A Boy and His Dog.

Review #1665: A Boy and His Dog.

Cast: 

Don Johnson (Vic), Tim McIntire (voice of Blood), Susanne Benton (Quilla June Holmes), Jason Robards (Lou Craddock), Alvy Moore (Doctor Moore), Helene Winston (Mez Smith), Charles McGraw (Preacher), Hal Baylor (Michael), and Ron Feinberg (Fellini) Directed by L. Q. Jones.

Review: 

I will admit that this film has piqued my curiosity for quite some time, mainly because of its interesting place within science fiction - namely the fact that it is a black comedy in the middle of a decade with plenty of distinct features that has a collection of useful presences for a cult favorite. How many weirdo dystopia movies are there? There may be several of these films, but one cannot deny the irresistible amusement that comes from its depiction of a wasteland - both in material and in its ethics. As one might expect, it is an adaptation of previous material, in this case it is an adaptation of the novella of the same name that was written by Harlan Ellison in 1969. It would soon evolve into a narrative cycle, as Ellison would write further stories in the timeline over several years; for example, Ellison would also write stories that took place before and after the original novella, such as with his graphic novel collection Vic and Blood, but Ellison had apparently written another section that would be collected for a book (called Blood's a Rover), which was in his words in "screenplay form". Jones had ideas to do a follow-up film, one that would take place through the eyes of a woman (named Spike, which incidentally was the same name of the character Ellison used in his follow-up story), but funding issues and the death of the dog hindered any serious thoughts. In 2018, Blood's a Rover was published by Ellison, which collected the stories from before alongside a teleplay that he had written for a failed-to-launch television series. Oh, right, who is Harlan Ellison? To describe Ellison is something I'm sure those who have read his works or heard of his exploits can do better, so the best way to say it is that he was a prolific writer that described his work as "foursquare for chaos." The Cleveland native wrote the gamut when it came to speculative/science fiction that ranged from short stories (over a thousand) to screenplays (for which just one was filmed in The Oscar...no joke) to teleplays (such as "The City on the Edge of Forever", which true to form had Ellison griping upon the changes made for what ended up being one of the best Star Trek episodes of the original series) before his death in 2018. Ellison was favorable to the film, although it was the final line that caused him considerable consternation; the film ends the same way the novella did in its shocking (but darkly humorous) conclusion, with the novella ending on a title reference and the film ending on a spry pun - he called it a "moronic, hateful chauvinist last line, which I despise", although he mellowed slightly over it in later years. Given that Ellison had his share of causing/being involved in contentious disputes that ranged from Texas A&M University to James Cameron, it certainly seems quite amusing to note. 

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that this proved an inspiration to a subsequent dystopian work with Mad Max (1979). This was the second and last film that was directed by L. Q. Jones (who had changed his name from Justus McQueen to the name of the character he played in his first film - Battle Cry), who had directed The Devil's Bedroom (1964). Ellison had started work on the screenplay for the film before having writer's block that resulted him turning it over to Jones (who Ellison described as "fiery" in independence) to write the screenplay, which he would do for over a year. Jones was a character actor in film and television for five decades until his retirement in 2006. He certainly has an interesting foresight when it comes to the future of depraved weirdos, even if it didn't exactly come out with an apocalypse; instead, one will settle with a weird R-rated version of a buddy movie that is certainly not for the faint of heart, where the only thing worse than glowing people in the dark is not having enough to eat or women to have sex with. And that is a good thing, because who needs their dystopian movies to be routine and quiet? I adore irreverent movies that engage for 93 minutes with no easy out answers or effects plays. Our star is Johnson, appearing in his fifth film role. The Missouri native had first done his share of acting within high school in the theater program before doing a spell of study at the University of Kansas and the American Conservatory Theater before getting into work within the theater and film/television. I'm sure most of you folks know that this features Johnson years before he became a household name with Miami Vice (and I would too, since it is on my schedule), but one can't forget the fact that he is quite effective here. He drives the film with dog in tow with good timing, doing so with a craven energy that resonates with the offbeat energy of the movie in a way that would have felt off-kilter with perhaps any other actor. When one needs an actor to play a strange savage that is nevertheless quite watchable, Johnson delivers. McIntire makes up the other part of the duo, and he was cast after hundreds of auditions (with one reported voice in name being James Cagney, but the filmmakers felt he was too recognizable a voice). He was a character actor that had a handful of roles within television and film, although others might recognize his contribution in the music department to films such as this one and Jeremiah Johnson (1972). He and Johnson make for some quality timing when it comes to their time spent together, an unlikely pair in terms of cynicism meeting amorality that make for a different kind of road movie. In other words, he chills the surface in misanthropy that we gravitate to (besides playing a dog, obviously) that makes a diverting time in the not-too distant future of 2024. Benton manipulates her way through with enough flourish to make a worthwhile contrast to the main duo - in a different movie she might have been the scheming focus of a cold underground, but we are talking about a movie that focuses on survival of the nuttiest rather than just survival of the smartest. In that sense, she does well for what is needed in the balance between the duo and the overall underground. Robards makes his extended appearance midway through the movie (in a place where everyone is caked in white makeup), and he handles the proceedings of rural caricature with what you would see from a key presence in cinema as Robards was, where he does not need big speeches or action shots but instead just needs to drive odd moments forward. By the time it gets to the underworld, one is curious to where else can it go in the varying perspectives of folks "surviving" the apocalypse and the craven ways to maintain it. At the end of the day, it proves charming enough in its shock value or those who like movies with irreverence and the guts to follow through all the way in its details to make for a grisly and capable good time, if one has the time, taste, and stomach for its trek into the wasteland.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Once Upon a Time in the West.

Review #1429: Once Upon a Time in the West.

Cast: 
Henry Fonda (Frank), Charles Bronson ("Harmonica"), Claudia Cardinale (Jill McBain), Jason Robards (Manuel "Cheyenne" Gutiérrez), Gabriele Ferzetti (Mr. Morton), Paolo Stoppa (Sam, the Coachman), Marco Zuanelli (Wobbles), Keenan Wynn (the Sheriff of Flagstone), Frank Wolff (Brett McBain), Lionel Stander (The Barman), Woody Strode (Stony, first gunman), Jack Elam (Snaky, second gunman), and Al Mulock (Knuckles, third gunman) Directed by Sergio Leone (#015 - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, #017 - A Fistful of Dollars, and #019 - For a Few Dollars More)

Review: 
"I had never thought of making a western even as I was making it. I think that my films are westerns only in their exterior aspects. Within them are some of my truths, which happily, I see, belong to lots of parts of the world. Not just America. My discussion is one that has gone all the way from Fistful of Dollars through Once Upon a Time in America. But if you look closely at all these films, you find in them the same meanings, the same humor, the same point of view, and, also, the same pains."

Who better to make an epic Western of the last days of the gunfighter than a man well-known for making capable Westerns with their own kind of style and complexity in Sergio Leone? He was the son of a family of film (father Roberto Roberti was a silent actor and director while mother Bice Valerian was an actress), and he worked in filmmaking from an early age as an assistant to directors such as Vittorio de Sica (Bicycle Thieves) to William Wyler (Ben Hur) that were working in Italy, with his second unit work on the latter going un-credited. He also turned his hand at writing, collaborating with others for his first screenplay credit with Slave Women of Corinth (1958, one of numerous sword-and-sandal works). While working on The Last Days of Pompeii (1959), he was asked to help with direction after the director fell ill. Leone would go un-credited for this, but he would subsequently get his chance to direct with The Colossus of Rhodes (1961). It was a fair success, but his next film proved far more memorable with A Fistful of Dollars (1964), the first of a trilogy of Western films with Clint Eastwood as "The Man with No Name" known as the Dollars trilogy. The films were known for their distinctive visual and thematic style in contrast to the Westerns of the time abroad in the United States (with these three being designated as Spaghetti Westerns). Akira Kurosawa felt that it was a fine film, but that it was his film, since it had taken inspiration from his 1961 film Yojimbo. Regardless of this, Leone would be noted for his extreme close-up shots with long shots that made for a worthwhile career that was comprised of seven directed efforts from 1961 to 1984 before his death of a heart attack in 1989.

The film was an Italian-American production, with Leone being coaxed into making a Western by Paramount because they allowed him a fair budget and the one star he always wanted to direct: Henry Fonda, who was convinced to do the film by friend Eli Wallach (stating that he would have the time of his life). Shooting was mixed between Italy, Spain, and America (notably with Rome and Monument Valley), with considerable preparation made by Leone and his writers in constructing a story with ties to American Westerns of the past, such as The Iron Horse (1924) and The Searchers (1956). Leone co-wrote the screenplay with Sergio Donati, while the story was done by him, Dario Argento, and Bernardo Bertlucci (the latter two would become noted directors in their own right). The touches to other films work themselves out nicely where a lesser film would've seemed too slavish to the past with no ambition forward. The film runs at 166 minutes, although it was changed for American release by cutting twenty minutes (conversely, it was a flop here while a hit abroad). What a marvelous film this is. This is a grand Western to potentially end all Westerns for its era, one with its own vision about the Old West and a pondering nature and scope to back it up with class. Longtime collaborator and famed Italian composer and orchestrator Ennio Morricone is especially important to making this a beauty to listen to, with such distinct and devastating power that reaches for the soul like an opera. The interesting thing is that the music was actually done before shooting started, and Leone would play the music in the background for the actors on set. It takes time to set itself up with its core four of focus, but once it starts rolling down the hill with tension, it never seems to stop in making gritty poetry with somberness to make a revenge story with contemplation over the past and future of the Old West sweep through with the blaze of a railroad engine.

Fonda, generally known for appealing roles over the prevailing four decades, is exactly on point in conviction for such a ruthless lead role, with no ham or any other tricks needed; Leone liked Fonda's blue eyes to reflect his cold character (as opposed to Fonda utilizing contact lenses and a mustache), which would prove quite a shock upon his first appearance on screen with those striking eyes. It should make sense to see Bronson here in a Leone film, since he had rejected the chance to appear in the first film of the Dollars trilogy. Now, with Clint Eastwood rejecting this role for fear of typecasting, it fell to Bronson, who makes the best of it with a hardened stance that invites one in to curiosity that simmers without needing to say (or play the harmonica) much, which proves particularly true for the showdown in the end, a masterful climax to show Fonda and Bronson face each other with skill (after the latter helps the former escape betrayal from within, an interesting scene in of itself). Cardinale, a Italian Tunisian of numerous Italian, French and American productions, shows inner strength and passion that drives the film well, whether when dealing with moving the West forward or a brusque Fonda. Robards (a man of film, television and stage that could do historical roles as well as common ones) rounds the cast out with rough charm and a few zinging moments that make for a colorful rogue to the end. Ferzetti makes for a restrained but welcome presence that encircles the ranging conflicts of greed and lust. In the end, it all proves worth a viewing as a lasting achievement for the Western that utilizes a dynamic cast and music to go with somber tone and pacing for one grand adventure worth the time to view in all of its gritty glory.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre.

Review #1425: The St. Valentine's Day Massacre.

Cast: 
Jason Robards (Al Capone), George Segal (Peter Gusenberg), Ralph Meeker (George "Bugs" Moran), Jean Hale (Myrtle), Jan Merlin (Willie Marks), Clint Ritchie (Machine Gun Jack McGurn), David Canary (Frank Gusenberg), Harold J. Stone (Frank Nitti), Frank Silvera (Nick Sorello), Joseph Campanella (Albert Wienshank), Richard Bakalyan (John Scalise), Charles Dierkop (Salvanti), John Agar (Dion O'Bannion), Joseph Turkel (Jake Gusik), Bruce Dern (Johnny May), and Paul Frees (Narrator) Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, and #1423 - The Wild Angels)

Review: 
"There comes a time when the public conscience needs jolting and in St Valentine's Day Massacre this is our intention. It is also certain that the movie will make money - crime is always box office."

As one would say, give people what they want and they will come see it in theaters. One can talk for ages about the ways that Roger Corman has served film well in making them fast, cheap and generally good that have served him well in a long-lasting career as producer and director. This is an unusual film in his lineup because of his collaboration with a major studio in 20th Century Fox, as opposed to his usual independent filmmaking. He had expressed an interest with making a film with a major studio, and he attracted the attention of Columbia Pictures. Cracks seemed to form almost immediately, as his submitted ideas (a biopic of Baron Von Ritchhofen, this film, and an adaptation of Only Lovers Left Alive) were considered too strange while their ideas seemed too ordinary to him, with Corman believing in giving the audience "something a little more complex artistically and intellectually. To show something you can't see on TV leads inevitably to unusual material." Perhaps predictably, he would never end up making a film for Columbia, leaving the production of A Time for Killing (1967) early on. However, he would be granted a chance with Fox, since I suppose one can't resist the urge to do business with a proven director for fast and effective moneymakers, with this being a particularly interesting year for evolving tastes (the first coming to mind being Bonnie and Clyde).

Corman would have to modify certain aspects of his plan to make the film with the studio, however. For one thing, he wanted Orson Welles to play the lead role with Robards as the character of Moran. However Fox felt that he was undirectable and could potentially try to take rein of the director's chair from Corman. Ideas to film in Chicago were soon shifted to the Fox backlot, and Corman even re-used sets from other movies. While given seven weeks and $2.5 million to make a film, he felt most comfortable with tighter budgets, although he generally felt more comfortable as producer than directing, with this being the sixth-to-last film that he directed. He strived to make an authentic and accurate gangster film, right down to the climax and having the bodies lie where they fell in the original crime photos. The portrayal of Capone by Robards was the third in a feature film (after the first by Rod Steiger in the eponymously titled film in 1959, which also had The Untouchables premiere on TV), and Corman would return to the subject as producer for Capone (1975). In that matter, this is a decent ensemble piece with careful plotting that shows its criminal underside without trouble to make a 100 minute tale resonate with a bit of shock value. It isn't one of Corman's greatest achievements, but it at least one with ambition and the tools to try and make things work out with its buildup to the massacre with gradual use of Frees as narrator to describe the characters and their actions. Robards and Meeker stand out the most in the cast. Although it might have proved more fruitful to have had Welles in the title role, Robards makes the most of it with scene-chewery that makes for well-seen bluster whenever the time is needed to raise voice. Meeker contrasts this with his own type of conniving spirit of conviction, while Segal, Stone and the others follow along in making for some interesting unsavory people to look at for a time that doesn't lead one to want some sort of authority opposition or some sort of comic relief. On the whole, this is a decent little movie from Roger Corman in something a bit different from his usual tactics of filmmaking that still retains his usual drive to make quality entertainment that lives up as a decent gem for its era.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Raise the Titanic.

Review #1195: Raise the Titanic.

Cast: 
Jason Robards (Admiral James Sandecker), Richard Jordan (Dirk Pitt), David Selby (Dr. Gene Seagram), Anne Archer (Dana Archibald), Alec Guinness (John Bigalow), Bo Brundin (Captain Andre Prevlov), M. Emmet Walsh (Master Chief Vinnie Walker), J.D. Cannon (Captain Joe Burke), and Norman Bartold (Admiral Kemper) Directed by Jerry Jameson.

Review: 
What film can best be summed up by a quote from its producer other than this one: "It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic." With a budget of over $40 million (which would be roughly over $120 million in 2019) and an ultimate box office finish of $7 million, this was another of Lord Lew Grade's failures for the year of 1980, where production overruns and story re-writes doomed a film to fail beyond belief. The film is based off the novel Raise the Titanic! (1976) by Clive Cussler, the third book in his series of adventure books involving the character Dirk Pitt, for which he has currently written 24 of since 1973. Grade saw potential in Cussler's books to adapt to film and make a series much like with the James Bond films. The intent was to have Stanley Kramer as director, although he quit as pre-production began due to creative differences, with the brunt of the budget's spiraling being due to making models (alongside re-writes for the script); a fifty foot scale model was built for the climatic raising of the ship that required a 10 million-gallon tank to accompany its size. Larry McMurtry (writer of novels such as The Last Picture Show and Lonesome Dove) claimed to have worked on the screenplay alongside sixteen other writers, although he was the only one who did not petition for writing credit, although the final credits list Eric Hughes for story and the screenplay credit for Adam Kennedy.

As ridiculous as it may sound, the idea of making an adventure film set around raising the Titanic could have had potential, albeit one that would have to rely on charm and effects instead of tight logic to really work. Keep in mind, the Titanic was not proven to have been broken up into two pieces (as opposed to the theory that it simply sunk intact) until 1985. Unfortunately, the final product is not particularly interesting to watch, managing to squander its premise with plenty of padding surrounded by one pure highlight. Jordan doesn't spring too much interest as the main hero, perhaps in part because there really is nothing for him to go on in terms of personality. I suppose him and Selby are supposed to be an interesting pair to see interact and bicker with, too bad they don't really click well. Robards is okay. The actors besides him really seem to just say the lines very mildly. Honestly, the only one who seems interesting is Guinness, playing a survivor of the Titanic who exists just to say exposition about the mysterious person who just happened to put the "byzanium" in a vault before the ship sank. He's in the film for one scene, looking perfectly like someone waiting to cash a check, but at least it means he isn't stuck in the feature for very long. Archer has slightly more screen-time, yet her character (and her motivations for being in the plot) fade halfway through the film. There isn't even a real villain worth mentioning, and the only real menace in the entire film is boredom over the water scenes, which don't really give the film much in terms of spectacle for 114 minutes of run-time.

Comparing it to Grade's other boondoggle in Saturn 3 is amusing, since both films have such strange differences yet still manage to both be ridiculous in their own ways due to their cast, story and use of effects. In this regard, the earlier film is somehow a bit better, perhaps because it doesn't feel so long. Undeniably, the only shining part of the film is composer John Barry (known for his work on Born Free and the James Bond films) and his score, which is entertainingly majestic, fitting quite well for the film, particularly when dealing with the climatic raising. In a less flawed film (i.e. one that works better), the scene of the Titanic rising the depths would prove to make the film ultimately feel worth it, as it is a nice sequence even after over three decades since its release. Understandably, Cussler was not happy with the results of the film, saying that they had turned the plot into a hollow shell of the original along with not liking the cast. He refused to give permission for any more film adaptations of his books, with the only other film adaptation of his books in Sahara (2005) also being a tremendous failure with audiences. In any case, this is a strangely terrible flick, being occasionally watchable but also being something that doesn't quite elevate itself to serviceable entertainment, unless one likes to watch an adventure film sink itself.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Bright Lights, Big City.

Review #1034: Bright Lights, Big City.

Cast: 
Michael J. Fox (Jamie Conway), Kiefer Sutherland (Tad Allagash), Phoebe Cates (Amanda Conway), Swoosie Kurtz (Megan), Frances Sternhagen (Clara Tillinghast), Tracy Pollan (Vicky Allagash), John Houseman (Mr. Vogel), Charlie Schlatter (Michael), David Warrilow (Rittenhouse), Dianne Wiest (Mrs. Conway), and Jason Robards (Mr. Hardy) Directed by James Bridges.

Review: 
Based on the novel of the same name by Jay McInerney, Bright Lights, Big City is a movie that seems to want to bask in going for the bottom with desperation and ambition mixed in with a film that can't exactly get itself all the way to the finish line. It's not a big disappointment, but it isn't anything too special, and part of that is likely due to the film's structure. It feel a bit aimless at times, and the fact that there isn't much energy in the cast doesn't help the movie grow. Fox is the main grab for the film, and its quality may very well depend on how you view his performance. For me, it's hard to not like Fox, but I don't think I can really say that he sells this performance as someone disillusioned enough with events in his life to turn to certain substances. At the very least, the movie isn't a Saturday school special kind of film with some sort of overbearing message, but it also isn't the kind of film that seems to show much passion for what it aims for.

The film seems to never really get itself down to some sort of rock bottom with its main character, nor does it ever become a movie with anything to tie itself together. It goes all over the place, from scenes with his job to scenes with his wife to scenes with his "party friends" to scenes with a potential love interest, and none of it ever really seems to click with enough energy. Sutherland does a decent job as the friend to all of this mania with substances with his own kind of responses, but I wonder if the film might've worked better if Fox and Sutherland had switched roles. Cates' role doesn't really seem to have much substance, minus the parts that exposits about her from dialogue, so it really isn't fair to say that she doesn't do a good job due to what it given to her. The rest of the cast isn't terrible, but they certainly don't give the movie much meat to work with. Robards stands out in his brief time on screen due to the way he towers over Fox in both mannerisms and demeanor. It isn't a boring movie, but I can't say it is a meaningful film, and that likely goes down to the dialogue, which seems to feel flaky at times, edging the lines between seriousness and cheese. There is some fine music in the movie (such as "Pump Up the Volume" by M|A|R|R|S), and I will say that the film does have a decent look to it, but that can't carry the movie to success. I can't imagine how the novel dealt with its subject matter, although it is interesting to note that the novel was written from the second person point of view (with the first line of the film being the first line of the book). On the whole, this is a movie with a fuzzy look on the dark side of nightlife in the fast lane of New York that is mildly entertaining to watch, but it just can't work itself to be a drama with much substance to be a clear winner.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid.

Review #944: Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid.

Cast:
James Coburn (Sheriff Pat Garrett), Kris Kristofferson (Billy the Kid), Bob Dylan (Alias), Richard Jaeckel (Sheriff Kip McKinney), Katy Jurado (Mrs. Baker), Chill Wills (Lemuel), Barry Sullivan (Chisum), Jason Robards (Governor Lew Wallace), R.G. Armstrong (Deputy Sheriff Bob Ollinger), Luke Askew (Eno), John Beck (John W. Poe), Richard Bright (Holly), Matt Clark (Deputy Sheriff J. W. Bell), Rita Coolidge (Maria), Jack Dodson (Lewellen Howland), Jack Elam (Alamosa Bill Kermit), Emilio Fernández (Paco), Aurora Clavel (Ida Garrett), Paul Fix (Pete Maxwell), L.Q. Jones (Black Harris), and Slim Pickens (Sheriff Colin Baker) Directed by Sam Peckinpah (#590 - Ride the High Country and #591 - The Wild Bunch)

Review:
It is easy to say that this is a movie that does not skew for morality within its main characters, who seem to have interesting chemistry with each other. Not only is it a Western, it also serves as a sort of tragedy, where former friends are now pitted against each other. This is a bittersweet movie, filled with grit and action that make for a movie that can be rewarding if one has the patience for it. Everywhere you look in this film has a raw connection in someway to violence, where even lawmen are not so different from the outlaw that they hunt down; this is a bitter film, but it is also a film that accomplishes in expressing the nature of what the Old West looked and felt. Watching this movie feels like a eulogy for the times and myths that have gone by, and while the movie may drag itself under its own weight at points, it definitely hits more than it misses.

Coburn and Kristofferson are a fine tandem when on screen together, with the former having a reliable cool nature and the latter having a good amount of charm to him; right from the first scene they just seem to have an easy connection, where it doesn't look like we need a dump of exposition in order to set the stage. Dylan (who also contributed to the music) plays a strange cipher of a character (being more of an observer than a participant in the bloodshed going on), but he definitely is noteworthy to watch, even when he is reading food cans on the shelf. The music in the movie is pretty effective with the tone of the movie, with "Knockin' On Heaven's Door" being a key highlight. The rest of the cast (some who make only brief appearances) are pretty effective, managing to serve the film well when needed. The opening of the film (in the special edition and Peckinpah's cut, but more on this later) where Garrett's death and the shooting of chickens by Billy and his gang intersplice with each other is quite interesting, having a strange violent beauty to it. This was filmed in the Mexican state of Durango (in part due to conflicts with MGM), and the sets contribute into making this a visual achievement; it's not so much that the Old West is glorified, but it definitely becomes a character in a movie that isn't above myths and showing the clash of the times, where freedom and safety (within profit) interact violently. There is a spirit to this movie that is unyielding in its passion, and it definitely works even after over forty years.

This was a movie that went through production turmoil, which resulted in Peckinpah's version not being seen for years due to conflicts with MGM (and more importantly James Aubrey, President of the company at the time) over budgeting and scheduling. After the film finished 21 days behind schedule and more than a million dollars over budget, Aubrey had the film cut from a preview version of 124 minutes to 106 minutes with numerous scenes cut (including the beginning scene) and six editors being credited (this edition was disowned by cast and crew). In 1988 (four years after Peckinpah's death), a preview version of the film was released by Turner Home Entertainment, which lasts 122 minutes. In 2005, Warner Bros released a special edition version, which incorporates elements of the two movies along with additional scenes, which lasts 115 minutes. In any case, the movie has gained a new status among respective audiences, in large part due to the versions that have come out in the past few years.

On the whole, what more is there to say? Watch the film in the right state of mind, and you may very well have a good time with a film that has only become a mistreated classic in the years following its original release. Is it for everyone? No, but it definitely has its own kind of appeal that outweigh nearly everything else.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Julius Caesar (1970).

Review #367: Julius Caesar.

Cast
Charlton Heston (Mark Antony), Jason Robards (Brutus), John Gielgud (Julius Caesar), Richard Johnson (Cassius), Robert Vaughn (Casca), Richard Chamberlain (Octavius), Diana Rigg (Portia), Jill Bennett (Calpurnia), and Christopher Lee (Artemidorus) Directed by Stuart Burge.

Review
Well, well, I'm reviewing a movie based on a play by William Shakespeare, and it's been a while since I've done that (#103 - Romeo + Juliet, unless you count #229 - She's the Man, but even that was just a revised version), but there is the benefit of the star power, who've managed to be reviewed in films here, examples being: Planet of the Apes, Arthur, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, any of Christopher Lee's films, etc. (Seriously, this is the tenth time he has been listed, and he is listed here due to his small but significant part in the film.) But nevertheless, does that mean that there is a good film in all of that? In some ways yes, but in others, no. Heston does a good job, commandeering a relatively good performance, probably the best here. Gielgud does alright, even if his part is ironically small (It's not like his character is the title of the film or anything), but oh well, and Richard Johnson does a decent job, even if he is another example of having a beard equaling being evil. The supporting cast (Such as Rigg, Vaughn and even Lee) do okay, not having much time to act but adding on nicely. Then there's the acting performance that apparently some are split on, Jason Robards as our de facto lead. His performance has been called "flat" and "wooden", I prefer to use "miscast". He just looks a bit old for the part, given the grey hair, which even Johnson doesn't have. Besides that, the battle sequences are alright and the sets do look like there was effort put into it, but in the end not everything connects perfectly, despite the movie being a decent adaptation of the play. Take it for what its worth, which may or may not end with "Et tu, Brute?". Ironically, the only reason I watched this was due to my teacher selecting this to be shown to our English class.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.