Murder by Death.

Review #1996: Murder by Death. 

Cast: 

Eileen Brennan (Tess Skeffington), Truman Capote (Lionel Twain), James Coco (Milo Perrier), Peter Falk (Sam Diamond), Alec Guinness (Bensonmum), David Niven (Dick Charleston), Elsa Lanchester (Jessica Marbles), Peter Sellers (Sidney Wang), Maggie Smith (Dora Charleston), Nancy Walker (Maid), Estelle Winwood (Nurse), James Cromwell (Marcel), and Richard Narita (Willie Wang) Directed by Robert Moore.

Review: 

Admittedly, the appeal is in how much you are invested in mystery characters being spoofed. No, not Sherlock Holmes (that was a deleted scene), but characters such as Sam Spade and Nick & Nora Charles (as created by Dashiell Hammett) to go alongside the works of Agatha Christie in Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. Oh, and Charlie Chan (as written by Earl Derr Biggers). Neil Simon, playwright and screenwriter of previous ventures such as The Heartbreak Kid (1972) and The Sunshine Boys (1975) wrote the screenplay for this film. This was the first film for director Robert Moore, who had done a handful of productions in the theater such as The Boys in the Band in 1968 and Promises, Promises the following year (Moore did a number of television shows and three total films as a film director before his untimely death). Falk, who is imitating Sam Spade that was notably portrayed on screen by Humphrey Bogart in The Maltese Falcon (1941), returned with Moore and Simon to play a parody of Bogart with The Cheap Detective in 1978 alongside Brennan, Coco, and Cromwell. So yes, here are with a movie that wants to have fun with the "old dark house" genre that was pretty big in the early part of the 20th century, complete with plenty of name actors to go around, which includes two actors making their final appearance in Winwood and Walker and one in Cromwell making his first.

You know, for the most part, it is a pretty good time for 94 minutes. Sure, not every joke is bound to land, and it probably lingers a bit in being too smart and silly for its own good, but it does generally work the points it wants to do when it comes to in the realm of the mystery spoof. It is breezy without laboring hard within its one setting and one eventual punchline to outdo the setups done prior to the climax. It's interesting to watch Falk here in a role that makes light of a hard-boiled detective, mostly because a considerable amount of time has been spent by me (in the past few months) watching him in probably his most famous role as Colombo. But he is a talented actor, playing to the hard-nosed expectations of the spoof role and exceeding it quite well in generating chuckles without playing it as just an easy buffoon, which basically means dry warmth, and Brennan clings with resourceful timing that fits for a genre riff. Guinness seems to be having fun with this role, which mostly has him stumble around for effect with a few offbeat lines and play a blind man. Sellers is in prosthetics to play a character that most famously had been played by Swedish-born actor Warner Oland, much in the same way that Sellers did a decade earlier when playing an Indian in The Party (1968), which is easily the most dated aspect of the film. He does bring a few chuckles, if only because the lines seem so intentionally corny to begin with, one who seems intentionally out of date with the times to make laughs. Of course, Sellers would (in)famously have his last role end up being the title role of The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu in 1980 (one year after that film, Peter Ustinov (another non-Asian actor) played Charlie Chan in Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen (1981), and since that film, neither of the two characters have been portrayed on film). Niven and Smith make a decent pairing in the expense of The Thin Man that namely involves them playing the role to pleasantries. Capote is, well, a writer brought in to play against the other mystery spoofs in his first and only major role in a film. It has been said that Simon and Moore thought about replacing him with an actor but that it never came to pass. Eh, he does what is needed in parts, since it isn't really his movie to steal the scenery as is the case with the others. Coco and Lanchester prove fine in the mildest sense of comic relief. The cliche elements of old are lovingly utilized to chuckles, whether involving an old dark house or hired help with more on the mind than housewares or convivences stacked upon conveniences (which makes for an amusing ending). As a whole, the movie takes a familiar presence with familiar detective types (be it the rough detective or general sleuth) and has a fun time with it, finding a clear balance between ribbing the dynamics that come with trying to play around with an audience and not simply just tearing the dynamic to shreds. It is good fun without being wrapped up in annoyance for its audience, which on the whole makes for a solid recommendation.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Creed III.

Spider-Man 3.

Review #1779: Spider-Man 3.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn / New Goblin), Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman), Topher Grace (Edward "Eddie" Brock Jr. / Venom), Bryce Dallas Howard (Gwen Stacy), James Cromwell (Captain George Stacy), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), with Theresa Russell (Emma Marko), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Joseph 'Robbie' Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Miss Brant), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) 

Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2)

Review: 

"Where’s Peter Parker again in the second picture as a human being? He’s a kid in all these stories. They’re kind of coming of age stories and he learns aspects of growing up. Different life lessons in each of these films and often times, the comic books."

You know, it is entirely possible to make a third film of a trilogy that closes the narrative of its story with the right kind of balance and entertainment value that doesn't seem quite cluttered. Of course, doing so for a superhero trilogy is especially interesting to consider, if not for the fact that the expectations can sometimes reach grand heights. With this film, Sam Raimi was the first director to have helmed an entire superhero film trilogy. Spider-Man (2002), if you remember, was pretty well-made for the time and effort it took to get it on the screen, complete with a director that obviously had reverence for the source material that managed (for the most part) to generate warmly interesting entertainment. Spider-Man 2 (2004) continued that path while managing to be even better than its predecessor, both in its hero and villain story, and a third feature was immediately set for 2007. The story was done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, while Alvin Sargent (one of the writers of the second film) did the screenplay with the Raimis. Of course, it seems every sequel superhero film needs more than just one villain. With this one, there are three of them, distinct from the previous film (well, at least, if you count Harry as a villain in the second film). Raimi intended on just a story that was focused on the primary three folks from the first two films (Maguire, Dunst, Franco) and the Sandman (as played by Church). One of the producers suggested adding the character of Gwen Stacy, while Avi Arad (former president of Marvel and a fellow producer) suggested adding the character of Venom (introduced to the comics in 1984), with his argument being that the character had a strong appeal to fans (particularly since Raimi had made two features with his favorite villains); of course, before that happened, there had been plans to have the Vulture as one of the villains, so there is that. The film, while a hit with audiences, was the last Spider-Man film for five years, as plans for a fourth feature stalled because of Raimi's doubt over the viability of maintaining an intended release date of 2011 with a suitable script.

At the time of its release, it was actually the most expensive movie ever made, having been made for $258 million. It also was the longest of the three films at 139 minutes. I'm sure it goes without saying that this isn't a great movie to close the series down by any means. But hey, it has nearly been fifteen years since this film has come out, and six (five live-action) further Spider-Man movies have followed in its wake. Honestly, the movie is okay (besides, making a third feature involving an inverted hero already happened once with Superman III (1983), which was worse). Sure, it has a few little moments that could be made fun of (scrutiny, mockery, or whatever), but as a whole it at least manages to have some entertaining moments along with perspective on redemption that at least makes for a solid average movie. But of course, a movie that had considerable hype just can't be average now, can it? Undeniably, the big problem is that it has just one too many villains to go along with not being able to land all of its sticking points by the time it all ends. It is a messy movie, one that tries to fill itself on spectacle and drama that try to maintain the balance set by the previous two features that makes a good case for why it was good to just cap the series with three films. Maguire and Dunst maintain the sincerity in their chemistry that made for two curious (and interesting) features, but it probably doesn't help that their fragmented story here is the only one among all the other loose webbing that sticks out. Seeing their web tangle and untangle itself is the endearing aspect of the series, pure and simple. In that sense, Maguire does what he can, moving onto the next step that comes in the full-fledged stages of being an adult: finding forgiveness along with dealing with the pitfalls of pride (i.e. normal Peter Parker and symbiote Peter). He is earnest enough to make things such as "dancing" work where it could have been really silly to sit through. Dunst does just as well with matching up with withered patience (since her next step is not so much ego as it is "having a life"), doing what is needed as everything basically comes full circle with these two to useful effect. 

Franco has the weird dilemma of being a key side of the villainous triangle while having a segmented part of his time spent with "amnesia"; besides, one of the resolutions presented (i.e. next time check the wounds) is incredibly convenient in all the weird ways. Haden Church (who by virtue of graduating from Harlingen High School gets "Valley credits" from me) seems to be drawing his character from films such as The Wolf Man (1941), which works to a degree. While I understand the changes made to the character from the original origin (one that I remember because I actually did read one of those stories distinctly as a kid), I think it basically ties the story (and to an extent, Haden Church) in a knot that is way, way too convenient. Grace, best known for his role on That 70s Show, which I freely admit to watching too much of for years...does not exactly fare as well. While he does make an interesting reflection upon Maguire, it is hard to escape the inevitable "Yes, but Venom..." when it comes to actually seeing him on screen. I'm not saying the role needs a "bodybuilder" type, but it just never clicks together all the way with Grace, who almost seems a step away from making a quip more than anything (the less said about the actual lead-in to Venom, the better). Besides, having another costumed character present that likes to put on and then take off their mask is a step too far (keep it on!). Howard and Cromwell are there for segments that work right until you start to remember they disappear by the time of the climax (Harris has what she needs in the usual patience expected from her role anyway, while Simmons is sorely lacking in time). 

The contrivances that come with trying to tie it all together aren't swayed so easily with its climax (which is fine). Simply put, the dilemma of figuring out what it means to be a hero suddenly with sins that only thought in black-and-white is an interesting one, but the movie seems too mired in trying to pack in as much as possible in its frenzied focusing that it nearly loses sight of what the films meant in the first place. They were interesting movies with earnest charm and atmosphere (case in point this film seems lacking with the folks in the actual city that the film sets its action) that made it the first important group of superhero films of the new 21st century. While it may not be a great closing film by any means, it pulls off just enough tricks that keep one's interest on the level without churning into a pit. In other words: being just okay might not be the best thing to say about a highly anticipated movie but time generally shows that a movie being fine works out in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012). Must be a coincidence.

The Green Mile.

Review #1522: The Green Mile.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Paul Edgecomb), David Morse (Brutus "Brutal" Howell), Bonnie Hunt (Jan Edgecomb), Michael Clarke Duncan (John Coffey), James Cromwell (Warden Hal Moores), Michael Jeter (Eduard Delacroix), Graham Greene (Arlen Bitterbuck), Doug Hutchison (Percy Wetmore), Sam Rockwell (William "Wild Bill" Wharton), Barry Pepper (Dean Stanton), Jeffrey DeMunn (Harry Terwilliger), Patricia Clarkson (Melinda Moores), Harry Dean Stanton (Toot-Toot), Dabbs Greer (Old Paul), Bill McKinney (Jack Van Hay), Brent Briscoe (Bill Dodge), Eve Brent (Elaine Connelly), and William Sadler (Klaus Detterick) Written and Directed by Frank Darabont (#1506 - The Shawshank Redemption)

Review: 
"I think it's the basic need for all of human kind to be a part of something bigger than themselves because as actors we get to create that."
"The notion that we can be better than we are, as human beings; that there’s a bar that can be raised in all of our lives. And that there are certain acts of incivility that we should no longer indulge in. Maybe we should try to do a little better."

The 1990s had a plethora of memorable Tom Hanks performances that turned him from just a star in comedies into an icon. The California native had done plays in high school and at Chabot College and California State University, Sacramento before dropping out to do work with the Great Lakes Theater Festival in Cleveland. He did theater work for a few years (doing three years at the Lakewood Civic Auditorium) before venturing into film with He Knows You're Alone (1980) and television with Bosom Buddies (1980-82). Splash (1984) was his first starring role, which proved beneficial to his career in leading to more comedy roles and a gradual shift to drama with films such as Big (1988). While the 1990s started off with flops like The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990), he proved himself in the following years with neatly-picked roles suited to his personality that resulted in praise, with numerous highlights being iconic ones like Philadelphia (1993), Forrest Gump (1994), and Toy Story (1995). Coincidentally, Hanks was once thought of to star in The Shawshank Redemption before turning it down to commitments, but Hanks found himself onto this film after Darabont's first preference of John Travolta fizzled out. This was also the first major role for Duncan, who had worked odd jobs such as a bouncer/security guard and bit roles before having a break with Armageddon (1998, which he did when he was 40 years old) that led to a recommendation by none other than friend and actor Bruce Willis in this role.

The source material that this is adapted from is the serial novel of the same name, published from March to August 1996 as six paperback volumes (all except the last were 96 pages). There are a few differences between the two works, such as the change in year from 1932 to 1935 (Top Hat, the film with a significant part to play in the story, was released in the latter year), while certain characters are excluded (such as a vicious orderly present in the bookends that Darabont felt was beside the point). Ultimately, what we have here is a nicely-done fable, one that captures a sense of miracles with dignity and emotional power that makes an fairly watchable experience like no other. If it isn't as striking in depth as Darabont's other adaptation of a King work about prison in The Shawshank Redemption, it is at least spirited enough to maintain enough reason and hope to make its lasting point all the more endurable. It sits well with mature audiences without seeming too wistful in 189 minutes to the point of sanctimony, building its foundation with its bookend aspects in Greer that keep its lasting words about miracles and other ideas that can be interpreted with thought by viewers with the patience to do so and linger with it.

Undeniably, the cast live up to the period piece fable staging with care. Hanks proves charming in everyman consistency, sinking into manner of dignity and curiosity for those he works with in a place of officers and a cell of doomed men. Morse accompanies him as the lead focus of officers to view, maintaining a spirited patience that contributes well to the sequences within the prison in pragmatism. It is Duncan who shows the best presence with his time needed, a force of nature that inspires the passion and pan that comes with someone who pulls off sensitivity and conviction with no trouble at all, seeming one with the world and with us in a world that seems to just have pain. Hunt and Clarkson accompany the film with fair importance that proves useful, whether in grace or in withered nature. Jeter provides a little warmth within the bars, while Hutchison makes a tremendously slimy bully with accomplishment. Rockwell taps into wild evil with careful energy that could have been thought of as just a loon in lesser hands but seems quite underlying in creepiness with him. Cromwell does fine in hard-lined moments while Stanton provides a chuckle in his one key scene involving a execution rehearsal.

There were various filming locations that ranged from studio work at Warner Bros along with the Tennessee State Prison to go with custom-built interior sets from Terence Marsh to depict a sense of space and mystery in those prison scenes, which are quite effective. In its fable of miracles and pain, one has time to ponder upon its style and its weaving of story threads that make an experience that can inspire curiosity alongside revulsion, such as during its first hint of a miracle or a disastrous execution in the chair, respectively. It makes us want to think a bit more clearly about life, or more specifically the joys and pains that can come from such an emotional release that comes from something like this. It isn't completely perfect in its road to perdition in all of its time spent, but I find it worth at least one watch, particularly if one is looking for a Stephen King adaptation with an accomplished director and stars behind it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Space Cowboys.

Review #1252: Space Cowboys.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Frank Corvin), Tommy Lee Jones (William "Hawk" Hawkins), Donald Sutherland (Jerry O'Neill), James Garner ("Tank" Sullivan), Marcia Gay Harden (Sara Holland), William Devane (Flight Director Eugene "Gene" Davis), Loren Dean (Ethan Glance), Courtney B. Vance (Roger Hines), James Cromwell (Bob Gerson), Rade Šerbedžija (General Vostov), and Barbara Babcock (Barbara Corvin) Directed by Clint Eastwood.

Review: 
This is one of those films that exists to deliver adventure for a certain kind of audience that surely is interested in seeing some entertainment without any rough challenges and a few visual winners. It runs at 130 minutes, but it sure seems to want to be familiar with predictable leanings that its main core four actors are up to making seem fun to sit with. After all, if John Glenn (fighter/test pilot turned astronaut turned U.S Senator) could be sent into outer space at the ripe age of 77, why not send four old pilots (with Garner being the oldest at 72 on release) into space to fix a secret satellite? Even the challenge of getting these folks up to speed with training (in 30 days, no less - for which publicity for this mission only comes in two weeks before launch) doesn't really seem to faze anybody in the film, especially not the audience. It does fall in the lines of a popcorn movie in that if you really wanted to poke a few jabs in its logic (the idea of sending an astronaut with terminal cancer comes to mind), you could, but I was at least entertained enough with what I saw to make this a winner by the margins, primarily because of its cast and effects. At least one cannot fault Eastwood for taking the script from Ken Kaufman-Howard Klausner and rolling with giving the film a bit of light charm in its journey without too many roaring bumps, essentially being the kind of film you could probably watch with your dad or mom and have a good time with (I remember my dad having interest in plenty of Eastwood films, nearly all of which in the bunch qualified as adventures like this), with even a Jay Leno cameo fitting the bill for what one could expect. It has a yearning for what was that certainly has aged a bit (particularly with the end of the Space Shuttle program) but will linger just fine with those who seek it. The effects-work from Industrial Light & Magic is well done as one could expect, capturing the essence of space and the moments that require some wonder and delivers pretty well, where one isn't taken out of the film and its shots of the shuttle or satellite in space because something seems too off-putting or ridiculous. As one would hope, it is the interactions between the core four that drive the film as forward as it wants, particularly when it is between Eastwood and Jones. Eastwood certainly is wiry enough to headline a last hurrah routine with a degree of persistence that only could come out in a mild adventure driven by Eastwood on both sides of the camera. Jones is just as wiry with plenty of rough charm that certainly gets its chance to come out plenty, whether when old wounds open up about who ruined whose shot at going to space or when doing some stunt piloting for an eager birthday man. Sutherland and Garner are both warm and engaging as the other useful cogs in this fairly oiled machine, fitting with what is needed just as one can hope. Harden, Devane, and Cromwell fill the other piece of the pie just fine, doing what needs to be done to further the film (whether it be exposition or occasional character moments with the main four) without bumps on the way. Dean and Vance are okay, but they feel a bit sidetracked when it comes to making any sort of comparison of the old guard (Air Force pilots) and the new type of astronauts, which might have been a bit interesting to go with. In the long run, what we have here is a film that aims for a tolerable standard blend of reality and movie-magic that will certainly feel par for the course in its execution but at least please its crowd just well enough to make things worth it, where the time goes by without too much waste to speak of.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Longest Yard (2005).

Review #1066: The Longest Yard.

Cast: 
Adam Sandler (Paul "Wrecking" Crewe), Chris Rock (James "Caretaker" Farrell), James Cromwell (Warden Rudolph Hazen), Nelly (Earl Megget), William Fichtner (Cpt. Brian Knauer), Burt Reynolds (Coach Nate Scarborough), Bob Sapp (Switowski), Michael Irvin (Deacon Moss), Terry Crews ("Cheeseburger Eddy"), Bill Goldberg (Battle), Bill Romanowski (Guard Lambert), Brian Bosworth (Guard Garner), Kevin Nash (Sgt. Engleheart), and Steve Austin (Guard Dunham) Directed by Peter Segal (#466 - Nutty Professor II: The Klumps and #826 - Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult)

Review: 
Remember the original 1974 film (#778)? The film managed to generate a good deal of laughs that is finely aware of what it wants to be, complete with a fairly entertaining and brutal game of football, with Reynolds being a key highlight due to his charisma. It may interest you to note that this is the second remake of the original film, with Mean Machine being done in 2001, revolving around soccer. In any case, this is a movie that is mediocre in its approach, not doing anything too new with its material nor being anything too terrible to sit through, but it also isn't anything too noteworthy either. Sandler can't compare to Reynolds in terms of his portrayal of Crewe, not having too much energy nor being particularly funny, but it isn't anything that becomes loathsome to watch, at least. Rock has a bit of wisecracking energy that makes for a few amusing moments. Cromwell does okay with the material he's given. The other inmates are all okay for their moments on screen (such as Nelly and Sapp), even if they are used at times for some cheap gags - for better or worse. The guards don't have much time on screen, but at least they provide themselves to be the necessary foil. There weren't many moments that I got any big laughs from, just a few mild chuckles from time to time, but I can't say that it was consistently funny. It is strange to see Reynolds in the film, who looks a bit tired while serving as a reminder of the contrast between him and the other Crewe; it's just weird to see him star in a remake of a film he did, and I can't imagine that would be the case for something like Deliverance (#975) or even The Cannonball Run (#034). I didn't really get much enjoyment from the gags, but at least the football action is fine to watch. I can't hate the movie nor really give it a ringing endorsement, because it just feels like a middle-of-the-road type of film, where the gags can hit or miss depending on the kind of mood you are in. It won't top the original in any real discernible way, but it also won't be anything offensive to someone's sensibilities. If you're up to watching it, I suppose 113 minutes isn't too much of a chore. For others, I would just suggest the 1974 film.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Star Trek: First Contact.

Review #840: Star Trek: First Contact.

Cast
Patrick Stewart (Jean-Luc Picard), Jonathan Frakes (William Riker), Brent Spiner (Data), LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge), Michael Dorn (Worf), Gates McFadden (Beverly Crusher), Marina Sirtis (Deanna Troi), Alfre Woodard (Lily Sloane), James Cromwell (Zefram Cochrane), Alice Krige (Borg Queen), Michael Horton (Security Officer), and Neal McDonough (Lt. Hawk) Directed by Jonathan Frakes.

Review
There have already been a plethora of Star Trek film reviews done by me (#009 - Star Trek (2009), #225 - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, #226 - Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered County, #246 - Star Trek Generations, #299 - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, #337 - Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, #492 - Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, #515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture, #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness), but First Contact (based off ST: The Next Generation) was not one of them. Until now, anyway. Today is the 50th Anniversary of the premiere of the Original Series, and this year also happens to be the 20th Anniversary of this film, so I decided to connect the two for today. I guess you could call me a fan of The Next Generation, though I pride myself a film guy first...just kidding, nobody uses that phrase. In all seriousness, I really do dig the show, especially "The Best of Both Worlds", which also happens to have the Borg as the main villain. Onto the movie.

It's interesting that it's been over a year since I reviewed a Star Trek film, and it's almost been four years since I reviewed Star Trek Generations (#246). That movie was okay at points, but it never really felt interesting enough to make a movie out of. Having Kirk didn't help the idea of passing the torch fully from the original cast to the cast of the Next Generation, with a villain that was only mildly compelling at best. First Contact, however, is entertaining, using a familiar villain from the show but making it work for anyone to follow, much like with Wrath of Khan. Stewart is fairly compelling, with one of my favorite scenes being one in which he smashes a model ship into a window, and he is also pretty convincing in the action scenes, without losing too much of what makes him such a good Captain. Woodward also does pretty well in her scenes with Picard, having a fair amount of presence, particularly at the end right before the climax. Krige is clearly having fun as the villain, and she does a pretty good job, with the scenes with Spiner also being interesting to watch as well, managing to not chew too much of the scenery. The rest of the cast also does well, with Cromwell being pretty entertaining, alongside Frakes and Burton. Revenge (and time travel) are pretty common for Star Trek to begin with, but First Contact manages to convey it with enough conviction and legitimacy that it works on its own without being too familiar. The action scenes are done fine, without overshadowing the movie. The Borg look excellent, looking menacing and creepy at the same time. Simply put, it's an enjoyable movie that will most likely make you want to watch the show, but more likely stick with you for a while.

Live long and prosper, everyone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Big Hero 6.

Review #811: Big Hero 6.

Cast
Scott Adsit (Baymax), Ryan Potter (Hiro Hamada), Daniel Henney (Tadashi Hamada), T.J. Miller (Fred), Jamie Chung (GoGo), Damon Wayans, Jr. (Wasabi), Génesis Rodríguez (Honey Lemon), James Cromwell (Professor Robert Callaghan), Alan Tudyk (Alistair Krei), and Maya Rudolph (Aunt Cass) Directed by Don Hall and Chris Williams.

Review
Big Hero 6 is a welcome addition to the Disney films, while also being a highly entertaining movie due to its cast, animation, and its charm. Based off the comic book series of the same name, Big Hero 6 sets up its world and characters with near relative ease, from the wonderful visuals of San Fransokyo to the chemistry of the characters, there certainly is a great deal of care towards making this a fun ride, which works. Baymax (an inflatable robot made out of vinyl) is a wonderful character, even being charming when wearing armor, and Adsit makes the character fun to watch. Potter makes for a good lead as a full-fledged character, never coming off as unrealistic or offbeat (a 14 year old prodigy? I'll roll with it, because it is handled well, and there have been far weirder things to buy in films prior to and after this). The scenes with him and Henney that begin the movie help the movie gain footing, with fine character development...and Baymax as well. The movie has a nice enough story, not devolving into too typical territory, sticking out well. The animation is wonderful, having a great deal of flair and sharp colors, with the six heroes standing out nicely. Speaking of which, the rest of the cast is also enjoyable, from the comic relief of T. J. Miller (who does it quite well) to the rest of the group (such as Wayans Jr, the most normal and fittingly the most neurotic of the group - doing a fun job), with Cromwell being a decent enough villain. The movie flows nicely enough, complete with enough fun and funny moments to be easy to recommend for anyone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Artist.

Review #697: The Artist.

Cast
Jean Dujardin (George Valentin), Bérénice Bejo (Peppy Miller), John Goodman (Al Zimmer), James Cromwell (Clifton), Missi Pyle (Constance), Penelope Ann Miller (Doris Valentin), and Uggie the dog. Directed by Michel Hazanavicius.

Review
Admittedly, the movie may seem a little like Singin in the Rain with regards to an actor dealing with converting from silent to "talkie" acting, with a touch of Silent Movie. But The Artist manages to make itself stand out with its sense of style, especially with its acting. This is a wonderful movie that manages to just be what it wants without feeling artificial or lacking. It looks very nice and the music is also enjoyable. The acting is excellent, especially Jean Dujardin. He has a certain charm to him that makes the movie irresistible to watch, especially with that dog as well. Bejo is also wonderful, working as a good lead with Dujardin, the two compliment each other well. Goodman and Cromwell are good supporting leads that make the movie even more enjoyable. The movie is what it is: Fun, relaxing, and all around just good filmmaking.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Babe.

Review #389: The Babe.

Cast
John Goodman (Babe Ruth), Kelly McGillis (Claire Hodgson Ruth), Trini Alvarado (Helen Woodford Ruth), Bruce Boxleitner (Jumpin' Joe Dugan), Peter Donat (Harry Frazee), James Cromwell (Brother Mathias), J. C. Quinn (Jack Dunn), Joe Ragno (Miller Huggins), Richard Tyson (Guy Bush), Ralph Marrero (Ping Bodie), Bob Swan (George Herman Ruth Sr.), and Bernard Kates (Colonel Jacob Ruppert) Directed by Arthur Hiller.

Review
This film is loosely based off the life of George "Babe" Ruth, and when I say loosely, I mean really loosely. While John Goodman sounds like a good choice for Babe Ruth, he doesn't give Ruth much likability. Ruth comes off more as a unlikable belligerent player then someone to root for. The baseball scenes are alright, even if half of it is just baseballs going off the wall. The accuracy...is not even close. Ruth wasn't just a home run hitter, for the first few years of his career, he was a pitcher, which in the film is barely even mentioned. This film probably has more myths included than actual facts, and combined with the general lack of enjoyability / laughs from John Goodman (who can be funny), who seems weighed down from the script, which in effect drags the character. The rest of the actors are overshadowed, which I suppose makes sense given the title being "The Babe", but a little bit more memorability would have helped. Overall, this film is plagued by inaccuracies so easy to find that there are sites dedicated to pointing those out, the acting is mediocre save for Goodman who tries his best, and the nail in the film's coffin is the general lack of fun. The film could be fun for some, but sometimes it's a little awkward and sometimes mean spirited. It's a disappointment that this fizzles, presumably into obscurity. Rather than being a home run, it's a strikeout.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.

Review #161: Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.

Cast
Matt Damon (Spirit), James Cromwell (The Colonel), Daniel Studi (Little Creek), Chopper Bernet (Sgt. Adams), Jeff LeBeau (Murphy and the Railroad Foreman), and Richard McGonagle (Bill) Directed by Kelly Asbury and Lorna Cook.

Review
This film is beautifully animated with computers and tradition animation and it has a good story that feels like the old days of telling a fable (like that company did before they declined into whatever they call it now). The voice acting is few, but Damon and Cromwell are great, as this film feels special, it feels like a classic, and it is a classic. Dreamworks only made four traditionally animated films, with this likely being the best. This ends Part II of Dreamworks Animation Week. Stay tuned for Part III...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: I, Robot.

Review #086: I, Robot.

Cast
Will Smith (Det. Del Spooner), Bridget Moynahan (Dr. Susan Calvin), Alan Tudyk (Sonny), Bruce Greenwood (Lawrence Robertson), James Cromwell (Dr. Alfred Lanning), Chi McBride (Lt. John Bergin), Shia LaBeouf (Farber), Fiona Hogan (VIKI), Terry Chen (Chin), and Adrian Ricard (Granny). Directed by Alex Proyas.

Review
The film is an actioned packed "adaptation" of a book, and it's still decent. There I said it. I like this film. Not like in the sense of a great film, just decently good. It's an action flick that at least makes you think, if only for about a few seconds. The acting is good, especially from Smith, showing one again he can carry a film. It's good fun and it does a decent job at being a film with decent effects that make it seem futuristic (Set in 2035), and a balenced film all around. It may not be a great film, but it at least is entertaining enough (With Will Smith as your lead, you can not fail) This begins Robot Week, and ends Part I. A film reviewed every day involving robots in each of the films.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.