The Man Who Would Be King.

Review #2488: The Man Who Would Be King.

Cast: 

Sean Connery (Daniel Dravot), Michael Caine (Peachy Carnehan), Christopher Plummer (Rudyard Kipling), Saeed Jaffrey (Machendra Bahadur Gurung aka "Billy Fish"), Shakira Caine (Roxanne), Doghmi Larbi (Ootah), Jack May (District Commissioner), Karroom Ben Bouih (Kafu Selim), Mohammad Shamsi (Babu), and lbert Moses (Ghulam) Directed by John Huston (#081 - The Maltese Falcon [1941], #094 - The Misfits, #224 - Casino Royale [1967], #419 - Key Largo, #1379 - The African Queen, #1622 - Beat the Devil)

Review: 

Once ago, there was a short story by Rudyard Kipling about kings of Kafiristan, a historical region in what is now Afghanistan. It was called "The Man Who Would Be King" and it was first published as part of the anthology The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Tales in 1888 that may or may not have been inspired by a handful of real adventurers ranging from Alexander Gardner to Frederick "Pahari" Wilson to Adolf Schlagintweit. John Huston was probably the ideal person to want to make a film based in adventure because of his already busy life. He dabbled in boxing, training for opera singing, serving as a member in the Mexican cavalry before actually dabbling in screenwriting and directing. Intrigued by the story from childhood, was fascinated by the idea of doing a feature film based on the story, initially targeting Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart for the lead roles in the late 1950s that saw both actors die before it could get off the ground. Further years saw other names floated around from Richard Burton to even American actors (Paul Newman advised keeping it a British affair) before it finally came around to Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Huston co-adapted the story with Gladys Hill (a longtime assistant to Huston who had previously co-written Reflections in a Golden Eye [1967] and The Kremlin Letter [1970]. The movie was shot in locations around France, Morocco and at Pinewood Studios. Premiering in November 1975 before a general release on the week before Christmas, the film was a decent hit with audiences at the time while both Connery and Caine described it as one of their favorite film experiences. The fifth of John Huston's six films directed in the 1970s, he returned four years later with Wise Blood (1979). The next film to take loose inspiration from the Kipling story was The Road to El Dorado (2000).

 

The big thing about the movie is the fact that it manages to be such a fun adventure within the bounds of the thing that binds them most of all: greed. Sure, there is some brotherhood and charm within the characters played by Connery and Caine, but really it all boils down to wanting to matter as people beyond wearing some garb and getting called a god or a king of something. All fall at the end with their titles or classifications laid bare, some do it faster than others and some don't even have their story told to actually tell anyone. The inevitable peril that comes in trying to become a name among men in a world one is ravaging with their own imperial desire is still a fun one, of course, because who can resist scoundrels in adventure? Undeniably, Connery gets the better of the two roles in terms of the most curious in plundering adventure: self-mythologizing within the foundation of one who actually is quite pathetic when you get down to it. Actually, both actors are being sly in playing pathetic types because of how well we engage with them even with how we come to view them, and they are dynamite together. Plummer still makes his mark in making his role dignified even with most of it being opposite Caine. They never really become men of the people, merely just ones who believe they have them right where they want them as tools, which really could play today with how we still underestimate the spirit and belief of "the other". Jaffrey accompanies Caine and Connery with devoted energy that makes for a quality tragic figure. The 129-minute runtime rolls along with little to get in the way of its charm within the harrowing inevitability of when men try to become more than plundering conquerors. Apparently, Huston once said that he read so much of Kipling that it was in his unconscious, one that he understood in terms of a world that was different from the one we know now in terms of how we perceive places apart from us, the honor, and so on and so forth. The Man Who Would Be King is a good time for all in terms of its entertainment and its execution of adventure and tension.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

1,826 days later, it's the 15th anniversary of Movie Night originally being a thing. Sure, it started as ramblings on an online game before it became an actual blog, but the last couple of years (one that has seen at least ten reviews a month for over six years) have arguably seen it hit its stride for actual productiveness that I hope you've enjoyed. More to come in December.

Dragnet (1987).

Review #2427: Dragnet (1987).

Cast: 

Dan Aykroyd (Detective Sergeant Joe Friday), Tom Hanks (Detective Pep Streebek), Christopher Plummer (the Reverend Jonathan Whirley), Harry Morgan (Captain Bill Gannon), Alexandra Paul ("the Virgin" Connie Swail), Jack O'Halloran (Emil Muzz), Elizabeth Ashley (Commissioner Jane Kirkpatrick), and Dabney Coleman (Jerry Caesar) Directed by Tom Mankiewicz.

Review: 

Maybe you know what Dragnet is, but your dad or grandfather probably know it quite well in some way or form. Apparently, Webb was inspired by what he saw when filming his role in He Walked by Night (1948), specifically what he heard from technical consultant Marty Wynn involving the actual procedures and activities of police officers that he got Wynn to cooperate on what became one of the big procedurals of its time. In 1949, Dragnet was born on radio with the NBC radio network, as featuring Jack Webb and a handful of partners. Two years later went by before it went to television (now with Webb and Ben Alexander), running for eight years and also having a film version in 1954. And then of course there was the new thing for its time: a revival years later, with Webb now starring with Harry Morgan that ran from 1967 to 1970. There were plenty of routines to be had in those shows, whether that involved LSD or other types of rackets. Webb would continue to busy with making television shows involving authority such as Adam-12 (1968-75), O'Hara, U.S. Treasury (1971-72), and Emergency! (1972-77) before he died in 1982 at the age of 62.*  Apparently, Tom Mankiewicz was brought in to work on a re-write of a film script that had been done by Dan Aykroyd and Alan Zweibel (who had worked together on Saturday Night Live) involving Dragnet and was then asked to direct it himself, which was his directing debut, having famously done work as just a writer with Superman and an assortment of James Bond movies; he directed just one other movie with Delirious (1991)

I do remember, very vaguely, seeing my dad watch this movie on a VHS tape once, specifically the part where the name P.A.G.A.N is revealed (People Against Goodness and Normalcy, ha, get it). That was what, nearly 15 years ago, so I suppose it is better late than never to actually watch this movie. You get a buddy cop movie (complete with a tank and jet) that happens to have a very by-the-book person at the helm that is sometimes funny and altogether a bit stuffed at 106 minutes long. As a semi-spoof, it at least looks like it cared about the original material, although it definitely shows a bit too much willingness for the "let's put a pop song in it" idea. You can probably tell that Aykroyd had a fascination with Jack Webb in actually getting the jargon down with the calm and collected feel of someone who rolls with the punches. Of course, Aykroyd actually did work as a reserve officer with multiple police departments (no I'm not joking), so this isn't merely just a case of a long-winded bit, he just thought it would be an honor to do a Jack Webb homage, to a certain type of mixed result. According to Aykroyd, Hanks (who was cast in the film because Albert Brooks said no and Jim Belushi wasn't available) was not big on the final result of the film. Hanks (in the period between Splash [1984] and, well, Big [1989]) does fine here, maneuvering through the proceedings with a good dose of charm and you do eventually get a sense of connection between him and Aykroyd as hard (okay, maybe sometimes hardly) working cops on the beat as a team. Morgan might have been winding down in his seventies (this was his penultimate film appearance), but at least he looks happy to be around for a few scenes in experiencing some jargon said at him again. Plummer is calm enough to work as the wolf in sheep's clothing, for the most part. The rest is here and there, mainly because the movie comes up with a few softball ideas to corral the procedural (so a Playboy knockoff and a totally not evil Reverend to go with uniting them for a common goal) that probably came out of at least one too many re-writes. Sure, you can't make it all a sketch, but the movie does have most of its steam in the first half when trying to play setup rather than the inevitable sequences of action, for better or worse. I enjoyed it just enough to roll with its general pacing. As a whole, Dragnet (1987) is a fine little movie that at least doesn't come off as merely an overextended sketch idea and has a few moments worth watching. It definitely is hit-or-miss, but if you are looking for a bit of fun, you might find it here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*To tie this to movies a tiny bit, Webb was actually approached about playing Dean Wormer in Animal House (1979). Go figure, he turned it down.

Tomorrow: the horror season begins.

Dracula 2000.

Review #2114: Dracula 2000.

Cast: 

Jonny Lee Miller (Simon Sheppard), Justine Waddell (Mary Heller / Mary Van Helsing), Gerard Butler (Count Dracula / Judas Iscariot), Jennifer Esposito (Solina), Christopher Plummer (Matthew / Abraham Van Helsing), Colleen Ann Fitzpatrick (Lucy Westerman), Danny Masterson (Nightshade), Jeri Ryan (Valerie Sharpe), Lochlyn Munro (Eddie), Sean Patrick Thomas (Trick), Omar Epps (Marcus), Tony Munch (Charlie), Shane West (J.T.), and Nathan Fillion (Father David) Directed by Patrick Lussier.

Review:

The story goes that when Wes Craven's Scream 3 (2000) was approaching post-production, Bob Weinstein of Dimension Films approached editor Patrick Lussier (who had edited a handful of Wes Craven films but had not directed a feature before) about making a film titled "Dracula 2000", with an understanding that, well he didn't know what it would be about. Lussier and Joel Soisson came up with a draft by the turn of 2000. Apparently though, the script required rewrites, because according to Scott Derrickson (who had his writing partner Paul Harris Boardman there), Weinstein called him to see if he could do rewrites due to the script being "terrible" and approaching filming in two weeks (while saying he was doing it because it was called Dracula 2000). Ehren Kruger was also used for script polishing. Wes Craven's name is used quite a bit in the credits and the promo materials as executive producer, although obviously he didn't have that much involvement with the film. Filming came together by the end of June (after a search to cast Dracula that apparently dragged all the way until the very eve of what came to be a rushed production) and apparently the final cut, after reshoots, came just a few days before release in late December 2000. While the film was not a major success for Dimension, Lussier would end up directing two direct-to-video sequels with Dracula II: Ascension (2003) and Dracula III: Legacy (2005), both of whom have different casts than this film (somehow, Rutger Hauer was recruited to play Dracula in one of them to go with Roy Scheider being in both sequels).

Do I really need to tell you that the film is not particularly good? Beyond a 99-minute runtime that drags its one weird twist to the Dracula story, not only have you seen this kind of film before in previous adaptations, but you have also seen it done with better gusto and better interest as opposed to this amusingly terrible piece of fluff. There are no actors here that seem to do anything with the material that wasn't treaded from even the lesser Hammer Dracula films, and it goes without saying that having one noted name in Christopher Plummer among a cast of "hey, it's the guy or girl from X" makes for a highly silly time indeed. Butler (a Scottish actor with a few film credits) is mostly left to play the role with characteristics that somehow make Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) seem serious in comparison (complete with hair curlier than the female lead). There is no allure present here, and it especially is amusing because of the idea that Dracula is actually also Judas, adding baggage that never really goes anywhere. The presence never lurks for any sense of doom or any sense of lingering hatred for being alive so long anyway. Miller and Waddell might as well be chasing ghosts with how noncommittal they seem to be making either of the roles interesting, as if they meant to be playing second fiddle to a vampire hunter like, say, Hammer's 1958 Dracula film, but you don't get the pleasure of Plummer getting out of second gear. I have to admit, the idea of a long living Van Helsing that tries to stay alive for the day when Dracula may return so he could kill him is at least semi-interesting, maybe because one never thinks they would see Van Helsing inject himself with blood (as filtered by leeches) from Dracula to stay alive. But one doesn't see any juice there for conflict, especially since one is also supposed to believe that Van Helsing decided "well, I have this blood in me, let me play with my wife anyway" along that. Mardi Gras in New Orleans seems listless here, especially since Dracula is only interested in, uh, whatever he wants from the lady that he has this "connection" to. You've seen the story before, but at least those had the semblance of not looking like a rushed cash-in to a year that makes Dracula A.D. 1972 look legitimate. It is highly amusing to laugh at, such as the vampire flunkies that range from Ryan to Epps in foolhardy level of threat or the climax that involves the image of Christ and a conveniently timed revelation about releasing folks (Dracula, who couldn't hang eons ago, can now hang here because, uh, God wanted him to do so now). I can't recommend it for serious viewing, unless you like to laugh at bad horror.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

next: Frankenhooker.

Inside Man.

Review #1543: Inside Man.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Detective Keith Frazier), Clive Owen (Dalton Russell), Jodie Foster (Madeleine White), Christopher Plummer (Arthur Case), Willem Dafoe (Captain John Darius), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Detective Bill Mitchell), Carlos Andrés Gómez (Steve), Kim Director (Stevie), James Ransone (Steve-O), Bernie Rachelle (Chaim), Peter Gerety (Captain Coughlin), Victor Colicchio (Sergeant Collins), and Cassandra Freeman (Sylvia) Directed by Spike Lee (#1255 - Do the Right Thing)

Review: 
"I hope they're doing it because they love it, not because they want to be rich or famous. Not that those things can't happen, but the main reason, the focus is, "This is what I want to do for the rest of my life and I love it." Not to say that you don't want to make money, but the passion should be driven by your love for that particular thing that you're doing. "

It took long enough to get to just one Spike Lee film, so it obviously was going to be a short time before finding another one to cover as a meaningful look upon a director as interesting and progressive as he has proved throughout over 20 films directed in nearly four decades of work. Born in Atlanta, but raised in Brooklyn, Lee attended Morehouse College and New York University Tisch School of the Arts, studying mass communication and film, and he made his first short film with Last Hustle in Brooklyn (1979, inspired by the blackouts in New York City alongside block-parties involving disco that made him want to be a filmmaker) and his first student film in Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbership: We Cut Heads (released in 1983 as his thesis film that won a Student Academy Award). She's Gotta Have It (1986) and Do the Right Thing (1989) would each serve as defining points for Lee (the former as an independent success and the latter as likely one of the best films of the 1980s) in his movement to features that he has also served as writer or producer for a majority for as well doing his own documentaries (with his first being 4 Little Girls (1997) about the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing) all through his own film company in 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks.

The genesis for the film came from a first-time screenwriter in Russell Gerwitz (who studied computer science and law but worked in the retail clothing business) who was inspired by his vacations around Europe to do a film script (with five years of writing and help from Daniel M. Rosenberg), and it eventually found itself with Imagine Entertainment, with Lee being tapped to direct because of desire from Imagine to work with him (along with Ron Howard deciding to direct Cinderella Man instead). Sure, one could believe this as a potential great thriller. It obviously is very sure of itself in its tricks of the camera and plot that builds for that inevitable last turn for its climax and so on and so forth. In terms of its inspirations and attempts at a twist however, it probably ranks just as decent as The Usual Suspects (1995) in actually pulling things together to make it actually work beyond a cat-and-mouse game with misplaced mousetraps present (while also being inspired by Dog Day Afternoon (1975), which goes okay). The performances generally outweigh the way the script wants to weave its tricks and thrills, which means that it is a fine movie, but it certainly could have been a more interesting one. Washington (in his fourth collaboration with Lee) is fairly up to the task of handling his end of the proceedings with reasoned consistency as the anchor that holds everything together in tension and charm one expects from him. Owen does alright, having to balance a role with a good deal of time spent in a mask that nonetheless makes for a conniving counterpart with the goal of merely committing the perfect robbery, handling that with at least enough to make me believe most of that idea. Foster is fine in a vague kind of role that keeps her in relaxed authority fixing things behind the scenes in sequences shared either with Washington or Plummer, who slides by as a creature of privilege. Dafoe and Ejiofor do alright with their moments with Washington in the usual moments required from being on the beat with tension, even if it seems like one wants to see more of them, really. One thing that is generally different is the inclusion of post-break-in testimonials from hostages as interviewed by the police that are inserted from time to time (with their own type of lighting) in the film, which either helps the film in establishing little cues to follow or seems a bit distracting that depends on the viewer and their perception of what needs to be there in 129 minutes. Of course there's also those little moments beside a heist that are alright, such as a scene involving a kid and violent games (think of the children and how violent games affect them, oh the shock), which just inspires a "sure, uh huh" response after making sure it wasn't supposed to be amusing, alongside other things. For me, the whole film verges on how much composure and stakes actually hold up in the long run. For me, it holds itself a little too much in achieving its promises with execution to what I need to care about: I wish I really cared about this heist more than just the usual curiosity, because it tries hard to really move beyond straight thriller stuff but ultimately is just kept in standard gear but with a respectable director behind it instead. If you like what you see in its performances and see past its smokescreen to what really matters, you might find something really worthwhile for a watch, which is all that really matters.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

12 Monkeys.

Review #1511: 12 Monkeys.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (James Cole), Madeleine Stowe (Kathryn Railly), Brad Pitt (Jeffrey Goines), Christopher Plummer (Dr. Leland Goines), David Morse (Dr. Peters), Jon Seda (Jose), Christopher Meloni (Lt. Halperin), Frank Gorshin (Dr. Fletcher), and Vernon Campbell (Tiny) Directed by Terry Gilliam (#1448 - Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Review: 
"I do want to say things in these films. I want audiences to come out with shards stuck in them. I don't care if people love my films or walk out, as long as they have a strong response."

When it comes to films that have a bit of magic realism with a particular style of imagination, Terry Gilliam is a good director to start with. He had first started with cartoons and animation, such as with Help! magazine (before it closed in 1965) before moving to Europe and eventually moving into work within television with Do Not Adjust Your Set (1968). He would do both animation and various parts for a show that would become famous in England beyond its run in television with Monty Python's Flying Circus. He would serve as the co-director with Terry Jones in his first feature with Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). He has done a fair mix of comedies, fantasies and adventures in his life, which has resulted in a share of success and clashes with meddling studio makers for films such as Time Bandits (1981), Brazil (1985), and The Fisher King (1991). This is the seventh of thirteen films by Gilliam, which is inspired by the 1962 short film La Jetee (directed and written by Chris Marker). That film told a story of time-travel experiment in a post-apocalyptic France, with travels into the past and future that was told as a still image film (except for one distinct moment) for 28 minutes. Executive producer Robert Kosberg pitched the idea of doing a film based on the short to Universal Pictures and this led to David and Janet Peoples being brought in to do the script while Gilliam was brought into the fold by Universal because of their belief in his style fitting what they needed here (with Gilliam liking the "disconcerting" story).

What we have here is a film about how nothing is ever like it seems, one that wants us ultimately to focus not on the past but instead to pay attention to what happens in the present, in all of its strange settings. With a world coming apart, one can see in this film both death and rebirth for a steady and dutiful 129 minute tale of morose but ultimately fruitful experience with a solid cast ready for the undertaking Gilliam requires in style and execution. The film jumps from time to time with a clear edge for distinguishing past from future with its use of various salvaged and acquired material that make for an unsettling future in creeping technology and even bleaker outlooks. In this sense, it should prove no wonder why Willis (in the midst of a prime career generally with action flicks) decided to do the film on a lower salary just to work with Gilliam and this role. He pulls wonders in the dreariest of requirements: a man lost in time with no future who has to discern what is and what isn't true. Willis weaves weariness and sensitivity with care to making the time go by with conviction and fine timing to fit what is needed without needing to do any tricks to the eye. Stowe follows along with rational care and a resoundingly shaky rapport with Willis that runs with pragmatic care. Pitt shows his resilience as the useful wild card in nervous rapid speech that goes with what is needed in a flickering state of chaotic agitation that makes for dazzling moments in and out of the looney bin. Plummer and Morse accompany the margins with mindful ease. In the end, what matters most is how much the narrative (which will be mostly fine to follow along with) resonates with the viewer in keeping interest with its eye on the present and future, where the pursuit isn't just the virus in front of you (or even shown to you) but instead on what it means to even have a future in the first place. Fear of the unknown can be a foreboding one, but it certainly beats knowing what is to come at all, with this working itself out in time as a carefully-cut curiosity to seek out for its beats in science fiction with a director suited for this particular story to make it right in logical rawness.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Knives Out.

Review #1306: Knives Out.

Cast: 
Daniel Craig (Benoit Blanc), Chris Evans (Hugh Ransom Drysdale), Ana de Armas (Marta Cabrera), Jamie Lee Curtis (Linda Drysdale), Michael Shannon (Walt Thrombey), Don Johnson (Richard Drysdale), Toni Collette (Joni Thrombey), Lakeith Stanfield (Detective Lieutenant Elliot), Katherine Langford (Meg Thrombey), Jaeden Martell (Jacob Thrombey), Christopher Plummer (Harlan Thrombey), Noah Segan (Trooper Wagner), Edi Patterson (Fran), Riki Lindhome (Donna Thrombey), K Callan (Wanetta "Great Nana" Thrombey), Frank Oz (Alan Stevens), and M. Emmet Walsh (Mr. Proofroc) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi)

Review: 
To have a good murder mystery is to have something worth looking at once enough to want to see it again. Entertainment is one thing, having something that compels you into its little game is another, as is the intent behind Knives Out, which has certainly gained a bit of buzz leading up to its release. It sure is amazing to see something as wonderfully average as this proves to be, as if someone wanted to make the dumbest smart mystery movie. It does prove a bit irritating to wonder how much one can really say about a movie mystery like this without seeming like a spoiler hound waiting to bite. Whatever you may say about "subverted expectations" when it comes to movies, it also proves irritating to manage to make a farce as opposed to a real intriguing mystery on a consistent level. The fact that it does just okay with its ensemble cast should inspire annoyance rather than rapture, really. You could've made this with average marquee-sounding actors and nobody would shout to the balcony about how it was exceptional in its execution. But hey, what are deftly built murder mysteries for when you can have snide humor and creaky foundations? You too can hit for the low hanging fruit for humor and mystery if you have the PR push (edgy political commentary for current year flavor? Ooh, tell me more before I stick a fork in my brain and call it art), where using buzzwords for certain moments makes for okay satire.

It certainly has the style to inspire charm, and there are no real bad apples in the acting bunch, so that does tend to help the film in its favor. If you happen to be in the mood for eccentric family drama, this probably seems right up your alley, unless one is more into the sleuth and his southern fried accent. In this case, Craig is easily the best part of the film, amusing in his mannerisms when it comes to working out the oddities that tend to arise, never overstaying his welcome in any sense. Armas makes for a fairly compelling lead to follow when faced with the mystery and the facts that surround her, handling things with a dash of grace and confidence. Evans is tasked with delivering oozy charisma (while doing it in a silly sweater) for the film's second half, and he proves just fine with that in mind, where brash confidence at being the entitled black sheep of the family just comes with the territory. When it comes to the other members of the family, I find myself gravitating towards Curtis and Shannon when it comes to how they interact with the others in their family, for better or worse. Honestly, I feel like the film could've just focused on them even more, since the film doesn't even have red herrings or anything that would lead the mystery solely back on these quirky caricatures besides flashbacks. Plummer is wry and easy to follow as the center of this whole film for when needed that fits the film's bill to a T.

Am I so jaded that I can't appreciate the idea of a mystery that is ever so clever in not really being that much of a mystery? Sure, it seems to want to have cryptic seriousness, before it deluges itself with self-awareness that seems as smug in trying to be clever as having a character vomiting when they lie. Gee, I wonder if this will be used over and over for laughs. By the time the film tries to deliver on its payoff, I was thankful moreso because it meant that the film actually meant something to make 130 minutes seem worth more than just hearing about grandstanding praise for a film that teeters on being dangerously hollow. The film does have a nice look to it, seeming fairly authentic when setting up its story trappings, complete with plenty of knives. It seems cruel to nitpick at a film like this, because my fair expectations were met with mild entertainment alongside confusion at its ultimate execution. Sometimes you can shoot the target and still hit for average in the final tally, but I do at least see myself wondering what could come next from Johnson at least. Curiosity can prove rewarding for this film, if it manages to hit all the right buttons for those who seek it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Wolf (1994).

Review #1157: Wolf.

Cast: 
Jack Nicholson (Will Randall), Michelle Pfeiffer (Laura Alden), James Spader (Stewart Swinton), Kate Nelligan (Charlotte Skylar Randall), Richard Jenkins (Detective Sgt. Carl Bridger), Christopher Plummer (Raymond Alden), Eileen Atkins (Mary), David Hyde Pierce (Roy MacAllister), Om Puri (Dr. Vijav Alezais), and Ron Rifkin (Doctor Ralph) Directed by Mike Nichols (#175 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, #550 - The Graduate, and #637 - The Birdcage)

Review: 
I suppose there must have been a desire to make a new kind of werewolf film for the 1990s, particularly since this film doesn't even use the word "werewolf", as if that was somehow taboo or something. It's also clear that they really wanted to be taken seriously, since this is a romantic horror film. On the whole, the film is decent, but it doesn't really live up to the potential it could've reached, although I certainly do find some enjoyment from it, whether when trying to be a metaphor or for unintentional amusement. Perhaps this is a movie that needed more beastly nature, since the real horror that jumps out involves office politics at a publishing house. The screenplay was done by author Jim Harrison and Wesley Strick, although there were un-credited re-writes done by Elaine May. Harrison was not a particular fan of the final result of the film made by Nichols, explaining "I wanted Dionysian, but he wanted Apollonian. He took my wolf and made it into a Chihuahua. I cracked up for 10 minutes and then went out into the country and stood in front of a wolf den and apologized while my dog hid under the truck." This is a strange film to spend 125 minutes with, and it does sometimes feel a bit too long.

The acting does help carry the movie well enough. Nicholson is entertaining, being watchable as ever without overdoing anything, whether when prancing around with mutton-chops or when having more energy to him after being bit. After all, this is a movie that gives him a bunch of abilities to show off as a wolf, such as being able to read without his glasses, being able to be more active in romance with his wife, jumping in the air, or having animals hate him. Pfeiffer, in a role that occasionally delves into cliches, manages to come out as someone interesting to follow along with, having a few moments with Nicholson that makes this romance seem semi-workable. Spader is excellent at playing such a smarmy character like this one, making the art of flattery and treachery that works oozy wonders each time he's on screen. Nelligan is okay, but the real highlight in the supporting cast is Plummer, who plays his domineering rich guy role with an understated touch. The special makeup effects are done by Rick Baker, who you may recognize from his work on other films, most notably An American Werewolf in London (1981) and Coming to America (1988). His effects here are pretty good, although they certainly feel restrained in contrast to the bits involving the romance or the office scenes, although at least they are given time to shine in the climax. Honestly, the movie is more fun when it doesn't feel so restrained between either being a metaphor or being actual horror/romance. One of my favorite bits of amusement comes when Nicholson's character decides to "mark his territory" at the bathroom when he's firing Spader's character, as if this was supposed to be taken seriously. Other other fun bit comes when Nicholson's character finds out that he has been cheated on by his wife through his super-scent, so he goes up to the house where his wife and the other guy are located, and he bites the other dude on the hand before going up the stairs, taking one look at his wife, and then leaves. The climax is a bit of a ridiculous one, and it isn't as effective as it probably should've been. Maybe it's the fact that there really isn't that much buildup for its showdown between its two wolves (complete with the use of slow motion), or maybe it's the fact that the film keeps shuffling between what it really wants. This is especially apparent in the scene after involving a shot of eyes mixed in with a shot of a wolf - and that's it. If you think the film will resemble something like The Wolf Man (1941), you will likely be disappointed, but I did manage to find some strange enjoyment out of how weird and energetic it is, even if it manages to muddled in ridiculousness at times. It isn't a highlight in the horror or romance genres, but it works just enough for me to win out as entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Starcrash.

Review #755: Starcrash.

Cast
Caroline Munro (Stella Star), Marjoe Gortner (Akton), Judd Hamilton (Elle), David Hasselhoff (Simon), Christopher Plummer (The Emperor), Joe Spinell (Count Zarth Arn), Robert Tessier (Thor), Nadia Cassini (Corelia), and Hamilton Camp (Voice of Elle) Directed by Luigi Cozzi.

Review
With lines like "Soon I will join you as your prince of darkness", "Full battle speed!", and "What in the universe?", how can you take this seriously? Answer: You don't. One could just pass this off as a Star Wars rip-off, but it is hard to ignore the fact that Christopher Plummer (playing an Emperor who isn't a villain) stars in it, reportedly only doing the role just so he could be in Rome. John Barry (composer of 11 Bond films) composed the film, which I admit is pretty cool. Right from the opening scene, the movie already looks like a ripoff of other, better science fiction films, but I started losing it when the crew was attacked by what appear to be pink bubbles. I have to admit, I had no clue about what I would see, and...this is one really weird movie. It only makes sense that David Hasselhoff is in this movie, though he only shows up in the last 40 minutes or so. It's funny how out of all the space-sounding names in this film, he gets the most simple one. I guess Simon is a real popular name in space. The effects are certainly noteworthy, mainly because while they aren't exactly good, I can't imagine a CGI version of this being any better. While the movie was released in America in 1979, apparently it was released first in West Germany, in December of 1978...I guess West Germany wanted it more. The acting in this movie is...over-the-top, but also very hilarious to watch. I especially love the interactions between Munro and Gortner, who seem to have a very animated face about everything. I especially like Elle, the robot with emotions (because...[Answer not found]) who sounds like a cowboy. Nothing about this movie is entirely original, but the movie is interesting to watch because of all the absurdities that go on. I especially love how Akton (the sidekick to Stella) suddenly has powers to deflect lasers with his hands, use laser swords, and know about the future, yet he apparently can't save himself from being killed by what are apparently robot golems. At the end of the day, I know it is a bad movie. And yet, I'd recommend checking it out, mainly so you can see the absurdity for yourself.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: 9.

Review #321: 9.

Cast
Elijah Wood (9), Jennifer Connelly (7), John C. Reilly (5), Crispin Glover (6), Christopher Plummer (1), Fred Tatasciore (8), Martin Landau (2), and Alan Oppenheimer (The Scientist) Directed by Shane Acker.

Review
This is an unusual film, with a different kind of animation than usual and a decent set of characters. While it does feel shorter than it could've been (Seems to be a cliche that some animated films don't last longer than 79-90 minutes), it is imaginative and very deep in its intended roots of being a dark tale not just for kids (at least I hope that is the intention), and it makes sure not to be a disappointment. The voice acting is fine, not being embarrassingly odd, just doing a fine job of establishing the characters (though odd they may be), which is a benefit. I like the fact that the film manages to have some sort of pace, always keeping you in check and making sure not to be slowed down. In the end, it's a decent film, with some sort of focus and imagination, and I'm mostly glad I watched (and reviewed) it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Up.

Review #288: Up.

Cast
Ed Asner (Carl Fredricksen), Jordan Nagai (Russell), Bob Peterson (Dug), Christopher Plummer (Charles F. Muntz), Pete Docter (Kevin), Elizabeth Docter (Ellie), Delroy Lindo (Beta), Jerome Ranft (Gamma), and John Ratzenberger (Tom) Directed by Pete Docter (#074 - Monsters, Inc.) and Bob Peterson.

Review
This is the 6th Pixar film I've reviewed here (#074 - Monsters, Inc, #153 - The Incredibles, #155 - Finding Nemo, #158 - Ratatouille, #222 - WALL-E.), the previous five were very good, none having a rating below 9/10. Does this continue the trend? I think you know the answer if you've seen the film: Yeah, pretty much. Asner does a great job, making the character range from grumbling to even smiling at times. Also I love the fact he resembles Spencer Tracy, giving him an even more good look. There is some action, which reminds me an old adventure (especially with the zeppelin. There is even a newsreel at the beginning). But what gives the film its ultimate edge is its emotional depth. The scene between Carl and his wife Ellie is really warming and touching with a bit of tear inducing all into one, and that's a bit rare in films. Before I forget, the animation is excellent, which helps give more of an adventurous theme in a strange place. In the end, this is a triumph for Pixar that is a film for everyone.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

Review #226: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

Cast
William Shatner (James T. Kirk), Leonard Nimoy (Spock), DeForrest Kelley (Leonard McCoy), James Doohan (Montgomery Scott), Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), Nichelle Nichols (Uhura), George Takei (Captain Hikaru Sulu), Kim Cattrall (Valeris), Mark Lenard (Sarek), Grace Lee Whitney (Excelsior Communications Officer), Brock Peters (Admiral Cartwright), Leon Russom (Chief in Command), and Kurtwood Smith (Federation President) Directed by Nicholas Meyer.

Review
Two years after the bad reception of Star Trek V, this film would be released in time for the show's 25th Anniversary, but would it work better then the last one? In a word, yes. First off, the effects are good, a step up from the fifth one (Standout effect being the Praxis effect) While I find the Klingon blood a bit silly, it doesn't outright ruin the effects, which is a good thing. The acting is good, with the main trio (Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley) and Plummer doing a great job. The plot is more defined here, keeping you interested throughout. The film was directed by Nicholas Meyer, who directed Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (which is considered by many to be the best out of all the Star Trek movies), and it is a good thing that he returned to direct the last film for the Original Series cast (Except for Shatner, Doohan, and Koenig, who would return in Star Trek: Generations) Roddenberry would not live to see the release of the film, but he did get to see an early version of it days before dying. 21 years later, this film still holds up as a new generation of films would soon follow.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.