Grumpy Old Men.

Review #1505: Grumpy Old Men.

Cast:
Jack Lemmon (John Gustafson Jr), Walter Matthau (Max Goldman), Ann-Margret (Ariel Truax), Burgess Meredith (John Gustafson Sr), Daryl Hannah (Melanie Gustafson), Kevin Pollak (Jacob Goldman), Ossie Davis (Chuck), Buck Henry (IRS Agent Elliott Snyder), and Christopher McDonald (Mike) Directed by Donald Petrie.

Review: 
"It was a very unusual relationship right off the bat, the very first day, because it clicked so totally and easily there was just nothing to it."
"Because it was about a couple of guys in the Midwest, snapping at each other, calling each other names, looking forward to that every day"

It just goes to show you could put almost any director with some name stars and it could work out nicely for itself. Oh sure, Donald Petrie isn't exactly a nameless one-time comedy director (thirteen films is a nice accomplishment for anyone, and this also served as the first screenplay for Mark Steven Johnson), but who are we are kidding here? This was the six of ten films involving actors (and friends) Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, which consisted of eleven overall films (nine where they starred together, one where they had no scenes together, and one where Lemmon directed Matthau). Both had lengthy careers of versatility that could spring into comedy or drama when needed, with highlights for each actor being films such as Mister Roberts (1955), The Fortune Cookie (1966), The Odd Couple (1968), and Save the Tiger (1973).

Look, sometimes one latches on to a film no matter how obvious it may or may not be about its intent. It has the appeal of an restaurant you return to after a couple of years removed from memories long since past, where you can still see the creaks and bumps that made it what it was, whether with yourself or with friends (good or bad, depending on loyalty) that we can't help but still care about in some sort of way. Whether or not it is like red meat for an older audience in terms of appeal, there is still some joy to be found within its established stars that one cannot help but like to see. I suppose anytime one wants to view actors banter with a mix of obscenities and nonsense could be interesting, but Lemmon and Matthau have the timing necessary to make it consistent in generating a chuckle without being stuck in bland sitcom-land material. Lemmon proves his ground in patience in the art of refined timing, careful in handling a thin story made to give him cheeky things to do, whether that involves a mad ride on a snowmobile or being out in the cold bantering with his fellow "putz". Matthau follows along with just as careful temperament in driving in a long feud together with snappy irascibility. Ann-Margret accompanies the proceedings with flourish and well-needed energy that drives along a few charming smiles. The true highlight among the supporting cast proves to be Meredith, who is quite amusing in small doses with rascally established charm. Hannah and Pollak prove fine in the careful confines of normal counterparts to parents having more fun in older life than they are. Davis does not really have much to do, but his scenes with Lemmon and Matthau are at least worth it. In any case, what we have here is a mostly-decent film that runs with a reliable 104 minute pace with likable characters and a few amusing moments that generally smooths over the creaky predictability and clichés with a decent heart to resonate in decency the whole family can generally get behind and smile just fine.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Legal Eagles.

Review #1278: Legal Eagles.

Cast: 
Robert Redford (Tom Logan), Debra Winger (Laura Kelly), Daryl Hannah (Chelsea Deardon), Brian Dennehy (Cavanaugh/Joe Brock), Terence Stamp (Victor Taft), Steven Hill (Bower), Christine Baranski (Carol Freeman), Roscoe Lee Browne (Judge Dawkins), David Clennon (Blanchard), John McMartin (Forrester), Robert Curtis Brown (Roger), Grant Heslov (Usher), Sara Botsford (Barbara), and Jennifer Dundas (Jennifer Logan) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters, #031 - Ghostbusters II, #243 - Stripes, and #487 - Twins)

Review: 
It doesn't take too much time to think that this film could seem interesting. The original idea was to make a buddy film involving Bill Murray and Dustin Hoffman, but when those plans fell apart, Redford expressed interest in doing a romantic comedy, which inspired changes to a dynamic reminiscent of Katherine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy films. The screenplay and story were done by Jim Cash and Jack Epps, Jr, with Reitman contributing to the latter. In a sense, this film is a romance. Of course it also happens to have a sense of comedy, thriller, and courtroom drama packed into its two hour duration, which turns out to be a most unwieldy combination. It certainly seems too packed in to really make the impact it wants to make, which results in a thoroughly average film. It complicates itself too much without really getting a feel for the simple things that can make a film tick: just having fun. One instead sees something that is bound to certain excesses (namely its budget of $40 million) and not working as great whenever it tries shifting gears between rom-com and thriller. There either seems to be too many characters or not enough that actually seems worthy enough to invest in. At least the performances are fine to watch, with Redford and Winder coming out the best, since they at least seem like they are having some sort of chemistry together, whether when trapped in buddy scenarios like an exploding warehouse or some other odd scenario, like Redford and his character that likes to tap dance when unable to sleep (gee, where do you think they'll go with that quirk). Hannah and her performance artist-turned-accused robber/murderer does okay, giving off a laugh or two, but she seems stretched pretty thin in actually making her presence really count, odd but harmless. When she actually does try to romance Redford and his character, I'm just twiddling my thumbs more than anything. Dennehy does just fine, snide yet worth seeing. The other members of the cast don't have as much to really do, seemingly there just to fill time and plot, which is a shame. How does one make a buddy movie with lawyers seem so awkward? One cannot help but wonder if this film needed more or less re-working to really hit its mark (it most certainly needed a trimming down). Actually, there exists an alternate version in which Hannah's character is found to be guilty of one of the murders. I guess that could've proved interesting, though I wonder if that version had more focus. The film just comes and goes, whether in the courtroom or somewhere else. At least one might get some sort of enjoyment over spectacle for the film, what with a climax involving a burning building and all, but its setup doesn't really leave much to give investment over. Their fates never seem to be hanging too much in the balance, and guessing who the real culprit is gets to be pretty easy when the others start dying off. It just seems like a movie too safe to either be really funny or usefully dramatic, trying to get its hand in many genre jars and getting only crumbs in return. It's a bland movie, but at least one could probably come out of it without groaning too much for two hours. I can't call it a winner, but it could probably work as a lark if faced with nothing else to do.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Kill Bill Volume 2.

Review #639: Kill Bill: Volume 2.

Cast
Uma Thurman (The Bride/Beatrix Kiddo), David Carradine (Bill), Michael Madsen (Budd), Daryl Hannah (Elle Driver), Gordon Liu (Pai Mei), and Perla Haney-Jardine (B.B) Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1)

Review
The first film mainly set up the premise of revenge with loads of bloods. The second movie sets up the back story and gives the main character more depth. It's a good thing to have some story that helps develop the mythology, for one thing we actually get to know her name, which helps (unless you're the Doctor), I suppose. The action is still good, though it never hurts to have some dialogue for once. To decide which Kill Bill film is better depends on what you want the most, action or back story/emphasis on dialogue. For me, I like the scenes with Gordon Liu, there's just something so amusing about his scenes, or maybe it's his beard. Liu is such a random character who makes an impression with only flashback scenes, it's stuff like that which make this film not weaker than the first film but at the same level. These are movies chock full of influences from other forms of cinema, with sprinkles of pop culture references and chock full of bloody action. This is at heart a mostly fun movie that manages to be what it wants to be, entertainment. This movie still makes an impact after 10 years, and I imagine that we'll remember this as a classic even 60 years from now.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Kill Bill: Volume 1.

Review #638: Kill Bill: Volume 1.

Cast
Uma Thurman (The Bride), Lucy Liu (O-Ren Ishii), Vivica A. Fox (Vernita Green), Daryl Hannah (Elle Driver), Julie Dreyfus (Sofie Fatale), Chiaki Kuriyama (Gogo Yubari), David Carradine (Bill), Michael Madsen (Budd), and Sonny Chiba (Hattori Hanzo) Directed by Quentin Tarantino.

Review
I knew that eventually I would have to review a Quentin Tarantino film, and I had a feeling it would be this film. So how is this film? Is it a masterpiece, a great film, or something possibly overrated and slightly over hyped? In a way, it could be all four answers. The movie manages to be very stylish and memorable with the fight scenes, somehow you can make blood squirts look new, that or I'm just not used to so much blood. Does it need to be realistic to be better? No, I guess not, when we want a film to be more realistic or sillier really varies depending on the film (Best example I can think is the James Bond franchise, does it make sense to love all the eras despite their flaws? Yea, they all have their own qualities and flaws, some more than others, but you get the idea.), and in this case I can forgive it. The cast seem to flow well with each other, Thurman's character is a cool assassin, and that's all you need to know, her swordplay is great to watch. The movie is heart a tribute to 70's cinema films, such as martial arts and kung-fu films along with various others, and in the end this is a movie that is well made, it's a movie that doesn't require much story to work, it's just a film with a lot of determination...and blood, but there you go. Is it a great movie? It might just be one, ask yourself this question: Did you like The Wild Bunch? If you did, there's your answer.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Blade Runner.

Review #100: Blade Runner.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard), Rutger Hauer (Roy Batty), Sean Young (Rachael), Edward James Olmos (Gaff), M. Emmet Walsh (Harry Bryant), Daryl Hannah (Pris Stratton), William Sanderson (J. F. Sebastian), Brion James (Leon Kowalski), Joe Turkel (Dr. Eldon Tyrell), Joanna Cassidy (Zhora Salome), James Hong (Hannibal Chew), and Morgan Paull (Dave Holden) Directed by Ridley Scott.

Review: 
Welcome fellow viewers redirected to this review due to clicking the link from the review of the sequel, Blade Runner 2049. There have been some edits made to make it feel a bit more natural, as opposed to how it was back in 2012. The original review will be included on the bottom of this edit (in italics) for anyone curious to see the differences.

This is a film that is different from other 1980s entertainment flicks (such as The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Aliens), in that it is a neo-noir that is certainly mysterious and alluring at the same time due to its visuals while also being an incredibly entertaining science-fiction film. The version that I watched is The Final Cut (with a 117 minute run-time), which Scott had complete artistic and editorial control, as opposed to the original release cut, which had voice-overs by Ford. In any case, he seems to just blend into this environment as well as one would expect from him that lends itself to making for a useful experience. The rest of the cast is also commendable, such as Hauer, particularly near the climax. The visuals are good, with fine cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth that certainly spans itself all over the film. It may not seem as fast as other films of its time, but it definitely resonates with you on numerous levels, whether emotional or intellectual. This is a classic that certainly stands out from other science-fiction or neo-noir movies, having a distinct style and influence that still stands today. The story is adapted from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, by Phillip K. Dick, who has had numerous stories of his adapted into movies (such as Next, Paycheck, The Adjustment Bureau, Total Recall, and Minority Report). This film has been changed from the original 1982 version (that was forced on Scott by the studio), and that's a good thing as this version is more of Scott's vision that shows how good a director he is.

This is a film that is different from other 80s flicks (Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Aliens) as it relies on it's visual side and undertones to speak a story and not just action or...voiceovers (The version I was watching is The Final Cut) Anyway, the acting is good, especially from Harrison Ford. He really blends in, as he tries to do something different from previous films. I won't remember him as much as I do Han Solo or Indiana Jones, but I at least will remember him as an alright character. The visuals are good, with good cinematography all over the film. This is a classic that why it may not be exact and like every other film, it is still a good film. This film has lasted just about 30 years, and like Tron it has gotten better with age. The story is adapted from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, by Phillip K. Dick, who has made many books that have been adapted into films (Next, Paycheck, The Adjustment Bureau, Total Recall, and Minority Report) This film has been changed from the original version, and that's a good thing as this version is more of Scott's vision that shows how good a director he is. And so this ends the 100th Review. I thank all who have read these reviews, and I hope for 100 more.

And so this ends the 100th Review. I thank all who have read these reviews, and I hope for 100 more.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Wall Street.

Review #095: Wall Street.

Cast
Michael Douglas (Gordon Gekko), Charlie Sheen (Bud Fox), Daryl Hannah (Darien Taylor), Martin Sheen (Carl Fox), John C. McGinley (Marvin), Terence Stamp (Sir Larry Wildman), James Karen (Harry Lynch), Hal Holbrook (Lou Mannheim), Sean Young (Kate Gekko), and James Spader (Roger Barnes) Directed by Oliver Stone.

Review
This film is a classic, pure and simple. Sheen and Douglas play each other off so well, with Douglas being the main man here, doing an excellent job, especially with his "Greed is good" Stone mixes so many things from different periods of time to get them all matched into respective characters. The one single flaw is Daryl Hannah. I don't know why, but her acting here is...Dull. I know she plays basically a lackey to Gekko, but couldn't they at least make her do a better job at it? The film is excellent in value that makes you interested and a little bit smarter at the end. We are close to 100 Reviews. Countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.