Missing in Action.

Review #2202: Missing in Action.

Cast: 

Chuck Norris (Colonel James Braddock), M. Emmet Walsh (Jack "Tuck" Tucker), David Tress (Senator Maxwell Porter), Lenore Kasdorf (Ann Fitzgerald), Ernie Ortega (General Vinh), James Hong (General Tran), E. Erich Anderson (Masucci), and Pierrino Mascarino (Jacques) Directed by Joseph Zito.

Review: 

Much in the same way that a fruit can be cut several different ways, one can really do movies with similar subject matter with pretty different execution. If you remember, James Cameron was behind the original treatment for what became Rambo: First Blood Part II in May of 1985 (he had written it when waiting to start filming The Terminator), which, well, was an action film where Rambo went from being a "documenter of possible prisoners held by jailers" to "fuck 'em". Incidentally, earlier in the decade, Robert R. Garwood (a Private), among one of the last American POW from the Vietnam War (as captured in 1965 but one who did not return to America until 1979) faced a court martial after being accused of being a collaborator with the enemy that saw him stripped of his rank (he had claimed that American POWs were left behind in Vietnam). Even decades after the war, the Department of Defense lists "current numbers of Americans who are unaccounted for in Southeast Asia" at over a thousand. Anyway, Cameron's script led to inspiration (as one says) for the Cannon Group to see if they could do their own film involving war veterans and beat the Rambo film to the punch, which they did. In fact, they filmed two Missing in Action films, with the original plan to have the one directed by Lance Hool (which involved the POW days of the lead character) be released first before the rescue one...but the commercial prospects were found to be better with this film and so the other film was titled Missing in Action 2: The Beginning and released in March of 1985 (not long after the first one!) and somehow two months before the Rambo sequel. All of this is how the first film gets a screenplay and writing credit that has Arthur Silver, Larry Levinson and Steve Bing listed for characters, James Bruner for screenplay, and John Crowther and Lance Hool for story. 1988 saw the release of Braddock: Missing in Action III, which was considerably less successful.

Norris has stated that the film was one he made as a memorial for his younger brother Wieland, who died in combat in Vietnam. It was also the first film he did with the Cannon Group. This was the fifth film of Joseph Zito, who had directed the fourth (and intended final) film of the Friday the 13th series earlier in 1984, although his previous effort The Prowler (1981) has received far more interesting notice in later years. He did one further film with Norris in Invasion U.S.A. (1985). Imagine making a 100-minute movie with as little tension as possible and you have something that probably would fit right at home with keeping one eye open when trying to, say, paint. Norris seems to have settled into a Clint Eastwood impersonation that happens to do action with feet and blasting away, but it isn't particularly infused with even the slightest bit of charisma besides the minimum. The film somehow feels small in scale because by blasting away with faceless enemies (Hong doesn't even make it to the 45th minute but he does what the film needs before being disposed of) and having just Walsh with the semblance of energy, one just finds an average hollow film. Walsh is sly enough that being a sidekick character in his mid-forties is a hoot fitting enough to engage with. Well, I can say this much...it makes one realize that um, maybe I misjudged Good Guys Wear Black (1978) when it came to calling Norris one who sounded like an "instructional guidebook for using a power tool". This film at least drops the pretense of playing it for the thriller angle and goes straight for an action cheese fest. Sure, it lacks a true villain besides the nameless folks getting shot at, but one can at least get some sort of curiosity of seeing Norris playing opposite a character actor pro in Walsh (rest in peace) as opposed to trying to wedge in a romantic angle between Norris and Kasdorf (at least this one doesn't go like that aforementioned Good Guys film and explode a plane). I especially like how the ending is a dramatic build to...storming a building to show the truth. As a whole, it may have beaten First Blood Part II when it comes to POW rescue films, but it doesn't hold too much of a candle in overall execution, instead being an average film that lacks the final push to be anything other than the action film picked after the pile has nearly been finished.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Tango & Cash.

Review #1876: Tango & Cash.

Cast: 

Sylvester Stallone (Lieutenant Raymond "Ray" Tango), Kurt Russell (Lieutenant Gabriel "Gabe" Cash), Jack Palance (Yves Perret), Teri Hatcher (Katherine "Kiki" Tango), Michael J. Pollard (Owen), Brion James (Requin), James Hong (Quan), Robert Z'Dar (Face), Marc Alaimo (Lopez), Roy Brocksmith (FBI Agent Davis), Phil Rubenstein (Matt Sokowski), Lewis Arquette (FBI Agent Wyler), Clint Howard (Slinky), Michael Jeter (Skinner), and Geoffrey Lewis (Captain Schroeder) Directed by Andrei Konchalovsky and Albert Magnoli (#885 - Purple Rain)

Review: 

"Andrei was a real gentleman and I thought his take on "Tango and Cash" was very good and would've been infinitely more realistic had he been allowed to continue. His replacement was more attuned to comic pop culture, so the film had a dramatic shift into a more lighthearted direction."

The combination of director, producer, and star(s) for an action film has probably never seemed so surprising with a film like this. Yes, Konchalovsky was an established director, so consider his resume: an adaptation of Uncle Vanya (1970), a historical epic with Siberiade (1979), his venture into American cinema with the drama Maria's Lovers (1984)...and the action thriller Runaway Train (1985), which used a script from Akira Kurosawa. Born in Moscow, he studied for a decade at the Moscow Conservatory with the intent to be a pianist but encountering Andrei Tarkovsky led to him to working with him on the script that became Andrei Rublev (1966). Konchalovsky began his career as director with The First Teacher (1964) and did a handful of films before moving to the United States in 1980, where he resided before returning to Russia in the 1990s, with this film being his last full American production (his next film, The Inner Circle (1991), was a co-production between America, Italy, and the Soviet Union). Now, if you were wondering how this movie came about, it was based on a script by Randy Feldman, who in turn was doing it on an idea that Jon Peters and Peter Guber had thought of, with the intention of Sylvester Stallone and Patrick Swayze as the stars. But Swayze decided to do Road House (1989) instead, which served as one of many weird things to come. Konchalovsky would spend three months in the director's chair before arguments with Peters came to a boiling point because of disagreements with tone (believe it or not, Stallone was on the director's side) and budget problems. Peter MacDonald (who had directed Rambo III ironically after taking over for a director that Stallone had fired) and Stallone filled in temporarily before Albert Magnoli was hired to shoot the chase and fight scenes in the ending. Jeffrey Boam was brought in to try and do re-writes to the script but hated the final result so much that he didn't want credit. Remember that this was a film that started to shoot in June and end shooting in August of 1989...which ended up needing re-shoots for two weeks in October before intending to be released in December. It barely met its goal, thanks to editing from three people, including Stuart Baird, who had edited countless movies such as Lethal Weapon and its sequel (incidentally, he would be brought in to fix further troubled movies such as The Last Boy Scout), with the film being released on December 22, serving alongside Always) as the last movies released in the 1980s.

Wait, people didn't care for this film in 1989? What exactly did they expect? It wasn't exactly a great commercial hit, but there is a tinge of appreciation for it after over 30 years. Honestly, I enjoyed it just fine, as it is a movie that does exactly what it wants to do in macho action flair. A sillier person could possibly make the argument that this is a play on the action genre, one that is as goofy and beefed up as possible with the most obvious lead stars to accomplish this goal. My god, it's a movie that starts with someone shooting a vehicle to reveal cocaine, continues with a guy using rats to demonstrate his complicated scheme, and ends with monster trucks and tank-like SUVs - who would resist? I understand the potential for a serious buddy cop type of movie, but sometimes going for broke really is the better option. For someone who is fascinated at seeing both Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell on screen like I am, this is basically the ideal bait. That doesn't mean that it is infallible in being good (because, trust me, Stallone has had made a few duds worth talking about), but it does mean that the curiosity factor went up far more than if it was just a strait-laced attempt at buddy cop stuff. Call me a junk connoisseur, but I do enjoy movies with a bit of bombast and confidence to just go on the beat of its own drum in action, winking eyes or not (my problems are more if someone tries to bullshit their movie into "up their own ass" territory"). Calling it a bastardized Lethal Weapon only serves to make the interest go up, not down, considering the impending mediocrity of movies that tried to hone in buddy cop cliches in obligation or bewildering confusion with 1990's Another 48 Hrs. or The Rookie.

Honestly, I understand where Stallone was coming from with the character, he tries to play here in this offbeat take on the action cop type with glasses (actual ones used by Stallone) and a banker attire...but Stallone is Stallone. Making a chuckle with "Rambo is a pussy" is cute, but one knows that the best way to contain the ever-growing ego of Stallone (when you created Rocky, you get slack) is to just let him be himself. He has the schlock factor of someone who would've been "man in a suit" for a certain type of older movies, but he does it with a certain charm that you go along with what he tries to pull here. Besides, Russell has always been a favorite with me, in that he can basically walk through a role with no trouble, which I would expect from someone who went from Disney child star to a guy who can pass for both comedy and drama. He passes through here with casual charm, one who knows what kind of movie he is in without thinking they are above it all, smirking his way through with the kind of stubborn tenacity I would expect to see play out when playing out this intense dunderhead chemistry shared with Stallone that plays in the vein of The Odd Couple at times. Of course, in the middle of this is James, whose went from having two scenes turned into more when they liked his "Cockney" accent (he was an American with plenty of experience playing bad guys). He overshadows Palance (who even manages to turn a role of watching things happen into a ham) to the benefit of the movie when it comes to casual derangement. Hatcher would obviously find better material to hone in her charms (besides TV anyway) while Pollard breezes through with light amusement. The climax is preposterous and exactly what one could expect without dull surprises. As a whole, it manages to rein enough out of 104 minutes for stupefying fun that I believe make it a worthy curiosity, one with the general action sought by audiences with corny liners and general engagement from two likable stars to carry it despite plenty of clear faults and excesses. If you've seen one, you've seen plenty, but the folks that enjoy what they like to enjoy will be right at home here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Review #1835: Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Cast: 

Michelle Yeoh (Evelyn Quan Wang), Stephanie Hsu (Joy Wang / Jobu Tupaki), Ke Huy Quan (Waymond Wang), James Hong (Gong Gong), Jamie Lee Curtis (Deirdre Beaubeirdra), Tallie Medel (Becky), Jenny Slate ("Big Nose"), Harry Shum Jr. (Chad), and Biff Wiff (Rick) Written and Directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert.

Review: 

“We should be looking to a forward-looking multiverse, because right now this universe we’re in is on a very scary path. And the multiverse is actually a really beautiful, important metaphor for right now because we need to be looking at all the possibilities, not just the one that we think we’re in. And we definitely shouldn’t be looking backwards.”

You may or may not know the directing duo of "Daniels", comprised of two directors in Kwan and Scheinert, who met at Emerson College while studying film; they did a variety of stuff together, starting with two short films in Swingers (2009) and Puppets (2010), which can be found online. They did several other things together such as television episodes and music videos (such as for the song “Turn Down for What" by DJ Snake and Lil Jon) before they made their feature debut with Swiss Army Man (2016), which evidently involves a man and a farting corpse. Scheinert directed The Death of Dick Long (2019) solo, so this in effect makes this film Scheinert's third effort and second for Kwan. When they had shown Swiss Army Man to their parents and had numerous conversations about it, the reflections of the duo on their apparent need to make something so strange to go with the difficulty of their parents in understanding it that proved an inspiration. I had first heard of the film earlier last month, but it was only in the last week of April that I had the chance to see this film in my local theater (the result of a film that expanded from an initial limited release - go figure, expand a release and people like me might actually see it rather than flock to "streaming" like a defeated sheep), and it took little time to convince myself that this might be a useful curiosity to see.

As one imagines, sometimes you must sneak in sincerity under absurdity when it comes to a journey of finding balance and understanding within beautiful chaos. This is in a movie that involves hot-dog fingers and sentient rocks, for example. But describing things that happen to occur in a movie isn't exactly a succinct answer for a movie like this, one that threads itself carefully on the matter of choices, not so much just being a movie about multiple selves, since the "chosen one" to potentially save things is possibly just the one with the most failures, for example. It results in a movie that is a hodgepodge of genres fitting for its title - action, sci-fi adventure, thriller, coming of everything, black comedy...but it really can be construed as a movie of finding the middle ground between oblivion and meaning. Yes, it has a quick pace to action scenes at times, but it never loses sight of doing some philosophy to go along with things at the end. In the end, it results in a brilliantly messy movie that maneuvers its way through 139 minutes with a warm-hearted sense of self that may very well become a curiosity to watch again and again just to think about how far the rabbit hole can go. In other words: the key to everything in a movie about family strife happening everywhere all at once is communication, complete with a family triangle that is yearning to have things acknowledged by the other. In that sense, I applaud the movie for managing to not fall into the modern trap of trying to build itself so high only to fall on its own hype, or to put it in more blunt terms, not huffing its own supply and interrupting its own flow. As such, this seems just the right kind of movie ideal for Yeoh, one that requires an actress to put on many hats (as the expression goes) in being the key focus of an organic mold of melancholy and resolve that allows for both a flurry of action sequences alongside touching moments spent with either Hsu or Quan for family interest, whether that means trying to roll with the growing sense of genre anarchy or other things. You may remember Quan from his childhood roles in films such as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) and The Goonies (1985), but you might be surprised to hear that this is in fact his comeback feature, as he had actually stepped away from acting (due to a lack of opportunity for roles) for work behind the camera. It is evident fairly early that he has not lost a step here, since he proves quite endearing in keeping the balance of the film on the right level with kindness and charm in each of the three personalities he inhibits here (ranging from the husband wanting to sneak divorce papers for actual attention to the confident "Alpha" husband). Hsu provides the key center to the proceedings in terms of a family dilemma that essentially explodes into multitude family dilemma with suitable timing that taps well with Yeoh in expressing the doubts and fears that come within paths that could spring curiosity or nihilism (especially when one's trauma of disappointing a parent has sprung in two generations), and she balances well with the conflicts presented here for engaging drama that makes her a quality presence. The film is built on the main trio, but Curtis and Hong do partake in their own moments to share for interest that one would expect from veteran presences like them, whether that involves a dry auditor that draws a few amusing moments or an eccentric charmer, respectively. By the time the movie draws to its ending, it does so without becoming dripped in false notes, which works out when wanting to finish making a movie that uses the idea of a "multi-verse" as a metaphor that seems timeless and therefore right on target. Honestly, the rating for this film took a bit of time to think about, because it really is a fun time for anyone who wants to see something original in their movie experience that seems like a labor of love more than just a laborious experiment in filmmaking. It does so with a break-neck pace that rewards its viewers with a useful emotional journey that details the meaning of empathy in a weary world (or worlds, in this case) with the right cast to make a worthy adventure that may be one worth looking into again and again, a wonderfully messy mix of action and clarity. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Wayne's World 2.

Review #1608: Wayne's World 2.

Cast: 

Mike Myers (Wayne Campbell), Dana Carvey (Garth Algar), Tia Carrere (Cassandra Wong), Christopher Walken (Robert G. "Bobby" Cahn), Kevin Pollak (Jerry Segel), Ralph Brown (Del Preston), James Hong (Jeff Wong), Kim Basinger (Honey Hornée), Chris Farley (Milton), Michael A. Nickles (Jim Morrison), Larry Sellers (The Weird Naked Indian), with Ed O'Neill (Glen), Gavin Grazer (Scott), and Aerosmith. Directed by Stephen Surjik.

Review: 

It did not take long for folks to realize that Wayne's World was a success. To recap, Wayne's World began twofold: Mike Myers came up with the idea of Wayne that appeared in sketches for Citytv's City Limits and CBC Television's It's Only Rock & Roll in the mid 1980s before Myers joined Saturday Night Live in 1989 and starred in segments for the show with Dana Carvey that were featured from time to time for the next five years. The 1992 film of the same name, doubted by Paramount Pictures to be much of a hit, made nine times its $20 million budget, ranking as the most popular film based on a SNL sketch (which it still holds today). The sequel retains the main duo alongside a selection of cast members from the original alongside a sprinkling of cameo appearances (both musical and not), with Myers writing the film again with Bonnie and Terry Turner. However, the road to making a script for a sequel proved quite tough, in that the original idea by Myers wouldn't end up being used, which involved inspiration taken directly from Passport to Pimlico (1949), where the main duo would end up making their own country. Weeks before production was to start, this inspiration was pointed out by studio executives (who did not have enough time to negotiate the rights to the script and were thus incensed, with one threatening Myers personally) and they made Myers write an entirely new script. Conflicts between Myers and Penelope Spheeris over editing in the first film led to consideration of a new director in Stephen Surjik, who was known for his direction of segments for The Kids in the Hall (1990-1993). 

The film was not quite a hit like the original, but it was a marginal hit with audiences as the last hurrah for these characters. When it comes to comedies, it is a mediocre follow-up that will nevertheless please those who seek another ride of goofy charm with hit-and-miss pace. Those who weren't really fans of the original won't exactly be swayed here, because sometimes it really does feel like a bit of a rehash from before - truly, it is the take-or-leave-it film for the comedy season. Myers and Carvey prove up to the task of creating some amusing moments, whether spent with themselves or playing against others; in the case of Myers, it namely involves a vision of Jim Morrison as some sort of spiritual journey (inspired by Myers and his own journey that he took upon the death of his father) that leads to a few interesting moments to those who don't see the Morrison bits as just a bit. Actually, the "fight" (involving dubbing) between Myers and Hong is kind of funny, too. For Carvey, the moments spent with Basinger playing a femme fatale prove quite involving (along with seeming tacked there to give him something to do besides linger with the look-alike played by Olivia d'Abo). The segment showing Myers and Carvey talk about "The Leprechaun" is a decent highlight to look at for a minute, in the sense that it is probably better done than the actual film made fun of. It is nice to see Carrere, even if her part seems like a re-hash from before (in other words, trying to do music in the face of slimy producers), but the highlight is the re-creation of a particular sequence from The Graduate (1967) near the ending. Walken does well with straight-laced slime that nevertheless can grab a chuckle (or be used for better work involving straight-laced humor). Pollak is used for a bit involving eyes that goes over fine, but it is Brown that takes up the supporting reins in pairing with Myers/Carvey, which he does in a take off the eccentric character he played in Withnail and I (1987). There are various cameo appearances throughout the film, ranging from Rip Taylor to Aerosmith to Charlton Heston, with some proving better than others (Charlton Heston over Jay Leno? Shock, shock, shock. Actually, I take it back, TV sentimental favorite Ed O'Neill's brief moment as the oddball Glen is the better one). In other words, 95 minutes is just enough to handle a few decent moments and a mostly-original run-through for a follow-up film that will fit just fine for what one desires to see in entertainment without being too disappointed. In other words, one can party on just fine with this film without hurling too much back at the screen.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Big Trouble in Little China.

Review #1479: Big Trouble in Little China.

Cast:
Kurt Russell (Jack Burton), Kim Cattrall (Gracie Law), Dennis Dun (Wang Chi), James Hong (David Lo Pan), Victor Wong (Egg Shen), Kate Burton (Margo Litzenberger), Donald Li (Eddie Lee), Carter Wong (Thunder), Peter Kwong (Rain), James Pax (Lightning), Suzee Pai (Miao Yin), and Chao-Li Chi (Uncle Chu) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing (1982), #732 - Escape from L.A., #1221 - Dark Star, and #1298 - They Live)

Review: 
"I'm pretty happy with who I am. I like myself and what I'm doing. I don't need to be the world's greatest director or the most famous - or the richest. I don't need to make a whole lot of great films. I can do my job and I can do it pretty well. This is the realization I've come to, later in life. It's called growing up."
"I seem to have a knack for picking movies that go on to be cult favorites."

John Carpenter is a director that deserves further inspection, one that is far more than just his horror films. The 1980s are ertainly an interesting indicator of this diverting director, with eight of his eighteen directorial efforts being in that era (ranging from The Fog to They Live), comprised of success and flops that eventually alienated him away from Hollywood, but most of the features are generally well appreciated for their efforts in horror, science fiction and action, with some of those features also being composed or written by him as well. At the helm as star for some of those successes is Kurt Russell, who first rose to prominence as a child star in television and for Disney films before growing into further lines of work in the 1980s as an action hero (along with sentimental favorite in my view). The film had three different writers credited: Gary Goldman and David Z. Weinstein originally wrote it as a western that would combine Chinese fantasy elements one might find in a martial arts film within a western; subsequent attempts to turn it into something more filmable led to their firing and W. D. Richter (writer of films such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)) brought in to rehaul the screenplay into a contemporary tale that kept just basic elements like Lo Pan and Jack Burton, using Rosemary's Baby (yes, that one) as his template.

Ultimately, what we have here is a film that screams cult classic - it was a flop at the box office in the midst of a busy summer (to put it in perspective, the top films of that summer were Top Gun, The Karate Kid Part II and Aliens) and marketing that even Russell found not to his liking, with the studio not really understanding Burton's character (to the point where they had them do the opening scene about his heroism). It influenced Carpenter back to independent filmmaking as yet another painfully misspreciated film of his catalogue in the 1980s (with only his film The Thing (1982) being more unappreciated in its time, which also found a deserved following). For all of its obviousness, one can't help but enjoy its b-movie style - cheesy but with wonderful effects and a zippy charm to its cast that make a strange and stark delight to the action film. Russell proves quite enjoyable with brash brightness for a part that is part-hero and part-sidekick, lumbering through lines of screwball bravado, whether in engaging in some trucker lines on a truck, or showing confidence right before knocking himself out of a fight. Cattrall follows along the screwball aspects of the film at times with sharpness, making for a quirky time when paired with Russell. Dun proves well in keeping with the quick pace and timing required of our true hero with confidence that springs well with the action sequences. Hong (a prolific Chinese American actor of various mediums for six decades) proves a fair villain, inviting one with some creeping mystery (we are talking about a long-living sorcerer who wants a green-eyed bride/sacrifice, after all) that makes a satisfactory threat. Wong, Burton, and Li prove a decent supporting cast to a film that moves along for 99 minutes with an aim to make a snappy martial arts effects film and succeeding fairly well at it. With floating eyeballs, lightning effects, a underworld beneath Chinatown, and a big ugly monster, how could one resist such a film? To call it contrived or bumbling is missing out on the fun, particularly one with an interesting approach to the hero-sidekick dynamic. On the whole, it is a likable film with enough well-done staging in action and design to go with an amiable cast for a deserved cult classic and a fair piece in John Carpenter's line of work that is worth a watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Kung Fu Panda 2.

Review #486: Kung Fu Panda 2.

Cast
Jack Black (Po), Angelina Jolie (Tigress), Gary Oldman (Lord Shen), David Cross (Crane), Jackie Chan (Monkey), Seth Rogen (Mantis), Lucy Liu (Viper), Dustin Hoffman (Master Shifu), James Hong (Mr. Ping), Michelle Yeoh (Soothsayer), Danny McBride (Wolf Boss), Dennis Haysbert (Master Storming Ox), Jean-Claude Van Damme (Master Croc), and Victor Garber (Master Thundering Rhino) Directed by Jennifer Yuh Nelson.

Review
Naturally, there is a sequel, given the first film's massive success. The film take a somewhat darker turn, but it works well to the film's advantage. Jack Black once again is effective, and he certainly leaves a good impression. The rest of the cast, especially Gary Oldman do good, and Oldman arguably does a better job portraying a villain then Ian McShane in the first film. The story is fine, and the animation is good, especially the animation during the flashback scenes. The action is good, and the comedy is nice, and this is a very effective film that leaves you yearn for more, especially with that ending, which is always welcome with me.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Kung Fu Panda.

Review #485: Kung Fu Panda.

Cast
Jack Black (Po), Angelina Jolie (Tigress), Dustin Hoffman (Master Shifu), Ian McShane (Tai Lung), Jackie Chan (Monkey), Lucy Liu (Viper), Seth Rogen (Mantis), David Cross (Crane), Randall Duk Kim (Master Oogway), James Hong (Mr. Ping), Dan Fogler (Zeng), and Michael Clarke Duncan (Commander Vachir) Directed by John Stevenson and Mark Osborne.

Review
This may sound a bit odd, but this is the 16th DreamWorks Animation film I've reviewed, perhaps in some way that makes a whole deal of sense, because the films always had a hook to keep my interest, and kept me intrigued. Well, most of the films (I'm looking at you, Shark Tale and Shrek the Third), not all, but a very big majority always had a sense of fun with fine animation. This I'm happy to say, continues that trend. Jack Black does a very fine job, but he's not the only one, even Dustin Hoffman gets in on the laughs, with him and Black having very effective scenes that contribute to a very fun film. The animation is breathtakingly nice to look at, DreamWorks Animation, no matter what decade, always did seem to keep up and look excellent (with one notable exception, of course). The villain is excellent, though seeing him not as much as everyone else is fine with me. This is a fun film that goes along extremely well, is fun for everyone, and overall, it's just a grand hallmark for DreamWorks Animation, once again. Now then, what's next?

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.