The Bride (1985).

Review #2439: The Bride (1985)

Cast: 

Sting (Baron Charles Frankenstein), David Rappaport (Rinaldo), Jennifer Beals (Eva), Clancy Brown (Viktor, the Monster), Geraldine Page (Mrs. Baumann), Anthony Higgins (Clerval), Alexei Sayle (Magar), Veruschka von Lehndorff (Countess), Quentin Crisp (Dr. Zalhus), Cary Elwes (Captain Josef Schoden), Phil Daniels (Bela), and Timothy Spall (Paulus) Directed by Franc Roddam.

Review: 

Admittedly, this movie had been on the ledger for quite a few months, mostly because one can only look over a Frankenstein film once in a while. The 1980s though, were not exactly a great time for movies with Frankenstein being an inspiration, as evidenced by Frankenstein Island (1981), The Vindicator (1986), or, well, The Monster Squad (1987). And then you have The Bride. The movie was directed by Franc Roddam, who went from London Film School to film directing with Quadrophenia (1979). Sting, best known at the time for his work with, well, The Police, had made his debut as an actor with the Quadrophenia film. Beals was best known for Flashdance (1983), which she filmed as a student at Yale University (The Bride was done on summer break and she graduated in 1987).  The movie was written by Lloyd Fonvielle, who had co-written the adaptation of The Lords of Discipline (1983), which Roddam directed. Interestingly, Roddam later created the worldwide sensation MasterChef. No, really.

The movie practically nosedives once you realize that yes, it is going to keep jumping between the narratives of Beals/Sting and Rappaport/Brown. Yes, the movie called "The Bride" really could've just been called "Frankenstein and the Circus", particularly since it becomes apparent that Beals is playing the title character but barely moves forward in terms of "interesting developments". Sure, you can say there is supposed to be something interesting in viewing what happens when you try to tell the story of a woman who learns to think for herself beyond just being groomed by a man to be in his image (remember that he tells folks she got found after an accident). Instead, it just comes off as something to chuckle at when you see a scene of her trying to be in respectable company and she starts hissing at a cat. The "psychic connection" that is suggested to be with Beals/Brown doesn't exactly help matters, coming off as someone having a bit too many shots of whiskey. If the Beals scenes are a drywall version of Pygmalion, the Brown sequences might as well have come from the land of Dumbo. At any rate, there is just something about Sting's performance that seems to desire a more experienced actor despite his decent attempt at playing a grand old hypocrite (or basically, an Internet "male feminist"). Even when one knows he is playing "Henry" Frankenstein, it still feels like one is chasing down Peter Cushing in a futile effort (incidentally, Frankenstein Created Woman (1967), the only one of the Hammer films involving creatures and women, was better). It is a hell of a thing to look like you are about to do a music video when trying to aim for "strange genius". There is an odd feeling one gets when watching Beals because you almost feel there is something really worthwhile to say about a woman created from lightning that finds more to life than what a "creator" says. Instead, she just gets lost in the shuffle, she doesn't really get her own highlight to be anything other than the lady who hisses at cats and gets cut off for the circus (don't even get me started on the brief sequence of nudity, what the hell is that all about?). This was one of the early roles for Elwes, and he just wanders in and out of the film with little damage to credibility (seriously, he wanders out of the movie just...because). 

Rappaport* does have a smarmy charm to make what probably could've been its own interesting tragedy or something else when you consider the bond that comes with misfits of all shapes and sizes. Brown gets a bit lost in the makeup, but he makes a quality imposing presence that you almost wish he was the one getting key billing. You wish there was a movie of Beals and Brown there, because the damn movie just ends abruptly (complete with a voiceover about following one's heart, as if this was an advertisement for coffee). There are a few supporting names that might be familiar, such as a 76-year-old "raconteur" in Crisp or a youthful Spall, who naturally are killed off in the opening lab sequence, which at least seemed like a scene worth highlighting for having lights and lightning that seem cool to think about before the inevitable. There just isn't passion to be found, it all feels like dinner theater Gothic horror, particularly when you grimace at the fact that 119 minutes can in fact feel like nothing has actually happened in the film beyond reminding you that even a scene throwing a dude off a building can make you roll your eyes. I'm not mad at the movie, just disappointed even with such low expectations (imagine how it must have felt in 1985, and this was for a movie that made less than $4 million*). A 6/10 implies a nearly-there experience, a 5/10 is the proper rating for a middle-of-the-road movie that is too lame to be a near-miss. As a whole, the movie is a failure in the parts that matter most: sure, it looks nice at times and it has a few interesting chuckles with Rappaport and Brown, but the film never has conviction in making you care about Beals or where the movie will end up and it has the tone of a Hallmark greeting card rather than actual Gothic horror. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

*It was made for roughly $14 million. God, could you imagine if The Bride! (made for reportedly $80 million scheduled for release 2026) is bad? If it is good, sure, cool. The trailer did not do many favors but I would desire a tiny trainwreck if possible.

*This actually was Rappaport's penultimate film appearance, having appeared in ten total movies from 1973 to 1989, most notably with Time Bandits (1981). He committed suicide in 1990, dying at the age of 38.

Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.

Review #2040: Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Hayley Atwell (Grace), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Simon Pegg (Benji Dunn), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilsa Faust), Vanessa Kirby (Alanna Mitsopolis), Esai Morales (Gabriel), Henry Czerny (Eugene Kittridge), Pom Klementieff (Paris), Cary Elwes (Director of National Intelligence Denlinger), and Shea Whigham (Jasper Briggs) Directed by Christopher McQuarrie (#1117 - Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation and #1119 - Mission: Impossible – Fallout)

Review: 

I know it sounds absurd, but it really is something to look upon a long running film series reach a seventh film that has not lost a step despite the passage of over 25 years since the very first one in 1996. Granted, Mission: Impossible had bumps in the road as an offshoot adaptation that took loose inspiration from the original series as devised by Bruce Geller, but one can see the lingering consistency that became most apparent with Ghost Protocol, the first one of the series that had Christopher McQuarrie involved (albeit as an uncredited writer). This time around, McQuarrie is listed as co-writer with Erik Jendresen on what is part one of a two-part adventure that evidently will not be the end of the series (of course, "Dead Reckoning" is also a term involving how to find one's position in sea by direction and distance rather than other means). Presumably, Part Two will be in 2024, but one never knows considering how "2020" caused the delay of this film to the point where it has nearly been five years since Fallout. The runtime of the film is the longest of the series at 163 minutes. 

Well, if you want to see a man rid a motorcycle off a cliff and parachute to the ground or deal with a grand train sequence, here is your chance. Honestly, I am conflicted on just how good the film is, mostly because Fallout was apparently so good that I labeled it the best of the series five years ago. One can only remember certain things within these films (hell, remember when Jeremy Renner was in two of them?). I would say that this film is about the second or third best in the franchise (they all play second to Fallout), depending on one's mood goes. The key threat here is a bit more of a challenge for the series than usual, if only because it deals with something that lurks within modern society: rogue AI. Granted, it isn't exactly on the level of say, Skynet from The Terminator (1984), but I think you can see where it seems pretty timely to talk about AI and the weird people that could use it for their own gain. In that sense, with a fairly game cast and plenty of spectacle to back up most of its narrative stepping points, Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One is a solid reminder that it is the one of the best film franchises running today because of how it handles the expectations laid upon it. The viewer is enchanted with where the film can go in thrills within its leaps that keep them right in check without insulting the craft. The journey for any good film is valuable, and the filmmakers know how to use your time wisely. Cruise, in that sense, is the ideal standard-bearer for a franchise like this, one that shows a cipher of a man that we nevertheless love because he is the thrill-seeker in us. He and Rhames may be the only two people to be in every one of these films, but it doesn't mean we like them any less by seeing these folks again and again when they are clearly game for whatever they have to bring to the conundrum. Of course, that isn't selling other regulars like Pegg or Ferguson short, because they don't get lost in the hubbub. The thrill is in seeing new people make their mark on the series more than wondering what surprises might lie ahead (like Czerny, returning for the first time since the first film 27 years ago), which benefits Atwell and her cheerful timing for chaos. It will be neat to enjoy the return of folks like her in the next film, that is for sure. Morales and his act as essentially a religious disciple (the AI might as well be some sort of God) is a bit opaque as a threat, but a decent threat is still a threat to watch nonetheless, mostly because Klementieff is at least a useful adversary to watch within pieces of the spectacle, such as a fight in a really tight space or a chase scene with a neat little yellow car. Kirby is the huckster in the middle that is delightful in charm, obviously. I do think the overall threat within an AI that has managed to calculate many possibilities of whatever it wants to plan (and the folks would rather control it rather than destroy the crap out of it) is at least a useful change to the general threats presented in the action thriller series, if only because it doesn't plod itself with too many leaps in logic. The stakes still matter because the mission still seems impossible to all but one group. Generally, one would wonder just how many films are needed to keep a franchise going, but with Mission: Impossible, the seventh film is just as captivating as what had happened way back in the first while setting itself up for the audience to eagerly await another quality sequel.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Saw (2004).

Review #1750: Saw.

Cast: 

Cary Elwes (Lawrence Gordon), Leigh Whannell (Adam Stanheight), Danny Glover (David Tapp), Ken Leung (Detective Steven Sing), Dina Meyer (Detective Allison Kerry), Mike Butters (Paul), Paul Gutrecht (Mark), Michael Emerson (Zep Hindle), Benito Martinez (Brett), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young), Makenzie Vega (Diana Gordon), Monica Potter (Alison Gordon), Alexandra Bokyun Chun (Carla), and Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman and #1556 - Insidious)

Review: 

"It changed our lives. Sure, it really wasn’t the film I set up to do, yet it ended up being this cultural phenomenon that we never expected. I never expected that my first little, as I refer to it, my student film would ultimately go on to have such a cultural impact."

If any horror film could help to help define the first few years of the 21st century, you could likely make a great case for Saw to be in the argument. Oh sure, the quality of each feature has varied from film to film (for which there were six sequels in the next six years before the supposed finale was followed by two standalone movies), but one can't deny the lingering legacy that arose from an interesting presence from two soon-to-be known directors from Australia. James Wan and Leigh Whannell met each other when each were attending the Royal Melbourne Institute Of Technology, for which they bonded over their shared interest in horror. Years later, they wanted to make a film for as cheap ($5,000) and simple as one can make when having to work dead-end jobs; Wan and Whannell each suggested ideas to each other, but one idea by the former really stuck through: two guys in a room that had a dead body lying on the floor with a gun and a tape player. Whannell ran with the idea and expanded on it to what became Saw (for which he came up with the title); since they wanted to prove that they could actually do it, they took one scene from the film and shot it as a short (picking the scene involving the reverse bear trap for Whannell to act). Shot in Los Angeles in 2003, the short attracted attention from a variety of interested funders, with Evolution Entertainment being the one that Wan and Whannell went with because of the freedom granted to do the film their way (with a shooting budget of roughly $700,000 for eighteen days of shooting). 

Sure, it is gruesome, but it has a few fair merits to consider beyond just classifying it as the starting point for so called "torture porn." Pffft, I say, as this term seems to exist just for "higher-minded critics" to degrade horror films that just happen to make folks uncomfortable while being different from the usual fare (in other words, some folks are squeamish for stuff that seems tame to others). Besides, it would be the sequels that would up the ante in gore (which even got the 3D treatment with the seventh film), while this film is actually more reminiscent of Seven (1995), what with the exploration of a hunt for a killer that dabbles in sins. Undeniably, that film is superior in pretty much every way when it comes to its psychological aspects and main detective pair, but at least Saw manages to accomplish a portion of the terror that can come from the simple act of having two folks in a room with tension over trying to stay alive in a macabre mystery-thriller. Honestly, I thought it was a fine movie, all things considered. For 103 minutes, it balances itself out with a few elaborate traps and a few semblances of plot (in flashbacks, complete with red herrings) that hold up the interesting premise long enough to stick the ultimate landing, which likely will provide curiosity to those who prefer to sit through their films time and time again; its quality may vary from person to person like a puzzle game, where if one likes the process they'll go back to it and look to scramble it all over. Undeniably, the acting isn't the strong suit of the film, but I was fond enough of the presences captured anyway (although this is more because of the familiar faces more than anything, which can boomerang the other way around if in a lesser film); sure, Elwes may overact a bit with the material, but he makes the most of it with reasoned interest, since he has the overall story to work with (as opposed to Whannell, although expecting him to have great acting isn't exactly feasible). Glover and Leung do okay in the procedural aspect, albeit in the sense that it goes about as well with the film as it would on a buried script of a TV procedural. Bell is mostly utilized for his voice more so than physical presence for most of the film, but he gives it his effort for a role that could have veered into one-note (puppets don't count). The final turn of the screw for the closing is on the money, at least when it comes to not insulting its audience completely while being quite definitive in its lasting note on a killer that tests the will of survival of his would-be victims with traps that makes for a stone cold time. As a gritty feature with sparse features (such as in its shots and design), I would say it is a worthy accomplishment for what Wan and Whannell wanted to do in filmmaking, one that accomplished its ride of curiosity without stumbling over the clichés. It might not be a great piece in horror filmmaking, but it sure made its mark count with its interesting premise and execution that opened the door for further grips into terror in puzzle traps, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Halloween II (2009).

Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Review #1502: Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Cast:
Gary Oldman (Count Dracula / Vlad the Impaler), Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), Winona Ryder (Mina Harker/Elisabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Professor Abraham Van Helsing/Priest/Principal Narrator), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Jack Seward), Cary Elwes (Lord Arthur Holmwood), Billy Campbell (Quincey P. Morris), Sadie Frost (Lucy Westenra), Tom Waits (R. M. Renfield), Monica Bellucci (Dracula's Bride), Michaela Bercu (Dracula's Bride), Florina Kendrick (Dracula's Bride), and Jay Robinson (Mr. Hawkins) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13, #1139 - Supernova, #1460 - Apocalypse Now, #1469 - The Outsiders)

Review:
"I used to be under the impression that in some kind of wanky, bullshit way, acting was like therapy: you get in and grapple with and exorcise all those demons inside of you. I don't believe that anymore. It's like a snow shaker. You shake the thing up, but it can't escape the glass. It can't get out. And it will settle until the next time you shake it up."

Not many directors can make a film worth pages of discussion in multiple decades with a variety of genres. And yet here we are, facing another Coppola film, with this following the end of the Godfather trilogy. It was Ryder who brought the script (done by James V. Hart) to his attention, as she was attracted to the emotional love story while Coppola had first read the book to kids as a teenager (while having seen Dracula movies with his brother as a youth) and was interested in some of the sensual aspects of the film. Oldman was attracted to the idea of doing a film with Coppola (whom he described as one of the great American directors), and this was in the midst of a developing career of versatility in the English-born actor.

It is entirely possible that Coppola really believed that his film would indeed be the definitive version of Dracula. After all, how many book adaptations have the author's name right there on the film title? Of course the main sticking point with that is the fact that the film reminds me as a more refined attempt at doing things others had done before, with mostly decent results more so on the visual level than anything. On one level, it is definitely better than the last high-profile Dracula adaptation by a major American studio in John Badham's cold-blooded flop from 1979 (which also had its own tinges of romance between Dracula and the lead, only much more ridiculous). On the other, it only just barely reaches levels that the Hammer adaptations did with less ridiculousness in refinement. There is such a strange mix of scenes that work with ones that come off as muddled, and it definitely doesn't reach as scary as it could have been. Perhaps it relies on first impressions, what with that opening involving Vlad the Impaler and that smooth red suit, which actually is a decent moment for the film...of course it also introduces the whole "lovers played by the same actress centuries apart" cliche, which believe it or not was actually already done before in a 1974 TV adaptation of the same name that also happened to share the Dracula / Vlad connection, which has been speculated by writers for decades.  That sure is one way to start your supposedly more-faithful book adaptation, make a ridiculous historical connection to a fictional character - why stop there, might as well make a film of The Mummy and have him be King Tut while you're at it. I did indeed crack a smile not long after that - the sight of seeing old man Dracula in a kimono and a long hairdo. It may not last long in the film, but it is highly amusing as the first little crack in the "let's take it seriously" approach.

 
No, having a love story with Dracula isn't exactly what I call an interesting and fresh take. Some things really are best left untouched, and having a Dracula film that actually proves scary is one of them. As much as I would like to resist the urge to compare it with other Dracula adaptations, it is inevitable to talk about relentlessly overblown it looks when compared to the films of the past in really sticking its landing in executing genuine suspense. Excess does not always win the day, no matter how many effects you might throw at it if the other parts are simply not right to go with it. If anything hasn't really changed from the old hammy Dracula films of the past, its the somewhat uneven acting of its main stars. All revolves around how one feels about Oldman in this role, one that seems to exist in contradictions that try to spring fear and passion within madness that in lesser hands would've been red meat material for mockery (try being a romantic antihero and then having to wear wolfman/bat makeup). Oldman does just fine with the role, but it is quite clear that he can only be at most third-best in a turn as Dracula and nothing more (Christopher Lee and Bela Lugosi are the obvious choices for when one thinks of a vampire), one who certainly has some blood in his veins for terror while having to sift through effects-work and campy undertones.  Reeves (chosen after Christian Slater declined the role) is an easy target for ridicule when it comes to that British accent, and both Reeves and Coppola have commented about their regrets in casting (the former describing himself as too tired from a busy schedule and the latter stating that they wanted a matinee idol type for a not-great part). For me, the accent is indeed silly, and it certainly would pale when compared to class acts like Oldman or Hopkins. And yet, Ryder only just does better in matching the others, a bit too quiet to really sell this dark passion between her and Oldman (the parts with Frost and a wolf-man Oldman raping her isn't exactly better in comparison). It would take quite a bit of conviction to win me over to the vampire would-be romance, and they just can't quite make it seem that relentless in interest, particularly with the maddening last meeting for the climax (sure, why not have Mina do the final blow). Hopkins seems to be doing just fine in stoking some dignity to the fire while having multiple roles (for some reason). I do appreciate seeing Grant with Elwes and Campbell, but they somehow don't seem to really make as much impression as when compared to the campy stuff ahead of them (or when faced with even more cofounding casting choices, like singer Waits as the somewhat insane Renfield).

I admire Coppola for his attempts at keeping his intention to use traditional effects, since when he approached his visual effects team in what he wanted from the film, they told him it couldn't be done without computers. With that response, he fired them and just had his son Roman do the effects instead, which involve stuff such as double exposure to show mist coming out of a window or other various camera tricks. There are quite a few moments where it really can feel claustrophic, and credit certainly goes to some interesting design work in costumes and makeup. Then I remember the supposed love story and the scares that die with it, and the film dips back and forth again between looking scary and then flailing around trying to act like it is. It certainly takes inspiration from the Dracula films of the past (ranging as far back as Nosferatu), but it falls firmly in the middle of the pack with them rather than above it all. If you want to make a film about some sort of sensual repression and the nature of love through the centuries, find another vampire to do that crock of shit with. Dracula has been dragged around the woodshed for some good and not-so good films for over a century, and this is one that is just fine for what it is.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Twister.

Review #812: Twister.

Cast
Bill Paxton (Bill Harding), Helen Hunt (Dr. Jo Harding), Jami Gertz (Dr. Melissa Reeves), Cary Elwes (Dr. Jonas Miller), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Dusty Davis), Alan Ruck (Robert Nurick), Jeremy Davies (Brian Laurence), Joey Slotnick (Joey), and Sean Whalen (Alan Sanders) Directed by Jan de Bont.

Review

Truth be told...This made Independence Day (#193, which also happened to be released 20 years ago) seem like less of a chore compared to this. Simply put, Twister is a popcorn movie, solely entertaining for the destruction set forth by the tornadoes. If you go into it looking for some sort of enjoyment from these characters or plot, you won't really get much from it, save for Hoffman, who certainly has enough quirky energy to stand out in a movie designed to just be a spectacle. Paxton is fine, but him and Hunt never really seem to have much chemistry that stands out among the tornadoes. Elwes is the "bad guy" of the movie (unless you count the tornado), complete with an accent that while not laughable is mildly entertaining. Let's put it this way: Giving the movie criticism for being what it aspired to be is tough, because it aimed for that goal and not much else. But for me, it was only mildly entertaining, because there comes to be a point when you get tired of tornadoes ripping stuff to shreds over and over again. The characters exist to give the movie a plot, barely registering as cliches. I guess something must be wrong (with either me or the movie) when only one major character dies in the whole movie, and it's the "corporate bad guy". If I don't care about the characters trying to get a research device into the vortex of a tornado (because they're bound to get at least one out of four), then why even bother with the movie? Because...the effects? I suppose so. It really is the ultimate take it or leave it movie. For me, it was just an average movie that wasn't as exciting as other movies designed to just do one certain thing, being just a movie that came and went as average as a weather report.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Robin Hood: Men In Tights.

Review #248: Robin Hood: Men In Tights.

Cast
Cary Elwes (Robin Hood), Richard Lewis (Prince John), Roger Rees (Sheriff of Rottingham), Amy Yasbeck (Maid Marian), Dave Chappelle (Ahchoo), Mark Blankfield (Blinkin), Eric Allan Kramer (Little John) Matthew Porretta (Will Scarlet O'Hara), Isaac Hayes (Asneeze), Tracey Ullman (Latrine the Witch), with Patrick Stewart (King Richard), Dom DeLuise (Don Giovanni), Dick Van Patten (The Abbot), and Mel Brooks (Rabbi Tuckman) Directed by Mel Brooks (#061 - Blazing Saddles and #198 - Spaceballs)

Review
To begin with, this is be the penultimate (as of today) film Mel Brooks has directed (with his last being Dracula: Dead and Loving It), and...it kinda shows. While it does have some laughs, the film is not as funny as Spaceballs (or Blazing Saddles for that matter). Elwes does a good job, even almost as good as his role in The Princess Bride. The film has a good amount of cast members, and the film uses it decently. There are some alright gags, but they probably won't be memorable enough to say (There was this one though where Robin asks the villagers if they want to join: "Yay or nay?" "Which one is the one that means yes?" "Yay....") In a way, it is a bullseye for Brooks, but in another way, it is an arrow that misses the mark by that much.

Countdown to 250 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Princess Bride.

Review #232: The Princess Bride.

Cast
Cary Elwes (Westly), Robin Wright (Princess Buttercup), Mandy Patinkin (Inigo Montoya), Chris Sarandon (Prince Humperdinck), André the Giant (Fezzik), Christopher Guest (Count Tyrone Rugen), Peter Falk (The Grandfather/Narrator), Fred Savage (The Grandson), Wallace Shawn (Vizzini), Billy Crystal (Miracle Max), Carol Kane (Valerie), and Peter Cook (The Impressive Clergyman) Directed by Rob Reiner (This Is Spinal Tap - #108)

Review
To begin with, I'd like to say a few words: My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. The whole cast and their characters (even the short ones) are memorable to the very end. It's been said before by others, and I'll say it here, this film is funny. But it isn't one of those films that simply just have good funny lines and just that, it is a combination of adventure, romance, and comedy which works out well for everyone. It is fitting that the person who wrote the screenplay also wrote the book that this is adapted from, which keeps the films roots close together (Kind of like what happened with Holes) 25 years after this film's original release it still leaves an impressive mark that will last forever. But of course that might be inconceivable for some. As you wish, everyone.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Glory.

Review #101: Glory.

Cast
Matthew Broderick (Colonel Robert Gould Shaw), Denzel Washington (Private Silas Trip), Morgan Freeman (Sergeant Major John Rawlins), Cary Elwes (Major Cabot Forbes), Cliff De Young (Colonel James Montgomery), Andre Braugher (Private Thomas Searles), Jihmi Kennedy (Private Jupiter Sharts), Alan North (Governor John Albion Andrew), and John Finn (Sergeant Major Mulcahy) Directed by Edward Zwick.

Review
This film is based on the 54th Infantry, led by Robert Gould Shaw, as it was the first all African American regiment in the Civil War. The film is told by Shaw's perspective, and it is a good film. The acting is good, especially from Washington (earning a Best Supporting Oscar for it) and Freeman (one of his many roles that he does great in). The film is grand with its locations, its battles, and especially its musical score, which is booming and perfect for a movie like this. The film has one flaw that some do point out. The flaw is that they focus on Shaw more, rather then the Regiment itself for about half the film. The purpose should be focusing on the Regiment, not just the man leading it, but I suppose the point was to have a unifying arc, and Shaw fits the bill. If you want a film dedicated to the Regiment, or interested in seeing a movie to honor the men and women who died in war for Memorial Day, or you just want to see a fragment of the Civil War, then this film is for you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Hot Shots!

Review #028: Hot Shots!

Cast
Charlie Sheen (LT Sean "Topper" Harley), Cary Elwes (LT Kent Gregory), Valeria Golino (Ramada Thompson), Lloyd Bridges (RADM Thomas "Tug" Benson), Kevin Dunn (LCDR James Block), Jon Cryer (LT Jim "Wash Out" Pfaffenbach), William O'Leary (LT Pete "Dead Meat" Thompson), Kristy Swanson (Kowalski), Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. (Wilson), Bill Irwin (Leland "Buzz" Harley), and Ryan Stiles (Dominic "Mailman" Farnum) Directed by Jim Abrahams.

Review
This spoof of Top Gun might actually be better then Top Gun, with some good gags that might remind you of another spoof, Airplane! (That also had Lloyd Bridges) Anyway, the film is decent with performances, especially Sheen and Elwes. The film is decent enough to become good, making this a film to watch. While it may not be great-great, it at least is useful.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.