story short: it sucked. Two years later, James Gunn actually was approached about writing and directing a Superman film, but he had doubts about taking on the characters and instead took the perceived "easy path" with making what became The Suicide Squad in 2021. In 2023, Gunn was announced as being in on what became this film, stating that his inspiration came to him revolving around the heritage of the character and looking forward (as opposed to calling it Superman: Legacy, which was the original title). With a budget of over $200 million, I'm sure this new venture in to making people want to check out further DC characters in film or television will work forwards rather than say, backwards (well, I could always go back to All-Star Superman or one of those other stories/shows that inspired this film, but I digress). 

I think I had about the right type of expectations with this film in tabbing it as one to take my mom to see on opening week.* While I'm not sure exactly how this film will sit in my memory a year from now, I can say without a doubt that this was a fun experience. If the story of Superman the hero is one of a man who strikes as a symbol of hope amid times of fear and confusion (as one does when created in the days of the Great Depression), you could say that is a movie for the energetic at heart. It has its loose moments of footing with tone, and it certainly will inspire plenty of curiosity over select story beats, but it ultimately soars enough to make the 129-minute trip worth it. I don't find it too wise to go over the story of a movie in theaters beat by beat, but let's get some stuff covered. It's interesting to essentially drop into Superman three years down the beat of heroism (incidentally, The Batman (2022) elected to go with a title character two years spent in the suit that reaches an endpoint of aspiring for hope, food for thought), as reflected in a few lines of text for the intro, among other things. I rolled with it, mainly because I would expect audiences to just go with a man who can fly without starting on alien planets or in Kansas. For a character that might as well be the biggest boy scout possible, Corenswet does relatively alright with the expectations sprung from the numerous portrayals one has heard/seen before**, although I imagine one would aspire for a bit more on the side of Kent, which is left a bit on the wayside for a chunk of the film, particularly since Krypto the (rascal) dog is in the mix. At least the sequences spent with Brosnahan are engaging to the extent needed in rigid charm, one that suggests that maybe kindness is some sort of punk rock. Admittedly, there are plenty of Lex Luthors to have experienced in terms of varying levels of ruthless ambition and the conflict that arrives from "mind over muscle", or with this film, "brain beats brawn". Hoult proves the highlight of the film in audacious confidence for what arises in the classic tale of wanting the admiration of thousands when being incapable of really understanding what it means to give and receive it in the first place.  The rest of the ensemble is fairly enjoyable for some hits in humor, with Gathegi and Fillion each having neat little moments of timing (others might say Sampaio proves a worthy new Teschmacher, but see for yourself). The Boravia-Jarhanpur aspects of the film are fairly interesting in the idea that you could interpret as oh, any conflict from abroad in the last few decades, although I wonder if there was the tiniest bit of inspiration gleamed from Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987), a movie where Superman early on decides to rid the world of nuclear arms but eventually comes to the conclusion (as one does in a plot too stupid to really explain) that he isn't the one to give the gift of freedom from war and that he wishes the Earth could be seen by folks the way he sees it as "just one world." It probably reflects well that Burić makes for a blustery caricature to carry the weight of bluster and facades for all to experience, suffice to say. The CGI mayhem is relatively on point for what you would expect from the film, albeit on a scale that is more interesting with character moments such as say, Krypto or one certain sequence with Terrific than big fights, which are fine in a way that seems worthy to hope for improvement in staging the next time around, especially when having a good deal of fun with a souped up movie that likes what it sees in super dogs and splitting climaxes. The scene with the Kents (who are folksy enough to fit the bill, when compared to past renditions) probably lifts the movie up the most when it needs it for a movie that basically states that one (crisis of confidence or not) is made by their choices they make rather than being made by what someone tells them to do.*** In a time of eroding confidence in truth, justice, and a better tomorrow, it is nice to see a movie sincere enough to make one realize that what people really want is honesty with their entertainment, and if it means thinking differently about what we aspire to see in hope, then so be it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Fun fact: Seven years ago, I actually put on the Superman Returns DVD and showed it to my mom. It was a funny time watching that tedious movie, suffice to say. I doubt I would show her the, shall we say, "prehistoric comic book movies" in Superman and the Mole Men (1951) or the 1940s Superman serials. Or those Fleischer shorts, which I probably should check out at some point.

**The more interesting debate for Superman portrayals is if one likes Tim Daley or George Newburn best in animated form.

***Strangely enough, I was thinking of a certain speech of crisis and confidence that happens to have been spoken on July...15, 1979. Also, consider how Superman gets out of a certain jam (glass, trust me), one that isn't done by trickery but by showing who he is when consequences strike right in front of him.

Used Cars.

Review #2398: Used Cars.

Cast:

Kurt Russell (Rudy Russo), Jack Warden (Roy L. Fuchs / Luke Fuchs), Gerrit Graham (Jeff), Frank McRae (Jim), Deborah Harmon (Barbara Jane Fuchs), Joe Flaherty (Sam Slaton), David L. Lander (Freddie Paris), Michael McKean (Eddie Winslow), Michael Talbott (Mickey), Harry Northup (Carmine), Alfonso Arau (Manuel), Cheryl Rixon (Margaret), Al Lewis (Judge H. H. Harrison), Woodrow Parfrey (Mr. Chertner), and Dub Taylor (Tucker)

Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, #747 - Back to the Future Part II, #748 - Back to the Future Part III, #1527 - Cast Away, #2229 - I Wanna Hold Your Hand)

Review: 

 “This movie is structured on a classic Frank Capra movie except that everybody lies.”

Look, sometimes movies don't get the right type of luck in reaching audiences. Or they just don't get it, who the hell knows. You might remember that Robert Zemeckis had his directorial debut with I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978), that 1964 comedy involving teens and The Beatles that flopped on initial release. But Zemeckis continued on with Bob Gale on another production together two years later with Used Cars, which now had John Milius and Steven Spielberg serve as executive producers. Apparently, Milius was the one who came up with the idea of the movie with Spielberg that had thoughts of a Las Vegas used-cars salesman, which at one point had George Hamilton floated as a possible lead. Gale and Zemeckis did research at used car lots, as one does. The movie was shot around the Arizona area in the span of a month in 1979. On July 11, 1980, Used Cars was released in theaters and was a marginal success (it was made for substantially more money than Hand, for example). Apparently, the release was bumped up a month by Columbia Pictures (as led by a man that had sold cars at one point in his life) due to good test screenings, and yes, I said *good* screenings. As as a result, the movie came out just barely after the release of movies such as Airplane! (1980). The next movie directed by Zemeckis was Romancing the Stone (1984), which lit the match for his eventual breakthrough as a director. Incidentally, Used Cars (1980) was the only R-rated Zemeckis movie until Flight (2012).

I don't do car dealerships, but good god, I do love ensemble comedies. It is the kind of old-fashioned hokum that would've fit right at home in the days of Old Hollywood (as if it was an inverted A Wonderful Life), even if others might shudder at the thought of "crass" characters for a comedy. The thing is that they are *fun* and crass characters for a delightfully exploitative movie. What, have you never thought about a used car salesman going into politics? (as opposed to 70-year-olds running for president again and again) It wasn't like the previous decade was a normal one, what with people becoming president without the voters being involved. It is a barrage of crude brilliance that could only come from people who wanted to blaze a trail of humor at all costs and played it extremely cool in the process. Sometimes I wonder what makes Kurt Russell so good that he could've had his own fan club. I think it just is the fact that he seems to have the swagger to pull off nearly any performance with no sense of bullshitting you. He can do the action movie hero type (as one loves), he could do drama (I see Miracle [2004] every year), and most importantly, he can do comedy. Of course, this was his first film in five years, having moved away from Disney productions after The Strongest Man in the World (1975) that saw him do television and even play Elvis. With this movie, you need someone with a cocksure attitude, and you get that in spades with Russell, who is tremendously devious and tremendously funny for what clearly should've been the role to help see Russell as a legitimate talent*. He just rolls the hustle on his mind with no hesitation and the confidence that arrives in slippery likability, where one loves to watch what harebrained idea that he wants to peddle next. His time spent with Harmon is probably the only time he tries to really be honest (well, as much as one can when being around a dead person for a good chunk of the film), and even then it is still funny to see him squirm in chicanery. But the real focus is on folks you see around Russell like the superstitious (and funny) Graham or the slippery McRae or the lesser-shown McKean & Lander (who at that time were paired together on TV with Laverne & Shirley) in tech hijinks. But of course, Warden and his double role (for a time, one of them dies and is buried in an Edsel that is both touching and amusing) helps to seal the film as a real treat. He practically seems like the kid in a candy store in grousing humor that plays off the whole "one guy looks like this, the other guy acts like this" thing that makes me smile every time I see him on screen (one line in particular stands out about the "country going to the dogs" because when a politician was bought, they would stay bought). The cut-in sequences (where the boys decide the best way to raise awareness for their dealership is illegal cut-in commercials) are special standouts in ludicrous energy and audacity*, but the real show-stopper is the climax involving plenty of cars that might as well have been a cattle drive like Red River (1948) with such rousing spectacle and lunacy on display. In total, one doesn't see a cop out in a movie that looks at people and sees grifters all in line. As a whole, the screwy logic on display in salesmanship and outright lies to fill a hustle has managed to age spectacularly well for a movie that definitely deserved better in its time. But four decades (and a half) is still plenty of good milage for a director who got even better from here, so check it out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*He also tried to have a baseball career but suffered an injury. Is this the third film of the trinity of movies that people didn't get in the 1980s with The Thing and Big Trouble in Little China? Or would Tango & Cash make it a square? At least Escape from New York got him to righteous status.

*One scene has a naked lady in it, as one does when packed with an R-rating. Just be ready for breasts, as they say.

Supergirl.

Review #2397: Supergirl.

Cast: 

Helen Slater (Kara Zor-El / Linda Lee / Supergirl), Faye Dunaway (Selena), Peter O'Toole (Zaltar), Hart Bochner (Ethan), Mia Farrow (Alura In-Ze), Brenda Vaccaro (Bianca), Peter Cook (Nigel), Simon Ward (Zor-El), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Maureen Teefy (Lucy Lane), and David Healy (Mr. Danvers) Directed by Jeannot Szwarc (#555 - Jaws 2)

 

Review: 

“Physically it’s not at all the prototype of a superhero the way Superman is. Superman was the man of steel and he’s big, he’s got muscles et cetera…she has superpowers [that] are the same…but where Superman is power and strength, [Supergirl] is more like style and elegance.” 

You might wonder where Supergirl came from. Well, it only took a few years (read: 1959) for Otto Binder and Al Plastino (the two credited creators of the character as writer and illustrator, respectively) to introduce the original character to Action Comics that had a cousin to Superman arrive from a doomed place that ended up raised as "Linda Lee" (later adopted to add Danvers) in an orphanage. Basically, the character was created in the same headspace that created super-powered pets to accompany the hero. Anyway, you might remember that when the Salkinds (Alexander, Ilya) bought the film rights to Superman in 1975 by paying money to Warner Bros to license the intellectual property, it also included the character of Supergirl. The Salkinds actually wanted to use the character in Superman III to maybe make a spinoff movie....but Warner Bros. apparently vetoed it (pity, good luck settling with Richard Pryor). At any rate, the two announced their plans to do a Supergirl movie in 1982 and had ideas in mind to maybe have Christopher Reeve appear in a bit role to set up a quest...and then he didn't want to appear in the movie. At least he suggested Jeannot Szwarc (who he worked with on Somewhere in Time [1980]) should direct the movie, since the Salkinds couldn't even get Robert Wise to do the movie. The screenplay was written by David Odell (well, it was re-written heavily, but still), who had written for films such as The Dark Crystal (1982) and later Masters of the Universe (1987). There somehow exists three different versions of the film to consider. The original cut of the movie was 138 minutes long, but test audiences apparently thought it was a bit too long, necessitating cuts. So, you would think it would be settled at having 124 minutes for the runtime...but no! The 124-minute version was released internationally, but somehow, American audiences got a version that lasted just 105 minutes (namely by trimming more sequences from Argo City, Midvale, etc). By 2000, one could finally check out the director's cut and International Cut on home media. Made for roughly over $30 million (as distributed by Tri-Star Pictures, who bent to the Salkinds wishing to release the movie in the winter of 1984 rather than in the summer), the movie was a general flop with audiences. Interestingly, in the comic books, the character was killed off (for a number of years, anyway) in the famed series Crisis on Infinite Earths. Slater never played the character again on film, but she appeared in the Supergirl TV series a few decades later. This was the last hurrah for the Salkinds and Super-people on film, as they sold to the Cannon Group in 1985 for the disaster that became Superman IV in 1987*.

Basically, if you didn't care much for Superman III (1983), you will find the exact level of disinterest for Supergirl (1984). Both are tired efforts that show clear strain in all of its flabby flatness, which starts with the movie looking like a failed TV movie production and ends with a climax that does not exactly warrant further adventures. They clearly wanted to have their big-name stars lift up a young would-be name just like six year prior, but the cracks are apparent everywhere. Imitating how they cast Christopher Reeve years earlier in looking for an unknown, Helen Slater had quite the qualification of having been in exactly one TV episode and zero movies prior to Supergirl (hey, they also tested out folks like Demi Moore and Brooke Shields). Honestly, she does fine with the material that shows a naive but charming would-be hero that you could definitely like for other adventures (okay maybe not with the school stuff, that whole "changes hair color and costume" BS only works when stoned). Bochner, on the other hand, has nothing to work with as the romantic interest, and it doesn't help that a chunk of the time sees him under a love potion. Teefy and McClure (the only link to the Superman films) aren't worth talking about. Evidently, Dunaway must've loved Mommie Dearest (1982) so much that she decided eating the scenery in hammy acting needed seconds. Sure, we know she is a worthwhile actress, but the material she is given here is so weak that she has no choice but to ham it up to try and distract the viewer that is barely above the middling villainous comic book movie presence you saw in the aforementioned third Superman movie. She's supposed to be self-centered and a terror with what power can do to someone, but she just seems more man-hungry than anything, considering that she is first wrapped up in getting a man to drink some love potion and when her powers of persuasion fail, she needs the guy she ditched to do the job for her (oh but then she sends a woman into a phantom zone). Incidentally, she gets stopped only when a man intervenes (first when one of them fiddles with the magic ball thing and the second when the warlock that she decided to betray after getting his help in the first place tells our hero, who had to be told that she could go on *twice* beforehand, how to get the villain trapped). Honestly, they might've done better if Cook or O'Toole were the villains. It isn't even worth giving Vaccaro criticism beyond saying that Ned Beatty could've done this goon shtick in his sleep**. It's funny that Cook is supposed to be playing both a warlock and a teacher but looks like he would rather being doing a bit instead. In theory, Farrow was meant to be a big name to draw attention to the film and deliver drama to the movie...and she gets less time on screen than O'Toole, a far more talented actor even when he is phoning it in. The effects are okay, but in general, the movie looks too tired to be anything other than campy cheese. It might work out for those who love to view the films of camp or the old days of failed franchises, but it probably was for the best that it went by the wayside.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

*Interestingly, the Salkinds still had the chance to do other things away from Superman, they developed a television series based on the character of Superboy later in the decade.

**Beatty and Vaccaro were both nominated for Academy Awards, you know. But Beatty had a hell of a speech in Network (1976), so we salute him. And I guess we will find a worthy Mia Farrow movie to watch that isn't made by the overrated Woody Allen someday.

Redux: Jaws.

Redux #480: Jaws.

Cast: 

Roy Scheider (Chief Martin Brody), Robert Shaw (Quint), Richard Dreyfuss (Matt Hooper), Lorraine Gary (Ellen Brody), Murray Hamilton (Mayor Larry Vaughn), Carl Gottlieb (Meadows), Jeffrey Kramer (Deputy Leonard Hendricks), Susan Backlinie (Chrissie Watkins), Lee Fierro (Mrs. Kintner), and Peter Benchley (Interviewer) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List)

Review: 

You might wonder why I'm giving a revised review of a movie I covered before. Well, that review was nearly 12 years ago on November 11, 2013. Enjoy.

Like most great movies, it all started with taking a novel into one's hands. In early 1974, Peter Benchley's debut novel Jaws was published, which had seen him take inspiration from shark attacks and the exploits of Frank Mundus, a fisherman that once caught a shark weighing over 4,000 pounds off the New York shores. Benchley thought the book wasn't going to be a hit, mainly because it was a first novel and that it was "about a fish". The result was a novel that sold over five million copies in its first 18 months. Ironically, both Benchley and Mundus became conservationists in later years, with the former telling people that he could not write the book as it was in good conscience (for Mundus, he later called the movie "the funniest and the stupidest movie I've ever seen because too many stupid things happened in it.").  Benchley was tasked to write the first draft of the screenplay, and it was he would basically do the "mechanics" of the script more so than characterization, which most notably saw him excise the affair between Brody and Hooper (upon suggestion). Others delivered uncredited work such as Howard Sackler, John Milius, Matthew Robbins, and Hal Barwood; Carl Gottlieb, who was tasked to bring in "some levity", was given co-credit with Benchley on the screenplay. The director would be Steven Spielberg, who had two features to his credit at the time with the TV-film-turned movie Duel (1971) and The Sugarland Express (1974). 159 days of production were spent around Massachusetts and the Atlantic Ocean due to overruns that saw script refinement and a bit of cast strife. You probably already know Jaws was a phenomenon, but it still sounds fun to say it: Universal spent a good deal of money marketing the movie in a media blitz and a strategy that was still not as widely used now: releasing the movie on hundreds of theaters at once for opening week, with over 400 theaters seeing the movie on June 20. For two years, Jaws was the highest-grossing movie of all time and the TV premiere of the movie in 1979 saw over half of the total US audience watch it. Years later, Benchley was asked about a deal involving sequels to Jaws, with him stating, "I don't care about sequels; who'll ever want to make a sequel to a movie about a fish?" Jaws 2, with no Spielberg or Dreyfuss, came out in 1978 as directed by Jeannot Szwarc to mixed reviews. Jaws 3-D (1983) and Jaws: The Revenge (1987, with Gary returning because...) came out later to diminishing box office returns and little-to-no creativity. Benchley went on to write seven more novels, with a handful being adapted into films such as The Deep (1977) and The Island (1980); he died in 2006 at the age of 65.

I admit that I've seen Jaws roughly three times: once in 2013, another a few years later, and lastly just a few days ago with my mom. I wanted to re-live the experience of wondering what was so great about a movie like this, and what better time than in the summer and in July? Steven Spielberg is probably the seminal entertainer for direction in the past fifty years, but I really did want to figure out (at least, again) just how he did it. Whether thought of as an action thriller or as a horror movie (let's be honest, there are people who willingly choose to ignore the latter genre because of bias), there is just something so thrilling about how this movie pushes one's buttons so effectively in great adventure. Filmmakers could only dream to make a movie run as well as one can for two hours that has no bloat or demand for more that come across here, and this is for a film that wisely spaces out its tension until it absolutely becomes important to do what it has to do. To borrow from old me, there were plenty of "animals gone bad" movies before and after this movie such as say, Grizzly (1976), Piranha (1978; widely considered among the best of the Jaws ripoffs), Alligator (1980), and so on, but Jaws just has that enthusiasm and commitment to its tension. You have to remember that the movie characters are meant to be more likable than the book characters, which dealt with a subplot involving the Mayor being tied to the Mafia and the aforementioned affair between two characters. The funny thing is that it was easier to cast Brody with a perceived "tough guy" in Scheider than the other two key roles, which apparently were not cast until the last few days of pre-production that resulted in two people being cast with how good they were in other people's movies at the time: actor/writer Robert Shaw, who had worked on the recent Universal Pictures hit in The Sting (1973) for Quint and American Graffiti (1973) star Richard Dreyfuss for Hooper. They all are essentially perfect for what needs to happen for the film. Scheider in particular shines because he fits the everyman type like a glove, one with real worries and quibbles that sells for all who know the plight of being, well, a fish out of water.

Shaw was a man of the stage who happened to write on the side, so of course he can play the ultimate rugged captain (he was a Bond adversary, for heaven's sake, he could do anything). Every line of his has a certain type of timing and cadence that we find listening to intently that is rewarded with that one particular sequence in the "U.S.S. Indianapolis monologue" that he sells in such a soulful way that it almost doesn't matter just who (Shaw, Milius, Sackler, what have you) came up with what in writing it. Apparently, Dreyfuss thought that the movie was going to be a "disaster" because of the general boredom that came in waiting to film. There's the veneer of charm within a part that apparently was molded to be Spielberg's "alter ego" (debate on that), and Dreyfuss draws a few light chuckles even in the great admirer of, well, the routines in science. Bottom line: you care about these folks. It may interest you to know that this was the debut theatrical performance of Gary, who had done a handful of television performances. But it is Hamilton and his steely smarm in the art of evasiveness that probably sticks out the most now more than ever: a person in a position of power that hears of certain facts and doggedly moves forward with his own self-serving needs anyway. Evidently, there is actual footage of real sharks in the film, as Ron and Valerie Taylor shot footage in the waters of South Australia that had an actor in a mini shark cage. The look of the shark isn't what matters in the end, what matters is the fact that it could come when it comes to suspense that came from someone who honed their craft in suspense with Duel (1971) and plays with the audience just enough to where the climax will splatter in harrowing excellence. As a whole, Jaws is the phenomenon for monster movies one would hope to aspire to do. I'm not really sure exactly where it rests on the pantheon of entertaining Spielberg movies when considering his earlier work (and what's to come), but it sure has a hell of an argument for making a good time.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Great Race.

Review #2396: The Great Race.

Cast: 

Jack Lemmon (Professor Fate and Prince Friedrich Hapnick), Tony Curtis (Leslie Gallant III, aka The Great Leslie), Natalie Wood (Maggie DuBois), Peter Falk (Maximillian Mean), Keenan Wynn (Hezekiah Sturdy), Arthur O'Connell (Henry Goodbody), Vivian Vance (Hester Goodbody), Dorothy Provine (Lily Olay), Larry Storch (Texas Jack), Ross Martin (Baron Rolf von Stuppe), Hal Smith (the Mayor of Boracho), Denver Pyle (the Sheriff of Boracho), and Marvin Kaplan (Fisbee) Directed by Blake Edwards (#329 - The Pink Panther, #481 - The Party, #899 - A Shot in the Dark, #1461 - 10)

Review: 

Every couple of years, some folks try to do a homage to the old favorites. But when you are Blake Edwards, why the hell not? The Oklahoma native grew up with a stepfather that was the son of a silent movie director (J. Gordon Edwards). Sure, he didn't become a film production manager like him, but Edwards did jobs as an actor before serving in the United States Coast Guard before becoming a director in the television-friendly 1950s. He became a director worth watching closely with films such as Operation Petticoat (1959), Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), Days of Wine and Roses (1962), and, well, The Pink Panther series, obviously. With The Great Race, it took a few years to get things rolling. Apparently, the idea for the film was conceived by Edwards in 1960 that took inspiration from the 1908 automobile race from New York City to Paris, France. Arthur A. Ross was brought in to develop a story to present that eventually saw him hired to do a more substantial script. While Maurice Richlin was recruited to polish the script, only Ross got credit for the screenplay to go with a story that was credited to Ross and Edwards. Amidst bad weather and overrun that meant a budget of $12 million, the movie was not exactly a considerable success at the time of release in July of 1965*, but at least Edwards kept busy (his next film came with What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? the following year), and he kept going with his slapstick interests with such films as The Party (1968).

The last few years brought folks to view people pop in for a potential chuckle with Around the World in 80 Days (1956) and It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963). So, we have a pretty neat Lemmon, a worthy sidekick to accompany him in Falk, and even a decent time to spend with Wood (to a point). Hell, and then there is Curtis, our hero to try and hold along a wobbly story, fine gags, and plenty of time to consider the scope of movies, I suppose. In short, Great Race is either on par with Around the World or a bit lower. Apparently, there were quite a few names considered for the role ranging from Paul Newman to Charlton Heston. Pity. For whatever reason, Curtis and his performance is akin to someone saying the lines bit-by-bit for a silent movie. Maybe his blandness is supposed to be the point, but my God, his presence is practically eaten by everyone else in the film. The clash between him and Wood that comes up every now and then does not really gel for anything other than cheap gags (get it, get it, a woman trying to stick up for herself). Apparently, Wood only did the film so she could get to play the lead for Inside Daisy Clover (1965). At least she has the grace and chops to try and have fun with the material in all of the bumps on the road for a character that might be thought of as a chore with a lesser actor (for starters, having a character try and rid us of Keenan Wynn's character for even just a bit of time is a foolhardy mistake if we're talking about comparing timing) in a movie with really just five people to see for more than a few minutes of a 160-minute movie. Falk (a regular supporting presence in movies at the time**) is wonderful of course, tagging with Lemmon for worthwhile hijinks, particularly in his expressions and only men of stone find ways to not like Wynn and his timing. The assortment of people who show up are fine for small bits (Provine gets a song while Martin gets to look from afar). The slapstick as a whole is fine, albeit in that dragging sense where you just have to have so much little gags to even get the actual race rolling (it starts with our dastardly villain popping balloons, for example). And then the movie goes into doing an imitation of The Prisoner of Zenda. Sure. The movie wanted to have a great big pie fight akin to, well, you know. It apparently was the longest pie fight sequence in terms of staging and whatever (basically, it took five days and thousands of pies). The quibble I have is that the one person who deserves to be pie'd is Curtis, and he barely gets hit at all. Keep in mind, Lemmon gets double duty with playing two characters as an acceptable ham, but the bland hero? Barely anything, god forbid. Call me a nut for picking and choosing to obsess over plot motivations, but getting from Point A to Point B in the resolution (i.e. the race doesn't end in a true finish because I guess it shows his love or whatever and it couldn't wait until five minutes later) is a bit hokey for a movie called "great race". As a whole, Lemmon and company hold the movie together in what could've just been a crash-out into just making the finish line with the best of intentions. You'll get some chuckles, some interesting visuals and a little bit of everything that could make a worthy candidate among the long-winded epics of its time, if you dare.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Evidently at some point in time, the movie made $25 million. The big winner at any rate would be Treg Brown, who won an Academy Award for Best Sound Effects for this film.

**Falk was an Academy Award nominated actor by then, for Murder, Inc. (1960) and Pocketful of Miracles (1961). Of course, Columbo loomed a few years later.