Ishtar.

Review #2248: Ishtar.

Cast: 

Dustin Hoffman (Chuck Clarke), Warren Beatty (Lyle Rogers), Isabelle Adjani (Shirra Assel), Charles Grodin (Jim Harrison), Jack Weston (Marty Freed), Carol Kane (Carol), Tess Harper (Willa Rogers), Aharon Ipalé (Emir Yousef), Fred Melamed (the Caid of Assari), Fuad Hageb (Abdul), David Margulies (Mr. Clarke) and Rose Arrick (Mrs. Clarke) Written and Directed by Elaine May.

Review: 

"Well, oddly enough when I made this movie, Ronald Reagan was president and there was Iran-Contra, we were supporting Iran and Iraq. We put in Saddam. We had taken out the Shah. Khomeini was there. I remember looking at Ronald Reagan and thinking—I’m qualifying this, this was just an idea, I didn’t really believe it—I thought, he’s from Hollywood, he’s a really nice man. It’s possible the only movie he’s ever seen about the Middle East are the road movies with Hope and Crosby, and I thought I would make that movie....If all of the people who hate Ishtar had seen it, I would be a rich woman today."

To put it mildly, Ishtar landed like a smelly fish being thrown onto a wedding party with audiences at large. There's plenty to say about Elaine May beyond just saying this is (currently) her last film as a feature director. The Philadelphia native was the child of actors that had their own Yiddish theater company. Not surprisingly, she got into acting, which eventually led her to meeting Mike Nichols. The two collaborated with each other in improvisational comedy that led to them doing their own standup team that ran for a few years (resulting in Grammy Awards) before they went their own ways. After a handful of years in acting and theatre work, May became a director with A New Leaf in 1971. The Heartbreak Kid (1972) is arguably her most noted film, but Micky and Nicky (1976) endured enough trouble that she did not have her cut of the film shown to the public until after the film already died in theaters. So, a decade later, May was essentially given a chance to direct again because of her help in writing on Heaven Can Wait (1978) and Reds (1981), which each had Warren Beatty as star and director. So yes, Beatty would produce the film (believing that May never had a good producer behind her) to go along with starring alongside Hoffman, who happened to have the help of May in (uncredited) work on Tootsie (1982) and eventually went along with being in the film despite his misgivings about the script (specifically when the film shifts from New York to Morocco for "these guys who think they're Simon and Garfunkel"). While the movie was a flop, May has continued to write (such as the 1996 Nichols comedy The Birdcage) and occasionally act into her nineties.

Maybe it works better for those more familiar with road movies. The film is basically a riff on the seven Road to... films that featured Bing Crosby, Bob Hope & Dorothy Lamour from 1940 to 1962. Those were comedies that were more about gags (and the occasional song) than plot (which could have differing professions from film to film such as sailor playboys on an island or inept vaudevillians dealing with evil hypnotists). Of course, maybe I'm not as familiar with Hoffman or Beatty in films. Maybe it just was a bit too subtle for its time. Maybe, maybe, maybe, nah, this movie just wasn't for me. Honestly, I tried to give the movie a fair shake, but really it just wasn't that funny. It lumbers in the time between the start and actually getting to Ishtar with songs that totally supposed to be funny by being terrible (as written by Paul Williams, who you would remember from stuff such as A Star Is Born [1976]). But all I see is a movie that drones and drones until the only thing that matters by the end of its time in the sand and bland is being thankful you aren't stuck watching it further. You can try to mine humor all one wants in uncomfortable neurotic weirdos, you just have to *be funny* about it. Strangely, it reminded me of Spies Like Us (released two years earlier as its own homage to the Road films, complete with having Hope in a cameo), which also wasn't exactly great in, well, the comedy (of course, it didn't stop others from making their own Road homages, as evidenced by The Road to El Dorado [2000]). Hoffman and Beatty have mostly stuck with the film in terms of defending it (for the most part) with the former calling it "a B-minus, C-plus comedy". And there are people that have raised the film up as not being just a noted flop that probably did find something worthwhile in its comedy involving second-rate musicians that fulfill themselves in their craft. The attempts at showing the "creative process" must be how people who don't care for watching movies about making movies feel.

The chemistry of the trio just isn't there to inspire anything on the level beyond looking at the sand and the ideas of trying to say something about the politics around the people thinking about the Middle East that just seems middling. Adjani bumbles around in a silly getup (get it? short hair?) that benefits no one in actual presence, and the only funny one really is Grodin, because he always seems on point for understated amusement (or Weston, who is seldom seen). Even at 107 minutes, it just feels hollow and middle-ground, never actually getting a rise by the time it goes to what surely seemed funny for its climax of essentially saying, yes, you too can sing all you want and be a name if you happen to have leverage. As a whole, the negative buzz around the film didn't lend it many favors back then, and maybe there really will be a push a few more years down the line to really rehabilitate the movie as a hidden gem, but I am not one of those people. Encounter at your own curiosity of a film that is not nearly what you might think it is, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next up: let's do a second chance for something that actually is good...Hudson Hawk.

Rosemary's Baby.

Review #2118: Rosemary's Baby.

Cast: 

Mia Farrow (Rosemary Woodhouse), John Cassavetes (Guy Woodhouse), Ruth Gordon (Minnie Castevet), Sidney Blackmer (Roman Castevet), Maurice Evans (Hutch), Ralph Bellamy (Dr. Abraham Sapirstein), Angela Dorian (Terry Gionoffrio), Patsy Kelly (Laura-Louise McBirney), Elisha Cook Jr (Mr. Nicklas), Emmaline Henry (Elise Dunstan), and Charles Grodin (Dr. Hill) Written for the Screen and Directed by Roman Polanski (#631 - Chinatown)

Review: 

Ira Levin was a prolific writer in his day before and after Rosemary's Baby. He had written the 1953 novel A Kiss Before Dying and the play adaptation of No Time for Sergeants. By the 1960s, he had come up with the reasoning that the most suspenseful part of a horror story was "before, not after, the horror appears" and came up with a fetus as the idea for said target. Dealing with a flop in the mid 1960s on Broadway, Levin returned to the idea and reasoned that between making a fetus with impregnation by aliens or the Devil, one basically was stuck with the latter because The Midwich Cuckoos already had dealt with aliens and children. The resulting book (worked over starting in 1965) ended up being so interesting that director William Castle mortgaged his house to buy the rights for the book before it was even published (which occurred in March 1967), as Castle was that confident in a book even in gallery proof form was the one that would make a fine film, and the book ended up as one of the most noted horror novels of its decade. While Paramount Pictures was interested in doing the film, studio head Robert Evans insisted that Castle serve only as producer while having Roman Polanski as director. The French-born director had grown up in Poland and survived the brunt of the Holocaust to study at the National Film School in Łódź before he became a feature director with Knife in the Water (1962). His next three films, made in Britain, involved either horror or thriller aspects with Repulsion (1965), Cul-de-Sac (1966), and The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967). This was the first Hollywood feature for the director, which he also wrote the screenplay that hewed fairly close to the book in several respects. The film was a hit, but Castle dealt with kidney problems after the release that ailed him for a time when he should have basked in the moment of being right. Famously, the ending of the novel/film got William Peter Blatty in a twist that saw him get onto the road to doing his own book about demons in people with The Exorcist (1971). A television film that served as a "sequel" came with Look What's Happened to Rosemary's Baby (1976). Levin saw a variety of his books and plays turned into films over the years, such as The Stepford Wives, The Boys from Brazil, and Deathtrap. In 1997, he wrote a follow-up book with Son of Rosemary. A TV miniseries adaptation of the original novel alongside the sequel book happened in 2014.

Do you ever watch a movie and have that feeling in your stomach that a film with a high reputation really is "just good, not great"? Oh, it happens sometimes (such as the overrated Hereditary or The Invisible Man [2020]), where a film seems to ride really hard on being disturbing in the realm of overt possibilities and so and so on (that, and relying on a short haircut that inspires a chuckle each time I see it). It is amusing that Paramount Pictures distributed this film and Targets in the same year when it comes to horror films hinging in plausibility and the cheaper production (and the one screwed over in marketing) outclasses the former when it comes to flat out getting to the damn point (I find it strangely amusing that the coven is left to blinding actors and being 98% effective in making a man go into a coma in their plans of the whatever). Plus, it doesn't seem to drag its runtime unlike the 137 minutes present here. Sometimes I wondered what would have been if Castle (you know, the guy behind productions such as The Night Walker [1964]) was allowed to have made the film within his own ideas rather than just be the producer. Don't get me wrong, the movie is good and all of the things that come with trying to build suspense with something that you have a good grasp is going wrong earlier than the film believes the viewer thinks they will figure that out. But hey, the film itself, particularly with its one key sequence of lady in bed seeing what she sees and hears in the dark, does make a quality impression in the terror of life under siege to others barging into their lives and their homes. The mental and physical pain that comes out in the film makes for an experience that requires a presence to make it more than words, and it is Farrow (best known previously for her two years on the soap opera Peyton Place in the mid-1960s) that lifts the film as well as one can do with making an involving lead that we can feel for in the realm of reacting to ever-shifting terror (it might seem interesting that a horror film got Academy Award nominations for acting, until you realize Gordon received one and won while Farrow didn't even get a nomination). Gordon of course is effective in that shroud of uneasy weirdness that could only inspire the best type of paranoia and curiosity to go with Blackberry. Cassavetes makes an assuring accomplice, one who is assured even in the face of pathetic qualities that only could come from this (complete with an apt reaction at the end). Evans and Bellamy are on opposite sides of the coin in veteran presences that work out well against Farrow in the shades of doubt and query. In general, the film does work out pretty well in the idea of terror lurking around and possibly inside one's own self, complete with worthy staging to make it feel real. Of course, the ending is a bit on the offbeat side (or for others, perhaps sacrilegious), but as a moment of total acceptance of the scenario that arises from ambition in the face of people that call themselves human, it works. As a whole, it isn't nearly the classic that others might wish to bestow when compared to various others in the 1960s for horror, but it is watchable all the way through with a carefully crafted story that is undoubtedly on there for any horror person to watch at least once.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Anthology horror, double-packed.

My Summer Story.

Review #1854: My Summer Story.

Cast: 

Charles Grodin (Mr. Parker, the Old Man), Mary Steenburgen (Mrs. Parker), Kieran Culkin (Ralphie Parker), Christian Culkin (Randy Parker), Whit Hertford ("Lug"), Chris Owen ("Scut" Farkus), Geoffrey Wigdor (Flick), David Zahorsky (Schwartz), Tedde Moore (Miss Shields), T.J. McInturff (Grover Dill), Glenn Shadix (Leopold Doppler, Manager of the Orpheum Theater), and Roy Brocksmith (Mr. Winchell, The Assessor) Directed by Bob Clark (#020 - A Christmas Story, #679 - Black Christmas, #1055 - Porky's)

Review: 

A Christmas Story (1983) was a loose working of two Jean Shepherd works: his 1966 book In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash and his 1971 book Wanda Hickey's Night of Golden Memories And Other Disasters. Shepherd, along with Bob Clark and Leigh Brown (Shepherd's wife), wrote the screenplay for the movie. You might not know that Shepherd was the best man to serve as narrator, since the screenplay was based on a series of monologues that he had done on the radio (his broadcasts on the station WOR made him quite popular); he was known for his "interesting" manner of telling tales about his life that balanced the line of fact and fiction while saying that his work was "anti-sentimental". Shepherd had been born in Chicago, Illinois before being raised in Indiana (East Chicago along with Hammond, where he graduated). Clark, inspired by hearing one of Shepherd's stories being told to him on the radio, spent twelve years trying to make the movie, and a couple of Shepherd works had reached television (with him as narrator) before and after the release of this film, most notably with The Great American Fourth of July and Other Disasters (1982), a TV work with Matt Dillon as "Ralphie". The movie lessened the acid edge of the Shepherd stories, which he had envisioned as "Dickens’s Christmas Carol as retold by Scrooge.” At any rate, the moderate success of the film on release led to a plethora of television channels showing the movie on Christmas not long after it was released, and the popularity on the television circuit (rightfully) continues to this day. Shepherd, seeing the returns made from its showings on television, was inspired to try and make another movie based on his stories. Of course, it is also possible that Clark wanted to make a sure winner, since Clark directed these films after the release of A Christmas Story: Rhinestone (1984), Turk 182 (1985), From the Hip (1987), and Loose Cannons (1990). Somehow, idiotically, the movie was released as It Runs in the Family to tremendous empty returns. It was only after the movie had vanished from theaters that it was retitled My Summer Story, which is what you will see on video releases.

Of course, in waiting eleven years to make a movie with the same director and writing crew (along with being shot primarily in Cleveland), the main cast was entirely replaced. Oh, and now one is watching a series of vignettes that seem like an anthology rather than the offbeat material presented in the original, one that saw a handful of imagined scenes, such as our lead imagining himself as a hero stopping bandits from taking down his family (dressed up in frontier garb) with his imagined gun. So, instead of a movie where a kid's desire for a Red Ryder BB Gun that happens to feature little side stories in the spirit of Christmas, now one has a movie with small plots for the main family that has a central story of...super-duper tops along with a neighbor with hillbillies (or whatever you would call them). Of course, neither is really about the acquisition of an item as it is more about capturing the spirit of a time long ago told in engaging vision; Shepherd may think his stuff was anti-sentimental, but the heart of what made that movie work was how one confronts their childhood memories in its positives and negatives without being trapped by them. In other words: it was the experiences that stuck with one rather than some toy. Somehow, the movie just doesn't come together, proving that having the same crew behind a classic does not mean the next movie together will work out just the same. Simply put, putting a bunch of new faces will not make a winner when they can't quite live up to mildly interesting expectations that are flattened. Look, we all know that A Christmas Story can raise a distinct discussion when it comes to just how funny it actually is (spoiler: it is funny, no shit), but no one will really have that kind of discussion with My Summer Story, since it doesn't even reach half of the heights of amusement that the previous film had. Shepherd once stated that "The reality of what we really are is oftentimes found in the small snips way down at the bottom of things.” My Summer Story is basically the flattened expectations of what we thought summer was going to be...with life being like a series of ties. Who the hell would want that kind of movie? If Shepherd didn't care for the lightened touch of the original film, why go back with the original crew? And if he was fine with what was done before, why make a movie that seems thoroughly pale in spirit to the original?

It was a tough task to replace Peter Billingsley as the lead from the original, since he managed to cultivate an interesting lead presence in youthful charm. Culkin...doesn't really have that charm. One simply feels like they are watching a television product rather than something that reaches the level of film in conviction, which he just can't capture, and being paired with his brother doesn't lead to even a fraction of the brotherly amusement seen in the previous movie. I'm told that Grodin was actually a pretty funny actor with timing like no other in sardonic charm, even if his film choices were all over the place, ranging from The Heartbreak Kid (1972) to Beethoven (1992). Here, replacing Darren McGavin from the original, he just doesn't have what it takes to really capture the role from before, seeming more of an agitated father figure than the hardboiled tender role of the original. It probably doesn't help that he has an actual foil to deal with in the "Bumpus Family", which proves the case that you sometimes don't need to see something. Melinda Dillon held the original film pretty well in her timing that counteracted McGavin that practically resonated together with no effort needed. Steenbergen has the best timing of the main group here and is thus the only one to result in general charm, probably because her character arc is the most bewildering (read: interesting) of anyone in the movie, involving a bunch of gravy boats and irritated collectors, which she handles with semblances of laughs. The movie might prove fine for those who want something really average, since the technical aspects of its look and feel does at the very least seem adequate to anybody with the tiniest curiosity for the movie or to just spend 85 minutes. As a whole, the movie just seems lost in trying to capture the (ordinary) magic that had been seen a decade prior, one that was made too late to really have an impact while also serving as the strange cousin of future attempts at trying to cash in on the original movie that included a musical, a direct-to-video sequel, and even a live show. Sometimes the best thing to do is to just walk away and satisfy a different curiosity.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Dave.

Review #1503: Dave.

Cast:
Kevin Kline (Dave Kovic/President Bill Mitchell), Sigourney Weaver (Ellen Mitchell), Frank Langella (Bob Alexander), Kevin Dunn (Alan Reed), Ving Rhames (Duane Stevensen), Ben Kingsley (Vice President Gary Nance), Charles Grodin (Murray Blum), Faith Prince (Alice), and Laura Linney (Randi) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters, #031 - Ghostbusters II, #243 - Stripes, #487 - Twins, and #1278 - Legal Eagles)

Review: 

"Your job is not to make things funny. Your job is to tell the truth on a daily basis."

When the right director and stars are at hand, one could do something really interesting. Ivan Reitman had already cultivated a career for himself in directing/producing since the 1970s (after attending McMaster University for music while making short films and being hired and fired from CITY-TV in Toronto). He started directing features with Foxy Lady (1971) while also serving as producer for film such as Shivers (1975), but his first true successes came through the hands of soon-to-be comedian stars: Animal House (1978), featuring a variety of stars (which Reitman co-produced with Matty Simmons) was a major hit, while Meatballs (1979), featuring Bill Murray in the first of four collaborations with Reitman, proved to be one of the most successful films ever done in Canada. Reitman has directed seventeen films while continuing to serve as producer for a variety of films (such as serving as co-producer for this film with Lauren Shuler Donner who liked the concept provided by campaign worker-turned-screenwriter Gary Ross), and he became interested in doing this film through Warren Beatty, who was first thought for the lead role before eventually bowing out. The choice for stage and film star Kevin Kline as the star nearly fell through as well because Kline thought that Reitman wanted a performance similar to his acclaimed performance from A Fish Called Wanda (1988), although he soon grew to like the idea of the film as a "very delicate sort of romantic comedy."

The film certainly has a feeling of familiarity, such as Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) in its tone, or perhaps The Magnificent Fraud (1939) and Moon over Parador (1988), which both dealt with a look-alike becoming president of a country. It certainly helps in a film that is fairly light on its feet in trying to make a charming little film work piece by piece in clever amusement for a serious subject, a guy pretending to be President of the United States, the most prominent person in this great country. With different hands or a different set of actors not as talented as these prove to be, one could have had just a silly film and nothing else, but with Retiman, Kline, Weaver, and Langella at their places on and behind the camera, one can't go wrong here. Kline proves a wise leading man in balance, capable of stepping into any moment required of him without any kind of hesitation in timing or composition, sifting through scenes as an impersonator-in-chief with honesty that resonates in all the right ways needed, and his brief double act is fairly amusing to view. Weaver follows along with respective timing and grace that makes for a fine pairing with Kline (such as an improvised song on the street, for example). Langella proves a worthy foil to Kline, one that nibbles on the scenery with careful amusement in polished arrogance that fits within the confines needed in cynicism. Dunn and Rhames prove efficient support, while Kingsley and Grodin are neat in small moments (the sequence with the latter involving looking over the budget is a good indicator of that), and the cameos involving a mix of television and politicians lend a small hand to helping the film breeze through 110 minutes well. On the whole, there is a good sense of everyman warmth through its direction and script that hits most of its marks in a careful subtle way that make it a reliable comedy for its time that still works out now more than ever.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Real Life (1979).

Review #1028: Real Life.

Cast: 
Albert Brooks (Albert Brooks), Charles Grodin (Warren Yeager), Frances Lee McCain (Jeannette Yeager), J.A. Preston (Dr. Ted Cleary), Matthew Tobin (Dr. Howard Hill), Jennings Lang (Martin Brand), David Spielberg (Dr. Jeremy Nolan), Norman Bartold (Dr. Isaac Steven Hayward), Julie Payne (Dr. Anne Kramer), Johnny Haymer (Dr. Maxwell Rennert), Leo McElroy (Jim Sanders), Lisa Urette (Lisa Yeager), and Robert Stirrat (Eric Yeager) Directed by Albert Brooks.

Review: 
The movie acts as a spoof of the 1973 reality television program An American Family (aired by PBS), being about the filming of a family in their day-to-day lives, with intrusion from the person filming their lives, naturally. Admittedly, this is an interesting idea that seems pretty relevant for the modern age, particularly with how reality television has changed in the past few decades, for better or worse. In any case, the movie can be considered ahead of its time, although its enjoyability will likely depend on how far you think the film goes with its ideas. For me, this is a decent movie, having a few interesting scenes that make for some amusement, although I can see why it may not be for everyone.

Brooks is interesting to watch in his display of narcissism and egocentric nature, but this can wear a bit thin at times, and it sometimes will make you wish you were viewing the family more than you do. At best, Brooks comes off as right for the part that he plays in the story, but at worst it can come off as a bit self-indulgent (it should be noted that he co-wrote the film along with Monica Johnson and Harry Shearer). Grodin is a bit low-key, but in a movie in which he is acting as a person that is trying not to look like an actor in this "documentary", I think he does a decent job. McCain also does okay, being adept at handling the things that occur in the film to her and her family pretty adequately. The rest of the cast do fine in their roles as well, with Lang (a producer in real-life) being amusing playing a producer through a speakerphone. The parts involving the filming is pretty interesting, and the parts with the executives is a bit amusing. The climax of the movie is pretty amusing for what its worth, being the odd cherry on top of a film that aspires for satire and accomplishes its goals in the most basic sense. It isn't anything too great, but Real Life is an odd standout that is worth at least one look, if one is curious enough.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

King Kong (1976)

Review #726: King Kong.

Cast
Jeff Bridges (Jack Prescott), Charles Grodin (Fred S. Wilson), Jessica Lange (Dwan), John Randolph (Captain Ross), Rene Auberjonois (Roy Bagley), Ed Lauter (Carnahan), Julius Harris (Boan), and Jack O'Halloran (Joe Perko) Directed by John Guillermin.

Review
If you want to promote your remake of a 1933 classic (#283), here's a good tag line: The most exciting original motion picture event of all time. Granted, this movie is about as original as a baloney sandwich trying to call itself a ham sandwich, but it certainly has a good ring to it, especially when produced by Dino De Laurentiis. Let me make this perfectly clear from the beginning: If it's between this and the original film, stick to the original film. But it could be argued that this film knows that going in, so it tries to do something different, with a campier tone, 130 minutes, and actual filming locations instead of stages. Carlo Rambaldi designed the effects for this film, and he helped construct a 40 foot mechanical version of Kong, which shows up (briefly) near the end of the movie. It's clear that the movie wants to show the technical aspect and then build characters around that. In a way, it works, although the end product is not exactly as grand as it could've been. The motivations and plot are updated into a quest for oil, which I suppose is creative, though it ends the same way as the original...At least they include Kong's heartbeat before he dies, so that's something new. How the cast does depends on what you (the viewer) want: If you like the idea of campy infused people interacting around the main attraction (Kong), go for it. For me, they're okay. They just seem to get in the way half of the time, though Bridges and Grodin (all fashion and hair aside) seem to do okay. Bridges' character cheering for Kong taking down the helicopters is strange, considering he's seen Kong throw people off a log into a pit, crush people on the ground, and throwing debris towards people. And yet, he cheers him as if he's done nothing wrong. If you don't want Lange's character to be eaten, then that's a good thing for you. Like the original, this film's effects are a product of their time, and for most of the movie, Kong looks relatively good, without much light shown, anyway. Near the end it looks a little more fake, but the movie doesn't linger too much on that. No, it lingers more on just about everything else, from the oil to Bridges-Lange, etc. John Barry's music is a highlight. Take this movie for what it is: A jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss. For me, it's sometimes enjoyable, but other times it's just okay.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Seems Like Old Times.

Review #692: Seems Like Old Times.

Cast
Goldie Hawn (Glenda Parks), Chevy Chase (Nick J. Gardenia), Charles Grodin (Ira J. Parks), Robert Guillaume (Fred), Yvonne Wilder (Aurora), Harold Gould (Judge John Channing), George Grizzard (Stanley), and T. K. Carter (Chester) Directed by Jay Sandrich.

Review
I admit, it's been a while. But hey, nobody's perfect. What movie do I have in store this time? A good old fashioned comedy that manages to juggle its gags and story on the weight of its main three actors. Hawn and Chase manage to be so fun together, and they both are enjoyable to watch, especially Hawn, who is really good at timing. I don't know why, but my favorite scene with Grodin is him trying to get into a cab with a bunch of dogs already in it, amusing because I love his frustration, especially when I think back to Beethoven (#577), and how he can just have the right expression. It had been a while since I had seen a film written by Neil Simon (#244 - The Sunshine Boys), and he does a good job with the interactions of the characters along with the situations, complimented well by Sandrich, a television director who directed this, his first and so far only film. The movie keeps itself in check just long enough to make for a good time along with being a charming film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Beethoven's 2nd.

Review #578: Beethoven's 2nd.

Cast
Charles Grodin (George Newton), Bonnie Hunt (Alice Newton), Nicholle Tom (Ryce Newton), Christopher Castile (Ted Newton), Sarah Rose Karr (Emily Newton), Debi Mazar (Regina), Chris Penn (Floyd), Ashley Hamilton (Taylor Devereaux), Danny Masterson (Seth), and Catherine Reitman (Janie) Directed by Rod Daniel.

Review
The sequel only happened due to the first movie's unexpected success (A family flick about a cute dog that's a success? Shocking.), as the main cast returns once again. The movie isn't really anything special, but boy does it try to top the cuteness factor of the first flick with not one, but five new dogs (characters, but whatever) in tow. Grodin is clearly having fun with this role, as do Hunt and the others in a movie that just seemingly goes through the motions of being a family flick with the tinges of teen romance, the dog slapstick humor, people falling into mud, the list goes on. The movie is at least enjoyable, if not just a bag of cliches rolled into one. But yes, the puppies are cute and destructive, so take this movie at your own risk.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Beethoven.

Review #577: Beethoven.

Cast
Charles Grodin (George Newton), Bonnie Hunt (Alice Newton), Dean Jones (Dr. Varnick), Nicholle Tom (Ryce), Christopher Castile (Ted), Sarah Karr (Emily), Oliver Platt (Harvey), Stanley Tucci (Vernon), David Duchovny (Brad), and Patricia Heaton (Brie) Directed by Brian Levant (#491 - Jingle All the Way)

Review
Beethoven is a strange idea to begin with because no only was this produced by Ivan Reitman, this wasn't released in the 1980's. Of all the decades that had story ideas, the 80's had the weirdest, and Beethoven is right up that alley. The 90's? Maybe not as much, but let's get to the question of this review: How is this movie? The movie is probably more cute then good, all because of one big St. Bernard. Charles Grodin is a fun actor to watch because his facial expressions to this weird plot of a movie and his timing is just right. The dog is just a dog, growing from small ball of cuteness to a hug tub of stuff, and he is certainly charming...for a dog. The rest of the cast (insert your David Duchovny X-Files joke here) isn't bad, they certainly work well with each other. The movie has some quirky moments, and while it isn't really that funny, it's a decent family flick, harmless to say the least.

And yes, I will review the sequel soon.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.