The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming.

Review #2544: The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming.

Cast: 

Carl Reiner (Walt Whittaker), Eva Marie Saint (Elspeth Whittaker), Alan Arkin (Lieutenant Rozanov), Brian Keith (Link Mattocks), Jonathan Winters (Norman Jonas), Paul Ford (Fendall Hawkins), Theodore Bikel (Captain), Tessie O'Shea (Alice Foss), John Phillip Law (Alexei Kolchin), Ben Blue (Luther Grilk), Andrea Dromm (Alison Palmer), and Sheldon Collins (Pete Whittaker) Produced and Directed by Norman Jewison (#127 - Rollerball, #273 - The Cincinnati Kid, #544 - In the Heat of the Night, #691 - The Thomas Crown Affair, #1484 - Moonstruck)

Review: 

"I realized then that the film, although made primarily for an American audience, [it] expressed the hopes and fears felt by people in both countries at that period in the Cold War. What the Russians of course couldn't believe, and were blown away by, was the fact that I had been allowed to make the film at all."

Vaguely, I remember this movie being on the consideration list years ago. In the old days of Blockbuster (before people decided Netflix was somehow better*), I remember my dad buying the movie for a rental, but I sure don't remember if he saw it all the way through. Anyway, in the dog days of spring, it feels prudent to cover some of the directors that I haven't really given as much attention as I wish I did. After graduating from middle-ground comedies with The Cincinnati Kid (1965), here comes The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming (1966), the sixth feature film by Norman Jewison, who also produced the film. In 1963, Jewison was given a book by a friend of his with The Off-Islanders by Nathaniel Benchley. The plot involved a Russian sub accidentally running aground on a New England coast island. Jewison was intrigued about the idea of making a political satire. The Mirisch Corporation and United Artists were interested in financing the film, at least with a good writer behind it. After taking out an option for the novel, Jewison was told by his agent Charlie Baker that the one person who could do the screenplay best was William Rose (writer of such films as The Ladykillers [1955] and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World [1963]). Aside from having to find a proper conclusion point to the film (namely in the catalyst for both sides to see their similarities), the final draft came around with relatively few bumps in the road, at least when compared to having to make a submarine (the U.S. Navy was not giving one away for filming, with Jewison claiming they made one out of Stryofoam and plywood,, although other sources say they borrowed the one that had been used in Morituri [1965]) and turning the Northern California coast into looking like New England. Released in May 1966 with a budget of nearly $4 million, the movie was a solid hit with audiences, and the film was nominated for four Academy Awards, one for Best Picture.* Jewison followed up the film with In the Heat of the Night (1967) with even further audience attention.

So, you've got a comedy about a few good buffoons all alike on an international level that works best for those who love a silly farce. Sure, the Cold War may be dead and buried now, but you can see the appeal that the film had for people who saw something entertaining in its view of human nature that has a few chuckles within mob mentality, misunderstandings, a unifying moment from an unlikely source and so on. You can mostly understand what goes on with the Russian characters (as played mostly by a group of Americans, although the dialogue director was a Russian with Leon Belasco) without really needing subtitles before it crashes along with the island folk and their own offbeat dreams and delusions (order, being a writer, you name it), with Saint and Keith mostly being the normal ones of the bunch (with kids such as Collins, geez...). Not to knock down Reiner much, but you know Arkin is the highlight pretty early, mainly because he has the confidence and charm to carry the film in all of its odd leanings (namely tomfoolery), and he does so it without straining to go along with the dialogue. You get straight-laced neatness from Keith and a good deal of bubbling annoyance from Winters. Sure, the budding romance between Dromm and Law can only go so far beyond "two cats awkwardly looking at each other", but so it goes. I do like that the climax manages to give the folks a way to come together without straining for a corny message or playing to some cheap cop-out, instead making a pyramid of understanding that beyond the odds and ends of paranoia and maneuvering, there are a few things we'll do with others when things get tough. The 126-minute runtime can be one to trudge along with if you don't go along with all of its frantic misadventures, and I get that, in the same way that I can see someone finding their eyes starting to grow tired in madcap mish-mashes such as say, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World. But your milage may vary. As a whole, The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming is a solid enough comedy for its time that will probably work just enough for you to have some enjoyment within the time old (and multi-cultural) comedy of understandings.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

It may interest you to know that the San Antonio Spurs are in the NBA Finals. What a nice time :)

*A physical place to rent or buy movies will always be better than a streaming platform. Duh?

*That year, the nominees were: Alfie, The Sand Pebbles, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, and the winner...A Man for All Seasons. All four nominations (Jewison for Best Picture, Arkin for Best Actor, Rose for Adapted Screenplay, Hal Ashby & J. Terry Williams for Editing) lost but each ended up being nominated for future efforts, with Ashby, Arkin, and Rose all eventually winning an Academy Award.

Grosse Pointe Blank.

Review #1859: Grosse Pointe Blank.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Edward Scissorhands.

Review #1615: Edward Scissorhands.

Cast:
Johnny Depp (Edward Scissorhands), Winona Ryder (Kim Boggs), Dianne Wiest (Peg Boggs), Anthony Michael Hall (Jim), Kathy Baker (Joyce), Robert Oliveri (Kevin Boggs), Conchata Ferrell (Helen), Caroline Aaron (Marge), Dick Anthony Williams (Officer Allen), O-Lan Jones (Esmeralda), Vincent Price (The Inventor), and Alan Arkin (Bill Boggs) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes (2001), #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, and #1295 - Sleepy Hollow)

Review:
"I think if you've ever had that feeling of loneliness, of being an outsider, it never quite leaves you. You can be happy or successful or whatever, but that thing still stays within you."

Distinct is such an easy word to use when talking about a movie or the director behind it, but it is definitely a word that can be used to go with the career of Tim Burton, who has directed 19 films in 35 years of feature filmmaking. A native of Burbank, California, he had an creative ambition from a young age (inspired by the works of writers like Roald Dahl and Dr. Seuss), whether that involved making his own films or doing stop motion animation, with his first short being made with The Island of Doctor Agor (1971) at the age of 13. He described himself as an average student, but his passion for drawing served well enough for his studies of character animation at California Institute of the Arts (a place known for cultivating talent in animation). His short Stalk of the Celery Monster (1979) attracted attention from Disney, who brought him in for an apprenticeship. His time with the studio was mixed in output, in that while he served as an animator alongside various other spots like concept artist on a few films (such as The Fox and the Hound), the management style of Disney did not fully gel with what they wanted from Burton. He did, however, have time to do two animated shorts with them with Vincent (1982) and Frankenweenie (1984), the first being important in its tribute to Vincent Price (who narrated the film) while the latter (which Disney fired him for making a film too dark) helped inspire Paul Reubens to want to hire him as director for Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (1985). This led to...well, I think you know the rest of that story, but it never hurts to reiterate the respect he had when it came time for his fourth feature film here, one that is clearly not wary to studio interference or muddled tone. It matters to mention the upbringing of Burton, since the title character started as a drawing that Burton did as a teenager that reflected his isolated feelings when growing up in the suburbs. Burton (who has called the film his most personal and favorite) approached novelist Caroline Thompson to write a script based on that drawing (which an inspiration being a dog that she adored) that came together in three weeks. As a fable, it takes inspiration from a variety of media, whether that involved fairy tales like Beauty and the Beast or classic horror like The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923). Some casting choices were done quite quickly in the case of Wiest, Ryder, and Price, while casting consideration for the lead proved interesting, since 20th Century Fox desired Tom Cruise (he desired a happier ending alongside asking too many questions about the character) and Gary Oldman rejected the role, but it eventually went to Depp (Burton's first choice), who at the time was known for his starring role on 21 Jump Street (1987-90). It would be the first of numerous collaborations between Depp and Burton over the next two decades.

There are numerous ways one could describe the film, and the easiest one I can say is to call it my new favorite Burton film. Someday, I will have caught up to each and every Burton film, but it will be hard to find ones that are more effective in its soothing effectiveness in making a great fable about what it means to feel or be an outsider. Simply put, I would argue it is a gem worth a watch, preferably during the winter season. It is a triumph of imagination, one that shows the best qualities of Burton in delivering tender efficiency when it matters most, handling style with drama equally as well in delicacy that stirs fascination as well as other certain emotions, and it all comes from a romantic drama with a fair touch of humor that comes from placing a man with a special quality to him in a weird place (as described by Burton) like suburbia life with pastel delicacy. Belonging in one place is hard enough, so trying to find one's touch in society as a whole is another task of difficulty and alienation, which works just as well for a teenager as well as an adult. Depp has the most interesting task, one where he has less than 200 words to say through the whole film while in a leather suit and makeup (credit Stan Winston for those wonderful hands) in Tampa, Florida. It is a great performance, one that delicately handles the struggle of outsider individuality that is tender with innocence like one might see with an old pet but one that resonates with us so easily in the expressions that Depp brings to the role, no doubt inspired by the silent film era. Ryder does well in wide-eyed simmering charm that rolls differently from what one had seen from her before (namely highlights like Beetlejuice or...other works like Heathers), and her scenes with Depp really do bring the film together in soulful mercy, particularly with the ice sculpture scene (or ice dance, if you prefer). Wiest does just as well, having a well-meaning charm and grace to carry the film for those moments where Depp doesn't say much, which goes with Arkin and his momentary time spent together with Wiest. Hall (a few years removed from those John Hughes films) does what is needed from a jock in being a fair mark in jock spirit with menace that sets the alienation on the heels quickly. Baker lends well to dazzled humor and curiosity when paired with Depp to headline the suburb group of actors when it gets to where it needs to go by the time the 105 minutes are up without needing an easy out for resolution. Obviously the last one to highlight is the man making his last appearance in a motion picture with Price (who died of lung cancer three years later), who still has the right track on elegance within that clear expression, and it is the death scene that seals the deal for just how soulfully effective the film is as a whole, because of how he weaves that scene with Depp. And then of course there is that musical score by Danny Elfman, no stranger to memorable collaborations with Burton. It proves quite haunting, one that will stick in your mind after it stops (I know that for a fact, because I inadvertently have had one cue from this film in my head for years as it has been used in a small selection of trailers). Thirty years have passed since its release, but it certainly has a place within the works of Tim Burton when it comes to his distinct storytelling and style and the actors that have taken part in his films for decades that have lent to such memorable experiences and moments, whether involving an ice dance or something much more bittersweet in a classic.

I know there was a review already done at midnight, but I was most definitely looking forward to making sure that this was a special day as it has been for December 20th in each of the last ten years (since there has been a review for each one). Besides, this is a momentous occasion for the numbers - Tim Burton is only the seventh director to have ten of his films covered on Movie Night, and that is a most interesting distinction to have for a place that desires to cover as much as they can of directors that interest them (new voices count under that too, obviously). However, it works out for 2021, I am thankful to have created a haven for me to write about films that have interested me from the director to the star to the premise as a whole and any suggestions for something to cover or look into (such as a re-visit or two...) is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Get Smart.

Review #1593: Get Smart.

Cast: 

Steve Carell (Maxwell Smart), Anne Hathaway (Agent 99), Dwayne Johnson (Agent 23), Alan Arkin (The Chief), Terence Stamp (Siegfried), Masi Oka (Bruce), Nate Torrence (Lloyd), Dalip Singh (Dalip), Ken Davitian (Shtarker), Terry Crews (Agent 91), David Koechner (Larabee), James Caan (The President), David S. Lee (Ladislas Krstic), Bill Murray (Agent 13), and Patrick Warburton (Hymie) Directed by Peter Segal (#466 - Nutty Professor II: The Klumps, #826 - Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult, and #1066: - The Longest Yard (2005))

Review:

If there is anything that the last few years have taught me, it is the value of finding television series from the past to look upon from start to finish and enjoy in all of its values, whether that means comedy or something else. Get Smart (created by Mel Brooks and Buck Henry) ran for five seasons from 1965 to 1970, with Brooks having a desire to create a "crazy, unreal, comic-strip king of thing about something besides a family", alongside the fact that the late 1960s had a boom in spy shows (with programs such as The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and The Avengers). It featured Don Adams as the main star, who was mostly known for his nightclub and television work prior to playing the role that made him an TV icon in Maxwell Smart. Barbara Feldon and Edward Platt co-starred in the show to the benefit of numerous humorous exchanges. 

The funny thing is that they already made a film adaptation of Get Smart, with The Nude Bomb (1980, having only Adams). It did not succeed well with anyone. A TV revival film and a short-lived revival series followed in the next few years, both having Adams and Feldon star among others (the revival had Andy Dick as a star - it did not succeed well with anyone). And yet, here we are, having to rely on the director that gave us the worst Naked Gun film. Sure, Peter Segal isn't a terrible director, in the same way that if you cloned ten of him you may end up with one possible movie of theirs that will actually be really interesting to view for laughs. This is not that time. Perhaps it is a coincidence that the film seems tedious by the first 25 minutes, because you could simply use that time to watch one Get Smart episode instead. Sure, the show did have its moments that don't quite age well (there are quite a few stereotypes present at certain episodes), but generally there was plenty to enjoy when it came to the bumbling efficiency portrayed by Adams that went with the clever clear-cut Feldon and the long-suffering Platt. What we have here is a joke of itself, mediocre in every which way with all of its obvious jokes that goes to show how much a modern comedy really can make you question the validity of time itself when it is 110 minutes long. The movie may not have a laugh track like the show, but it sure seems to play way too much for obvious moments way too much, and it manages to be excruciating in its attempt at mixing action and humor, making what was generally a comic spy show into an action spy comedy - for heaven's sake, the Austin Powers series wasn't even this bumbling in its stupidity. Incidentally, both feature at least one joke involving a fat suit - get it, because Max was fat, but now he isn't, truly the bastion of originality when it comes to updating old material to the modern age...if you are 12 years old. But hey, how many directors featured on Movie Night have had four consecutive stinkers featured?

By this point in time, perhaps Carell seemed like the exact choice for a bumbling lead, as he had managed to do well with The Office since its premiere on television in 2005 - at least when the show actually utilized him for worthwhile moments of humor as opposed to dumb gags. Little Miss Sunshine (2006) only furthered that curiosity. Here, he just seems mired in a lame situational role, where gags involving him seem to be easy to call out a few seconds before they actually happen. He seems trapped here, sorely missing that certain brazen charm that Adams had brought to the role that means more than just saying a line from before and hoping it sticks (having him be a bumbling rookie rather than just an established bumbler also doesn't gel). In other words, saying "would you believe..." is only really funny when the right timing comes along with it. The same goes for Hathaway, who only succeeds in making one realize just how Feldon did so well with silky smooth confidence that played really well with Adams on the show. Here, it is liking watching two actors engage in "Baby's First Action Comedy", one where you could almost replace one of them with a wax dummy and probably not notice half the time. She seems to deserve better here, because one doesn't find anything here to really find funny besides the occasional eye glance. It is all cliché with no fiber behind it. Johnson is okay, in the sense that if the film needs something with self-assured charm that he can deliver it, but anything else is too murky for him (the same can be said for anyone really, but I digress). Arkin does lend a laugh or so with an otherwise middle-ground imitation of what was done before, which is also reflected with Stamp (who isn't exactly trying to impersonate Bernie Kopell). Oka and Torrence supposedly are meant to be an amusing duo as side characters, but watching my cat mess around with cords is more amusing to take note of. At least Singh has it easy, since he doesn't talk much. Actually, the one real sticking point I can use to point out the contrast in TV and film is in Koechner, who while seeming like a decent comic presence in other films is sorely the wrong one to make comic antics come across with what the show brought to spies - it wasn't high brow stuff, but it surely had more to do with quirky joy than the pale action tones with sprinkles of jokes present here.

There were quite a few silly scenarios present in the show, why don't we recall some of them: One involved protecting a prince that needs to stay fat to still be prince, and there were countless ones involving smuggling (such as through dolls, circuses, and parrots). Here, writers Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember have merely caught a shell of what was done before, winking too much at itself with attempts at humor while its obvious attempts at capturing action feel flat. Would you believe...that there was an intent to make a sequel? Would you believe...that Carell wrote his own script for it? Would you believe...nobody really had interest to do a sequel? The answer to all these questions is a yes, with my condescension landing especially hard on the latter question, because this was a tiresome sit to really do. One could be generous when it comes to its attempt of comedy and action, but in the end it all comes down to preference with adaptation and the overall success rate of actually making a worthwhile successor to what was done before. In this case, there is no ray of hope in the proverbial sunshine to be found here, with a film that is a mundane malfunctioning modern-day mediocrity in of itself. You might say they missed it by that much - in this case, by a mile.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Little Miss Sunshine.

Review #1541: Little Miss Sunshine.

Cast: 
Greg Kinnear (Richard Hoover), Steve Carell (Frank Ginsberg), Toni Collette (Sheryl Hoover), Paul Dano (Dwayne Hoover), Abigail Breslin (Olive Hoover), Alan Arkin (Edwin Hoover), Bryan Cranston (Stan Grossman), Beth Grant (Pageant Official Jenkins), Wallace Langham (Kirby), Matt Winston (Pageant MC), Julio Oscar Mechoso (Mechanic), and Dean Norris (State Trooper McCleary) Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris.

Review: 
"We felt it was important not to put window dressing between the audience and the characters. We love style but there's a place for that, and sometimes you want the picture to be transparent, for the characters to come through and feel connected and not removed"
"Or distant. What interested us was making a film that was all about the performances. Just the people on that screen."

There have been quite a few film debuts featured before, but how many have their directors and writer debut in the same film? California-born Dayton and Faris both attended the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) with differing interest (film school for Dayton, dance with Faris). Both met in 1978 when he filed a few of her performances. Dayton and Faris soon found opportunities to direct music videos together (alongside other things like commercials) with bands such as R.E.M. and The Smashing Pumpkins starting in 1982, with their work receiving notice such as two Grammy Award wins. They were offered opportunities to direct films with The Mod Squad (1999) and Bad Boys II (2003) that were presented as "style-driven" but they declined (while stating that this film has a "restrained" style, with mood driving the visuals). To put it in perspective the challenge that results from first-time directors/writers trying to get their vision done, this film took nearly six years to go from an initial script by Arndt (who had worked as a script reader and assistant to Matthew Broderick before deciding to take up writing) written in May 2000 to years of shopping around production companies like Focus Features before Marc Turtletaub decided to fund the film himself (at $8 million) to be done in the span of 30 days in 2005, which would include a re-written ending weeks before release the following year.

What we have is a film made about on the fringe of a winning-obsessed culture with a couple of misfits. Not losers mind you (because loser people would just abandon others, whether family or friend), but people who undergo change in ways they couldn't imagine for themselves on a worthwhile and bitingly amusing journey, which makes for a worthy road movie that ultimately is a meaningful winner that lands a majority of its punches in misery over time. It packs itself with a cast that seems to have spent their time before filming in getting a feel for their characters as a family that lesser actors would've just made seem like clichés but are instead malleable enough for turning well-done comedy and drama. Kinnear is particularly adept at heading the film with a tremendous performance, wrapped in Type-A desperation that exemplifies a devastatingly amusing look upon the drive to be thought of as a winner at all costs in all of its pathetic turns (such as point blank talking about eating ice cream will gradually make you fat to your kid). Carell proves just as well in providing a well-wrapped sense of depression and sharp sense of irony that makes a terrific little act when paired with Dano, who has the interesting task of spending half the film in a vow of silence (which naturally makes for one great scene in the second half). Collette holds the film together as the wavering center in pragmatic conviction that shares just the right sense of calm weariness to make a dynamic performance with her own moments to contribute. Arkin does well with what he is given in the habits of a spontaneous old man with a few amusing moments in choice words that generally hit the mark (Academy Award worthy is up to your perception, however). Breslin delivers a well-spun performance filled with sunny charm and brave temperament that makes for the favorite to watch hold her own amongst the older actors in this misfit group. Cranston and others do fine in small moments, such as his turn in elevated arrogance to selling motivational speaking. The film moves at 102 minutes with level-headed patience towards pathos and its road along to a pageant that might as well be a representation of life being like a pageant in who falls in and out of the margins of what we call success and what matters most with family. Naturally it results in a biting and fairly outrageous way to close its setup that makes the hallmarks of a worthy satire that will make one wince just as much as chuckle with good reason and clarity that make a worthy film for those in the mindset for a film like this.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause.

Review #496: The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause.

Cast
Tim Allen (Santa Claus/Scott Calvin), Martin Short (Jack Frost), Elizabeth Mitchell (Mrs.Claus/Carol Calvin), Judge Reinhold (Neil Miller), Wendy Crewson (Laura Miller), Liliana Mumy (Lucy Miller), Alan Arkin (Bud Newman), Ann-Margret (Sylvia Newman), and Spencer Breslin (Curtis the Elf) Directed by Michael Lembeck (#318 - The Santa Clause 2)

Review
The first film (#313 - The Santa Clause) was at least enjoyable, not too bad for a Christmas film. The sequel was mediocre, predictable, felt sort of forced (but I guess workable), and should have ended the series right there. But of course, they made a third film, and naturally, it is about as forced and tired as you would expect. Most of the cast returns, with of course one new addition, Martin Short, and boy does he try to make this film less forgettable...mostly failing. I can't blame him though, I blame the mostly unfunny script that traps him with such mediocre lines like "I invented chill!" and "Excuse me... Did you just accuse me of being skillful and delicious?", but oh well. Allen doesn't really do any better, but with a film so forced, it makes some sense. Even the effects look mediocre, not really noteworthy or terrible, just meh. This is a poor "conclusion" to the film series that probably didn't deserve to be a film series, and a Christmas film you could skip. Countdown to 500 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: North.

Review #363: North.

Cast
Elijah Wood (North), Jon Lovitz (Arthur Belt), Matthew McCurley (Winchell), Alan Arkin (Judge Buckle), Jason Alexander, Julie-Louis Dreyfus, Dan Aykroyd, Reba McEntire, John Ritter, Abe Vigoda, and Bruce Willis. Directed by Rob Reiner (#108 - This Is Spinal Tap, #180 - Stand by Me, #232 - The Princess Bride)

Review
It's sad, a cast that looks recognizable, and a director with a good record on the reviews all got together to make this. The only reason I know about this film is due to Roger Ebert and his review of the film, absolutely destroying this film. But does the film have ANY respectable thing going for it? Does it have anything that makes it any better than something like, say The Room? Well........No. Kind of expected, actually. But hey, it-No wait, it really can't be that worse. The film starts and ends...with Bruce Willis. Seriously, he pops up seven times, and not one of them makes any sense. Is he his guardian or does he really just pop up for no reason? It's sad that that this is my first review of Elijah Wood (Okay second counting 9, but first live action film.), and he actually does a decent job, not annoying. That goes to Matthew McCurley, who oddly enough reminds me of Macaulay Culkin, but he's actually worse, not having one degree of subtleness or even a smudge of actual character.  What's sadder for me is that Rob Reiner directed this, a director who's last three films reviewed here got scores of 8, 9, and 10 respectively, and he churns out a painfully unfunny film. I wondered who they made this for, who would possibly like this. Kids? Maybe, but then they would grow older and hate this film and tell others to stay away. I figured this would be easy to watch, given it's scant 88 minute run time. I was wrong. While the film does boast showing locations from Alaska to...South Dakota, it practically has a checklist of what things to make "fun" of, none of them working. What's even stranger is that this was based off a novel named "North: The Tale of a 9-Year-Old Boy Who Becomes a Free Agent and Travels the World in Search of the Perfect Parents" by Alan Zweibel, and this film was even co-produced and screenwriten by the author. Clearly, this isn't a case of "Bad novel adaptation", this is a rare case of "Bad movie coming from possible bad novel", which is extremely rare. Clearly this film was made for the sole purpose of having exotic film locations to film in more for vacationing than actual good movie making. But to close this review, I will let a definite judgement of the film come from someone else more experienced for over 45 years sum it up: "I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. I hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it." Roger Ebert, everyone.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Gattaca.

Review #112: Gattaca.

Cast
Ethan Hawke (Vincent Anton Freeman/Jerome Eugene Morrow), Uma Thurman (Irene Cassini), Jude Law (Jerome Eugene Morrow), Loren Dean (Anton Freeman), Gore Vidal (Director Josef), Xander Berkeley (Dr. Lamar), Ernest Borgnine (Caesar) Directed by Andrew Niccol.

Review
The film is a delight to watch, as it's a smart film that makes you interested in the film rather than just be a science-fiction film. It raises questions and makes you wonder what would happen if we picked people because of genes rather then personality (Even if a sickened man goes to the one place different from Earth-Space) The acting is good, and the locations they use, especially the double helix staircase, is excellent. All in all, it's a good film to watch any day.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.