Independence Day: Resurgence.

Review #2556: Independence Day: Resurgence.

Cast: 

Liam Hemsworth (Jake Morrison), Jeff Goldblum (David Levinson), Bill Pullman (President Thomas J. Whitmore), Maika Monroe (Patricia Whitmore), Jessie T. Usher (Dylan Hiller), Travis Tope (Charlie Miller), William Fichtner (General Joshua T. Adams), Charlotte Gainsbourg (Dr. Catherine Marceaux), Judd Hirsch (Julius Levinson), Brent Spiner (Dr. Brackish Okun), Sela Ward (President Elizabeth Lanford), Angelababy (Rain Lao), with Joey King (Sam Blackwell), Vivica A. Fox (Dr. Jasmine Dubrow-Hiller), Robert Loggia (General William Grey), Nicolas Wright (Floyd Rosenberg), DeObia Oparei (Dikembe Umbutu), and Chin Han (Jiang Lao)

Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day, #413 - The Patriot, #2161 - Godzilla [1998])

Review: 

Hey, remember Independence Day? Apparently, the impetus for the original film was a question posed to Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin when they were promoting Stargate (1994) about believing in aliens building the pyramids that saw them ask, well, what if there were "14-mile-wide spaceships covering the sky?" Sure, Mars Attacks! (1996) loomed on the calendar, but Emmerich and Devlin aimed to make their movie anyway, which saw them basically write (in three weeks) a disaster movie akin to the 70s disaster flicks such as The Towering Inferno (1974) and Meteor (1979). When it came out in July 1996 to plenty of hype and fanfare, it actually was the highest-grossing film of that year (beating out poor Mars Attacks!. which sucks because that movie was probably better in actual quality). Cool, now do you remember Independence Day: Resurgence? As early as 2001, Emmerich and Devlin thought about doing a sequel, but they had curtailed those plans the first time in 2004 because they couldn't figure out the story. By 2011, there were rumblings again about doing not one, but two sequels. Through re-writes and various drafts (mainly because of the omission of one certain actor before filming), four people were credited with the story: Emmerich, Devlin, James A. Woods, and Nicolas Wright, while James Vanderbilt was credited along with the four for the screenplay. Made on a budget of $165 million and released in June 2016, the movie was not a major hit for anyone involved, with Emmerich and Devlin both stating that there was little chance of doing a third film.

Is it a quality defense when the director says he should've stopped making the movie? As early as 2019, three years after the release of Resurgence, Emmerich stated, yes, he "should have just said no" once Will Smith wasn't going to be in the film, which happened as a result of scheduling and salary demands. It is almost amazing to have five total writers and have little to nothing come out of the characters to actually root for beyond "the bare minimum". As I remember, the characters in the original were basically cardboard, but you could at least say there was a sense of interest in seeing what was under the curtain for a surprise (which in this case was, are you shocked, alien stuff in "Area 51" and a computer virus to start the process of telling the aliens to permanently go to sleep). Corny as the movie was, you at least felt there was some semblance of dignity in depicting folks all coming together (on the 4th of July you see) and being ready to kick ass (okay, maybe non-Americans didn't go ra-ra for it, but well, "Murica, baby!"). Twenty years later, with the presentation of "world peace" and a space defense program with alien technology....there is just a weird feeling that one is watching a film with nowhere to actually go. You see the designs of the (reverse-engineered) tech and a spiffier Washington and you wonder if they really thought people would be fine looking at something that reminded them of a video game cutscene. The aliens still look at forgettable as ever, and the Sphere (the "virtual intelligence") reminds me of someone trying to make a smaller version of Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). 

The attempt at mixing in people from the original (ranging from Goldblum/Pullman/Hirsch/Spiner to basically cameos from Fox and Loggia*) with a new generation (Hemsworth, Monroe, Usher, and to a lesser extent, Topo and Angelababy) that each have had their lives shaped by one horrific week all leads to the least compelling and least interesting drama imaginable. This film feels ten years too late to actually say anything of note (once you destroy the White House, what is there left to move around for the sequel), so it instead just aims to be paid half-attention to by people on their phones. I probably care less for Goldblum than I did in the last film, and that's saying something for what was basically a wannabee Dr. Ian Malcolm in the first place, even with the addition of Gainsbourg (who ...is given nothing to do). Hemsworth and Usher might actually be competing for who achieves less with less: what the hell was Smith going to do in this film that changed the script so much to basically focus on the youth (meanwhile, Monroe, cast to replace Mae Whitman from the original, is given, wait for it, nothing to do). I can't tell who has the more unceremonious exit: Fox, who can't get off a falling building in time (after getting, what, 4 lines?) or Ward (as Madame President) goes the way of the dodo in a murky-looking scene. Probably the only people who look like they like having some work is Pullman or Spiner, and that sure says something when the latter has a scene where they gallivant around a bit in a barely contained hospital gown*. You get a few chuckles beneath basically a boring movie. For a movie that is two hours long (25 minutes shorter than the original, in one of the stranger cases when a sequel is shorter), it always seems to be two steps behind in actually going anywhere: it dangles an idea that some African war lord spent ten years fighting aliens in hand-to-hand combat, but his son is given the job of being the straight man to a middling subplot about a nerd wanting to get into combat. Hive minds and "Harvesters" and drilling to the Earth's core (with a timer) while buildings get thrown around just seems like a movie that either was postmarked "2006" or simply didn't have enthusiasm to actually make it worth looking further.  It just reeks of trying to make a franchise without actually focusing on spectacle and believing they had enough in the tank to bait people into hearing more, complete with an ending that sequel baits with probably the least amount of conviction possible. If the original film was "dumb fun" that the viewer either enjoyed or disliked with the clear flaws (dialogue, design, general Emmerich weaknesses), the sequel film manages the honor of just being dumb with middling return value for all involved. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Happy 4th...

*Loggia died on December 4, 2015, six months before the film was released. At least he was cool in the first film.

*Okay, so Spiner's character is apparently gay and spends most of the action with his partner, who I guess loved giving out flowers in the hospital ward for years. Honestly, I forgot if they were partners before 1996 or if this guy just fell for a dude in a coma that had long hair.

Between the Lines.

Review #1988: Between the Lines.

Cast: 

John Heard (Harry Lucas), Lindsay Crouse (Abbie), Jeff Goldblum (Max Arloft), Jill Eikenberry (Lynn), Bruno Kirby (David Entwhistle), Gwen Welles (Laura), Stephen Collins (Michael), Lewis J. Stadlen (Stanley), Jon Korkes (Frank), Michael J. Pollard (The Hawker), Lane Smith (Roy Walsh), Joe Morton (Ahmed), and Marilu Henner (Danielle) Directed by Joan Micklin Silver (#1818 - Hester Street)

Review: 

Admittedly, if you want to follow up a sleeper hit that was thought to be too "ethnic" from big studios, I suppose an ensemble piece with up-and-coming actors is not the oddest thing to come up with. As with her last effort in Hester Street (1975), Raphael D. Silver served as producer. The film was written by Fred Barron and David M. Helpern Jr. Barron had written for the Boston Phoenix, an alternative weekly periodical and he used his experiences there to help shape the script (incidentally, Silver had worked for the Village Voice before becoming a director. This was the second of a total of seven theatrical films that Silver directed. The cast might be the most standout quality in terms of the sheer rise that came from some of them: this was the debut for Heard, Eikenberry, and Morton, who each had started in stage and television before this film, while Goldblum had made his debut in film only three years prior while Crouse was fresh off supporting roles in All the President's Men (1976) and Slap Shot (1977). Perhaps fitting the tone of the film is the inclusion of Welles, who earlier had a supporting role in Nashville (1976). The film was shot and set in Boston.

The movie has a picturesque style of trying to show a look at a time that was within a bare plot composed of episodic pace and an attempt at forming an interesting ensemble. I just wish it was a better movie to sit through for 101 minutes, because it is an experience that seems hopelessly stuck between wistful reminiscences of a time long ago and mildly interesting humor without ever sticking to one main plot. It lingers in episodic format without making a stand for itself beyond trying to ride with mildly likeable people (except for one glaring case) that has a last act that feels like it should have been firmly in the middle. Look, you don't need much to go on about the dangers of big business in little papers, but the bare minimum is meant to be doubly excelled, not barely cleared. Heard makes for a mostly capable lead in frustration and drive. His on-again, off-again dynamic with Crouse is at least entertaining to try and hold a film longer than the other ideas presented, if only because one would like to see more when presented with someone loaded in talent that could use her as just an excuse to not write. You can already see how Goldblum became a curious presence in film here, since he practically gobbles the attention right out from under folks, one that sees him act like a flake in mostly satisfying ways that might as well be a predecessor to his role in The Big Chill (1983); I especially like a scene where he talks with a performance artist with accompanying acts of "art". Kirby makes a suitable middleman in terms of wistful charm in the foreground. Korkes makes an okay beleaguered head to the process. It should only figure the one actor who is the most loathsome in terms of who they became in later life has the least interesting performance. Collins is simply not fun to watch, seemingly trying to bring humor in self-involved author crap that is bland and easily skippable when contrasted with literally anyone on screen. Whether intended as a caricature of writers who want to write the "great American novel" or not, he doesn't do anything worth mentioning positively. Hell, Pollard is playing a cliche with the newspaper salesman on the street, and he runs circles around him when it comes to general charm because one finds Pollard endearing in the foreground and background in those moments, while Stadlen is at least meant to be a foil in his advertising shill persona. Smith only shows up in the last couple of scenes as the prospective buyer of the news station that clearly means big changes...and since the movie ends quickly after that, his impact is diminished despite the fact that he makes an imposing figure. I mean, sure, make an argument all you want about the creeping danger of big business onto papers that supposedly tap into the city, but don't just latch it in late (putting "rumors of a big buy" through the film doesn't cut it). The presentation of contrasts between Heard-Crouse and Collins-Welles would be interesting if the latter didn't end with a completely lame resolution to the latter that is less a case of "human decision-making" and more just a lazy way to throw things together. As a whole, what I like about the movie is the occasional amusing moments that come within trying to make a living in newspapers with a place now resigned to being a middle-ground on the way up or down for people, one that has some ideas wishing to flow for a stronger experience. The loss of innocence within a newspaper that sees its ambition squashed would make an intriguing tragedy, but here one finds a movie that can barely hold the jockstrap of Park Row (1952) It might be an interesting time capsule for a time long past in terms of newspaper media being more than just the option used for people who don't like reading a phone screen, and that is probably the best compliment one could make. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Cléo from 5 to 7 (1962)

The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

Review #1843: The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

Cast: 

Jeff Goldblum (Dr. Ian Malcolm), Julianne Moore (Dr. Sarah Harding), Pete Postlethwaite (Roland Tembo), Arliss Howard (Peter Ludlow), Richard Attenborough (Dr. John Hammond), Vince Vaughn (Nick Van Owen), Vanessa Lee Chester (Kelly Curtis), Peter Stormare (Dieter Stark), Harvey Jason (Ajay Sidhu), Richard Schiff (Eddie Carr), and Thomas F. Duffy (Dr. Robert Burke) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence, #1560 - The Adventures of Tintin)

Review: 

"I beat myself up... growing more and more impatient with myself... It made me wistful about doing a talking picture, because sometimes I got the feeling I was just making this big silent-roar movie... I found myself saying, 'Is that all there is? It's not enough for me."

If one remembers correctly, Jurassic Park as both novel and film was major success. The book, published in 1990, was the seventeenth novel written by Michael Crichton, who also tried his hand at directing and writing films from time to time (most notably with Westworld (1973). He had developed the novel for a number of years from a graduate student recreating a dinosaur to wildlife park of extinct animals because of the expense of genetic research. Crichton, who had first met Spielberg when the latter was tasked to show him around the lot of Universal Studios in the late 1970s, would be the director for the film adaptation (at the time, it was the seventh adaptation of a Crichton novel), as Crichton told Spielberg about the novel a year before its publication. When it came time for the film adaptation, Crichton slimmed down the large contents of the novel to about a fraction for the script that he wrote for the film (with later writing by David Koepp). The book was such a success that fans asked Crichton to develop a sequel, which only ramped up with the success of the film. The Lost World (named after the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel of the same name) was released one year later by Crichton, and development for a film adaptation started not long after by Spielberg (Crichton did not have involvement with this or any other Jurassic Park movies). The plot between the book and film differs in some ways, as a cursory view of the summary states that the book features the character of Ian Malcolm going a rescue mission to retrieve a paleontologist in "Site B" with five others (that includes two stowaway children as research assistants), as opposed to being a reluctant participant to retrieve his significant other already on the island there to "document the dinosaurs" (the film Hammond is considerably different from the book anyway). It was the only sequel book that Crichton ever wrote, although it did not stop the eventual development of a third Jurassic Park film, which was released in 2001 with ideas and characters from the first novel incorporated into it. 

Technology is a curious thing, with Crichton once describing it as a "manifestation of how we think." Dennis Muren, Stan Winston, Phil Tippett and Michael Lantieri had won Academy Awards for their work in visual effects for the first film, and all but Tippett returned to provide effects. Koepp would also write the screenplay for this film, which he did by himself. Adventures are really, really tough to do again and again. Hell, one should have seen this coming because of how it went for Spielberg the first time he did a sequel to one of his films: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984). Think about it: both movies are darker than the original film while also having different cast members with the exception of one (no, Attenborough being there doesn't count since he basically cameos for two scenes). Spielberg himself felt that the reason sequels like the one he made here weren't as good was because of his overconfidence (where one feels since the original did so well, this would be a slam dunk), for which he decided to take his hands off ever doing another Jurassic Park film; at the last minute, he decided to change the ending to include a dinosaur rampage on San Diego, which he planned to save for a third film before realizing he would probably not do a third film. Of course, we are dealing with a movie that has characters that know they are going to an island of dinosaurs, so that also changes the tone a bit for a film long at 129 minutes that features "hunters and gatherers". Technically, it does excel well as a monster movie, since it rolls along with the cliches and execution of a horror movie, complete with characters that have the intelligence size of some random guy you see on the street trying to juggle blindfolded while crossing the street; in other words, it has the thought process of a B-movie that should know a bit better. At least one knows what they are getting into early, since the first scene features a little girl stumbling onto chicken-sized dinosaurs that like the taste of meat that attack her (off-screen). I didn't hate the movie, because I certainly tolerated the long and winding road (read: a road one inch thick) in trying to make adventure that at least gets to a fraction of The Lost World (1925), which it does after dawdling for a time. It's a nice-looking movie with a jagged edge of humor for setting up terror at times, but being an average Spielberg movie is probably more disappointing to view than just watching an average B-movie. 

The strangest thing is that the most interesting actor in the film is one who doesn't even show up for the beginning or its climax: Postlethwaite is the most convincing of the group because one really does believe he is just a guy who wants to be on an island with dinosaurs for the ultimate hunt, one with the most dignity and conviction without becoming a complete caricature in long-winded speeches, which means one kind of would have rather had him as a focus or at least stay a bit into the climax rather than shuttling off (hey, a movie about people trying to get their kicks by hunting dinosaurs can't be that silly). Don't get me wrong, Goldblum is an adequate lead, one who retains his cynicism from before that is interesting before he gets pegged into less chaotic fare with Moore and Chester that makes him not exactly as compelling to view from before, if only because he seems more seeped into the labeling crowd; in other words, he has become a bit ordinary. Moore can only go as far as the script goes with a character that seems scribbled together with minimal things to really do besides making one wonder why the "gatherer" characters seem less suitable than the "hunter" characters to root for. Vaughn is okay here, but the fact that the film helped gain him a bit more exposure on a path to more interesting projects is at least somewhat comforting. Honestly, it is surprising that Chester is the one "kid character" here, because the two kids from the original (Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards) appear in a cameo that seems to remind me that their adolescent story worked far better than sequences with Chester and Goldblum trying to play (family) house, which seems corny more than anything. Howard homes in the arrogance expected of the role with decent edge, but the only real selling point is obvious: seeing someone get their just desserts, because heaven knows he might be the only prominent cast member to face true danger. It might be a darker movie than the first film, but it doesn't quite capture much of the same magic that came before it, with its monster mash chase sequences only pushing the film barely over the finish line beyond just being a really expensive B-movie that has to fill some obligations. I did like what I saw from the San Diego scene at the end, even if it was more inevitable in execution more than anything. As a whole, if one wants a few nice effects and an okay story, this would be just fine in the cornucopia of movies that only reach its grasp 70% of the time, which is still better than reaching it only 60% of the time. As a movie that is now 25 years old, perhaps it will age gracefully for the curious who seek it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Fly (1986).

Review #1712: The Fly.

Cast: 

Jeff Goldblum (Seth Brundle), Geena Davis (Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife), John Getz (Stathis Borans), Joy Boushel (Tawny), Leslie Carlson (Dr. Brent Cheevers), George Chuvalo (Marky), and David Cronenberg (Gynecologist) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, and #1624 - Shivers)

Review: 

If you remember correctly, The Fly originally came from a short story, which had been written by George Langelaan in 1957. A film followed a year later that starred David Hedison, Patricia Owens, Vincent Price, and Herbert Marshall. The idea for what became this film started with producer Kip Ohman, who thought of the idea to make a remake and have Charles Edward Pogue write it - Stuart Cornfield (who had served as a producer on The Elephant Man) liked the idea; Pogue elected to take a different path from making a straight remake, going for evolution rather than an instant transformation. 20th Century Fox (the company behind the production and distribution of the original along with distributer of the two subsequent sequels) did not show great favor to the script that came out, but Pogue made an agreement that they would distribute the film if another source of financing was found - enter Mel Brooks and his company Brooksfilms, who if you remember correctly had produced films such as The Elephant Man (of course Brooks would also not have his name credited in this film either, aiming to not lead audiences into thinking it was a comedy). Pogue would go from being removed from the project to brought back when Walon Green's rewrites failed to impress. Robert Bierman was the choice to direct, but a family tragedy put a damper on that plan. Cronenberg (the original director in mind) was brought in to direct after his attempts at making Total Recall came and went. The differences between the scripts by Pogue and Cronenburg are considerable without being completely different: in the original script, it featured a married scientist working on a project with two employers that is on the verge of losing its funding before he uses the teleportation device on himself (the climax involves him killing the greedy employer by vomiting and feeding on him before he destroys the teleporter along with himself). Cronenberg would modify the dialogue alongside morphing the two entrepreneurs into the one ultimately played by Getz while keeping aspects of the transformation intact (with an intent on making the film as an analogy for disease such as cancer or the aging process); both Cronenberg and Pogue would receive credit for the script, as per the insistence of Cronenberg.

It is a grand thing to say that a film is better than the original. And yet, here we are with a movie that readily improves on what was already a fairly watchable sci-fi movie with the 1958 original with something quite spectacular in its great tragedy of romance and folly. It serves as a great achievement for all parties in surpassing what had been done before without becoming a shell of corporate dealing, succeeding from Cronenberg to Goldblum all the way down. It is disturbing yet emotional in a way that reaches beyond the usual expectation from horror. In other words, it is a grand body horror film that has plenty of depth from a director who knows where to go to make it more than just a movie for gross-out ghoulishness. Perhaps it was a coincidence to cast Goldblum, who was already part of a remake that  is perceived to be better than the original with Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978). There were a plethora of actors considered for the role that ranged from Richard Dreyfuss to John Lithgow (who thought it was too grotesque), but Goldblum ended up being the one cast (having slowly become cast as the lead after a bunch of supporting roles). He is exactly the man required for the role, filled with confidence and curiosity that never seems to waver when the makeup starts to show; even when he starts to go around the bar and chase folks around, he still manages to evoke interest that never seems like blatant pity-play. Davis matches well with him in sensibility, having useful chemistry with Goldblum that inspires curiosity for someone who has to act within romance and horror that at one point involves reacting to an ear falling off - she has to match his eccentricity without just coasting along, and that works out well. For a film that really has just three main characters, Getz does well with not falling behind the main group, a welcome coarse contrast that isn't utilized merely as some sort of evil establishment yuppie (especially with the climax, which is masterful). 

Goldblum is the talent needed for the film, but one knows that when the effects come into play, they shine just as well as they should without burying the actor. Chris Walas (and his crew, which is why the credit lists "Chris Walas, Inc") was behind the design while the makeup art was done by Stephan Dupuis. The designs and constructions all had to be done in the span of three months to execute for its various stages. It is a delight for effects, grotesque but perfectly fitting for what is needed in depicting the troubles of aging and disease. Of course, not every effect got into the movie, with one scene involving a baboon and cat being fused together that ended up being on the cutting floor because...yeah, I think you know how that can alter one's perspective (incidentally, that scene was also in Pogue's script, but it didn't have the lead beating it to death). The swift climax does exactly what is needed to make it a worthy horror tragedy without any easy outs, which really could have happened with the discussions about how to end it, since speculation is more interesting than what you need to see sometimes. The film turned out to be a hit, one that Cronenberg could certainly hang his hat on (one doesn't necessarily go for commercial hits, but this ranks as one of Cronenberg's most successful), with Walas and Dupuis winning an Academy Award for their work on the film, the first and only Cronenberg movie have won an award by the Academy; a sequel was constructed in 1989, but it would be Walas that served as director while Getz was the lone actor to return. The popularity of this film even reached into the world of opera, which was done by composer Howard Shore (with libretto by David Henry Hwang) in 2008. As a whole, the film clicks well for 96 minutes on how much it can pull you into with these characters despite what you already know is going to happen, and it does so with resourceful depth that makes for wonderful horror and resounding tragedy from a director who knows where to go with it. As a whole, this is one of the best remakes ever made, and it certainly is one of the more interesting body horror tragedies ever made, one that has certainly lasted for all time in the 35 years that have passed since its release.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Isle of Dogs.

Review #1582: Isle of Dogs.

Cast:

Bryan Cranston (Chief), Koyu Rankin (Atari Kobayashi), Edward Norton (Rex), Liev Schreiber (Spots), Bill Murray (Boss), Bob Balaban (King), Jeff Goldblum (Duke), Scarlett Johansson (Nutmeg), Kunichi Nomura (Mayor Kenji Kobayashi), Tilda Swinton (Oracle), Ken Watanabe (Head Surgeon), Akira Ito (Professor Watanabe), Greta Gerwig (Tracy Walker), Akira Takayama (Major Domo), Frances McDormand (Interpreter Nelson), F. Murray Abraham (Jupiter), Courtney B. Vance (The Narrator), Yojiro Noda (News Anchor), Fisher Stevens (Scrap), Mari Natsuki (Auntie), Nijiro Murakami (Editor Hiroshi), Yoko Ono (Assistant Scientist Yoko Ono), Harvey Keitel (Gondo), and Frank Wood (Simul-Translate Machine) Directed by Wes Anderson (#1553 - Fantastic Mr. Fox)

Review:

"Jason, Roman, and I started this project with wanting to do a movie about some dogs abandoned on a garbage dump, a pack of dogs who live on garbage. But we had also been talking about wanting to do something in Japan, about Japan, something related to our shared love of Japanese cinema, especially Kurosawa. The story could have taken place anywhere, but it came together when we realized it should take place in a fantasy version of Japan.”

It is not often that a director known for live-action work makes a bon-a-fide classic on their first venture into animation, particularly with stop motion, so undeniably there was anticipation to cover another Wes Anderson film, with this serving as his second in stop motion. For all the information one could say about him or his films, it was certainly still interesting to hear him once state his top three filmmaker influences as Francois Truffaut, Orson Welles, and Bill Melendez. Oh sure, there are likely others that Anderson has also stated an influence, but it is the fact that he wanted to make a self-contained world like those Peanuts specials (stating this once during an interview about Rushmore) that Melendez (who in addition to directing was also a producer/voice actor and animator for over 60 years) helped to make over numerous decades that will undeniably stick with how one could see Anderson's films as a whole. He is an eccentric director with his own visual and narrative style that balance comedy and drama in their own distinct way.

The film was written by Anderson, Roman Coppola, Jason Schwartzman and Kunichi Nomura. It takes inspiration from the films of Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, as well as the stop-motion animated holiday specials made by Rankin/Bass Productions, with the fur here being made from alpaca wool (there were other inspirations in terms of dog-centric films like 101 Dalmatians and The Plague Dogs). There will be quite a few references to look upon in interest, such as name-drop references to Seven Samurai (1954) alongside a selection of music that mixes songs from Japanese cinema alongside work from Alexandre Desplat as composer. Is it as great as his previous animated work? Not quite, but it sure is a welcome treat regardless, one that proves interesting as a standout piece for its decade. There is quite a fascination to be had with a film that makes an interesting atmosphere come across with flourish and respect for establishing what needs to come across with a dystopian setting of a futuristic Japan. It relies on deadpan humor that makes for clever moments without needing a heavy nudge, relying on casual conversation between its group of main voices / supporting voices that show up, while the nature of language also helps in some interesting subversion (having both English and Japanese with certain moments of translation) that makes a useful 111 minute adventure. There is quite a diverse amount of voices to hear sprinkled through the film, ranging from Anderson regulars like Murray, Goldblum, Norton, and Swinton to go alongside new ones like Cranston and Gerwig. Cranston (familiar for his roles on television such as starring on Breaking Bad) proves quite well here, engaging with careful tenor that leads the way in gruff charm. Rankin does fine with a performance (primarily in Japanese) with wistful curiosity for what is needed here (mainly acting alongside a voice pack of dogs). Schreiber is warm in parts in terms of snappy devotion. The meat of the film is split between them alongside the group of Norton, Murray, Balaban, Goldblum, who make for an interesting group to exchange a few amusing lines together in casual warm conversation. Johansson shows up for basically three scenes and does alright with use towards small cute moments with Cranston. Nomura proves a worthy focus on the mainland storyline, while Gerwig (actress-turned-director) shows some pep to go against that. Others have brief lines in highlights, such as with Abraham, Swinton, Ito, or translators with McDormand and Vance (alongside ones to listen closely to hear, like with musician Ono, Stevens, or Keitel). As a whole, I found it to be mostly successful in maintaining balance of charm and humor with a mostly-put together story that will at the very least make a viewer go home happy by its ending without decrying artificiality. Whether a dog-lover or not, it will prove a useful experience for its variable amount of audience reach, working just as well for children or adults without seeming too much in its visual and story language.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Igby Goes Down.

Review #1253: Igby Goes Down.

Cast: 
Kieran Culkin (Jason "Igby" Slocumb, Jr.), Claire Danes (Sookie Sapperstein), Jeff Goldblum (D.H. Banes), Amanda Peet (Rachel), Ryan Phillippe (Oliver "Ollie" Slocumb), Bill Pullman (Jason Slocumb, Sr.), Susan Sarandon (Mimi Slocumb), Bill Irwin (Lt. Ernest Smith), Jared Harris (Russel), and Celia Weston (Bunny) Written and Directed by Burr Steers.

Review: 
Call it writer's block, call it a logjam - this review took over a week to actually come to fruition, with two reviews sandwiched between UHF and this.

What is there to say about a film like this? It is an independent comedy drama that likely fits best to languish on a film shelf for years before you eventually get around to actually seeing if its worth it. The most annoying films to write about are the mediocre ones, where it isn't a terrible experience to sit through but it also isn't anything to really write home about either. In the long run, this mixed bag middles too much with its misanthrope main character for its first half while faced with more interesting supporting actors before its second half lands with a soft thud. There isn't a terrible performance in the bunch, nor is the film really that awful to sit through in the long run, but it sure takes its time in making itself seem worth a look, as if making a coming-of-age movie needed acidic foundations (in this case, a nutty rich family) to really make for entertainment. It feels like an interesting film when not faced with its silly misanthrope lead (or when he isn't being romanced / being assaulted by someone, like a therapist), but it really does seem at times more fitting for a novel than a film, albeit with a few chapters being tossed around. The best response one can have for the question of why should I care about what is going on is that it is meant to be sharply witty and observant, the kind of film that can picked and poked at the same way one could poke at The Catcher in the Rye, I suppose. This for a film that features a scene of someone who when told of how dirty he looks comes back to the family dinner table without clothes. When I really care about the movie is the parts around the main character - it needed more weird moments with people like Goldblum, Pullman, and Sarandon, who are each adept at garnering some humor along with showing the flip-side of life as an adult with some money - whether that involves hypocrisy or succumbing to pressures. I do at least appreciate Culkin for taking a role as ridiculous acidic as this one is and making an attempt to garner some humor. The same can be said for Danes and Peet, who clearly need more time on screen besides just being around the main character from time to time. Phillippe and Irwin provide small but useful moments. Sometimes a film can make you think about how you were growing up with all the changes that occur around you, whether through friends, family, or all of the above. Igby just happens to be on the fringes of adulthood - what better way to respond to it by skipping school, romantic moments, and plenty of loathing to go around. It sure wants to play cynical with its coming-of-age story - heck, why not go further? Fully drag its soap opera level of weird events to its natural conclusion - blather on for longer than 98 minutes and give these characters enough depth (and perhaps rope) to trap themselves within hypocrisy and what it means to be a human being - whatever that means. Go nuts and make this an attempt at garnering some real humor instead of trying to have it both ways with jokes and pathos. Of course one can't really take much of this that seriously, minus the parts involving Igby and his father (to a point); the time spent with him and his mother only really seems to come out in the second half rather than really drive the film home all the way. On the whole, this proves to be a frustrating film to sit through, where one can see the intentions from its director/writer Steers try to come out through a film that can't quite live up to making a clear resonating path. It becomes more depressing to see where the cast is and isn't used than the material itself, really. It may prove well for those who seek it out and have the right mindset for its tactics, but I just couldn't find this a clear enough winner to recommend it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978).

Review #1132: Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Cast: 
Donald Sutherland (Dr. Matthew Bennell), Brooke Adams (Elizabeth Driscoll), Leonard Nimoy (Dr. David Kibner), Jeff Goldblum (Jack Bellicec), Veronica Cartwright (Nancy Bellicec), and Art Hindle (Dr. Geoffrey Howell) Directed by Philip Kaufman (#892 - The Right Stuff)

Review: 
It would only make sense for a science fiction novel such as Jack Finney's The Body Snatchers to have multiple adaptations into film. With Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), there was an intent to make a competent and intelligent horror sci-fi thriller, with a consistent message on the nature of conformity and autonomy for the time it was made, being made on a budget of less than half of a million dollars (with the budget for this film being roughly three million). Studio heads butted heads with director Don Siegel over the nature of the ending and other aspects that you might say conformed to the standards of the time - for better or worse. I enjoyed the film for its elements mentioned above, but I can't say I'm too surprised that a remake was released 22 years later. If you have an interesting idea to update the story and make something watchable out of it, naturally you should try to make that into a film. It is easy to say that this film represents the decade it was made in, updating itself in its structure and tone that makes for a gloomy but reasonably intelligent experience. It certainly amps up the effects and implications involved with conspiracy and paranoia, especially considering the setting being San Francisco instead of the small-town setting from the earlier film and the novel. It comes off as a brilliant decision that highlights how easy conformity can spread and not have many people notice, where a person can lose themselves in a big town and all the complexities that can go with it - such as self-help psychiatrists for example. If you thought a small town could lead to a threat like pod people encircling everyone quickly, a city will certainly make it seem quicker to conform.  

In that regard, Sutherland does pretty well in the main role, handling the situations thrown at him capably enough that makes him someone worth watching. It's hard to who exactly is the better lead, but I do find myself leaning a bit towards Kevin McCarthy, particularly when he makes an appearance in one scene. Perhaps it is the style that the film used to dictate its story and the way that McCarthy rolls with it that proves the difference. In any case, the scene with him is certainly a shocking surprise, resembling the scene from the original. Whether it is just a homage or a continuation of the events of the original (doubtful) is up to you, although it should be noted that the director of the original film (Siegel) also appears in the film as a cab driver. Adams is fine, having a range of concern and will that makes her watchable alongside Sutherland, and they have a decent amount of chemistry together. Nimoy is interesting to watch, skeptical and calculating that works to the film's advantage, particularly near the last third. Goldblum is quirky as one can be, showing the neurosis of his character without becoming annoying or too offbeat when shown with the other characters. Cartwright is okay, but she doesn't particularly stand out as well as the others in any substantial way, especially when compared to the other four. There is a helpless feeling of terror and conspiracy all-throughout the film, alongside moment of horror, such as the scene with the pods trying to form duplicates of the group, showing the details of the process pretty satisfyingly (through the effects-work by Russel Hessey and Dell Rheaume). The opening sequence involving the pods coming through space and coming to Earth on a dreary day is also a pretty interesting one. A good share of the credit for the film's good moments goes to Kaufman and screenwriter W. D. Richter (who later directed The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension) in making something that stands out in its own way.

The sound and music certainly help the film stick out in its own way, helping deliver striking moments of chills. Ben Burtt contributed Special Sound Effects for the film, while the film score was composed by jazz composer Denny Zeitlin, his only film score. Michael Chapman, cinematographer for films such as Taxi Driver (1976), does well at giving the film a panicked look, with occasional different angled shots that have their varying level of suspense. The length of the film certainly stands out, for better or worse. The original lasted 80 minutes, while this one lasts 115 minutes. The film doesn't border on boring, but it certainly has times where the length nearly becomes an anchor that could've been trimmed just a bit. It seems to linger a bit too much at times, but the climax is a pretty memorable one, having a fitting cold fear to it that works for the intent made by Kaufman. On the whole, I enjoyed the film for the most part due to it managing to justify its existence in terms of its narrative and most of its choices of style and casting. There are some who list it as one of the best film remakes ever. It isn't my favorite remake (The Thing (1982), which also has its share of paranoia, comes to mind), but I can say that this is a pretty good case for when a remake can go right. Instead of trying to just be different for the sake of difference or being an outright copy, a remake can stand-out for what it can cover in story and characters and make fine entertainment like this movie.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hi. I decided to revise the image for the review. Here's the original image of review:

Silverado.

Review #1102: Silverado.

Cast: 
Kevin Kline (Paden), Scott Glenn (Emmett), Kevin Costner (Jake), Danny Glover (Mal Johnson), Brian Dennehy (Sheriff Cobb), Rosanna Arquette (Hannah), John Cleese (Sheriff John Langston), Jeff Goldblum (Calvin "Slick" Stanhope), Linda Hunt (Stella), Joe Seneca (Ezra Johnson), Ray Baker (Ethan McKendrick), Thomas Wilson Brown (Augie Hollis), Jeff Fahey (Tyree), and Lynn Whitfield (Rae Johnson) Directed by Lawrence Kasdan (#1059 - The Big Chill)

Review: 
It is not hard to admit that Silverado is a fine Western, completely successful as an adventure (written by Lawrence and Mark Kasdan) that showcases a finely-tuned cast and capable action that shines fairly enough with its plot structuring to make a fair winner. It isn't anything that proves to be great entertainment, but it serves as good quality fun, with a spirit that makes it worth watching. With its 133 minute run-time, it certainly likes to take its time to build its characters and situations complete with everything you'd expect in a film involving cowboys, shootouts, and a variety of other things, but it does so without lingering in cliches, being something well accomplished for the tradition that you would expect for entertainment. The main four of Kline-Glenn-Costner-Glover manage to click fairly well, having a sort of watch-ability to them that makes for good adventure, and they each have their own interesting moments, whether with each other or others. Kline comes out the best in the sense that he exudes a certain energy and care that makes him interesting to view when engaged with the plot, whether with humor or charm. Glenn does just fine with his role, playing this reserved role without hesitation or any sense of dullness, playing this pretty handily. Costner (in only his tenth film appearance) plays this goofy if not immensely entertaining character pretty capably, never verging on becoming too silly for the film's taste while also proving to be a capable hero in his own right. Glover does a fine job with making this an interesting role to follow with and care for, being as sure and confident as one might expect from him. Dennehy plays his part with a fair degree of balance between his stated role and what ultimately comes on screen without becoming unsubtle or too obvious, having a quality that makes for an interesting performance. Arquette is okay, but she doesn't have too much to do within the story, particularly within the second half, where the adventure outweighs any sort of semblance of romance (whether that hurts the film at all is up to you). Cleese, Goldblum and Hunt fit their roles just fine with the narrative, each sticking well within the spirit of the film's intent in their own ways that have useful moments without seeming like sore thumbs sticking out. The action sequences are well done and capably executed, and the music by Bruce Broughton makes it all the more entertaining to sit through. The climax is fairly riveting, making up for a film that occasionally likes to build itself up with twisting its story to try and be mildly complex (for better or worse), complete with each of the main four getting their chance to shine. It won't stick out as adding anything particularly new to the genre in terms of its story quality, but what turns out on screen is something that is at the very least a finely tuned machine worth checking out once.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Big Chill.

Review #1059: The Big Chill.

Cast: 
Tom Berenger (Sam Weber), Glenn Close (Sarah Cooper), Jeff Goldblum (Michael Gold), William Hurt (Nick Carlton), Kevin Kline (Harold Cooper), Mary Kay Place (Meg Jones), Meg Tilly (Chloe), JoBeth Williams (Karen Bowens), and Don Galloway (Richard Bowens) Directed by Lawrence Kasdan.

Review: 
Admittedly, recollections about the past can tend to make for an interesting subject for a film, so it is no surprise to see that Lawrence Kasdan, writer of films such as The Empire Strikes Back (#114), Raiders of the Lost Ark (#168), and Return of the Jedi (#115), directed and wrote a film involving the reunion of old friends from the baby boomer generation (with this film along with Return of the Secaucus 7 (1980) serving as influences for the creation of the show thirtysomething). It is strange to note that there were scenes cut out that had featured Alex, the one who had committed suicide (featuring a then-unknown Kevin Costner), and I do wonder what it would've done to the pace and tone of the film. In any case, it's not hard to say that this is neither a great nor terrible movie, falling in the middle fairly easily, for better or worse. The ensemble cast is fairly enjoyable, particularly Berenger, Hurt, Kline, and Tilly. Each of them has something that stands out, such as Berenger and his entertaining type of allure that contrasts with his thoughts on having fame (and memories from the past), or Hurt and his bitter but honest nature that clicks in some way with Tilly (the lone standout in the main ensemble not part of the main generation), with Kline being a fine straight man and pillar along with Close. Goldblum is also fairly entertaining and amusing, and Kay Place and Williams are also fine. The cast manages to make what could've been a bunch of cliches seem a bit more fruitful and watchable. The movie (shot in Beaufort, South Carolina) has a fine look to it that certainly clicks with uniting these people without looking too fake. The soundtrack of the film is pretty interesting, having highlights such as "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" by Marvin Gaye and Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Bad Moon Rising", so I'll give the film credit for having a fine pick of music.

The film has its serious moments of looking at the past, but it also has a few moments for some laughs that make for a good enjoyment for most of its running time of 105 minutes. I will admit that the ending is probably a bit too neat and probably a bit too convenient for someone looking for something a bit more, although that depends on what one is expecting. Do you want something that tries to say something about nostalgia? You'll get it with this movie, although you may not get everything with it. If you want something that tries to face nostalgia with reality, this could (or could not) be for you. I can't exactly fault someone for liking films that try to throw itself back with nostalgia (after all, I am writing this review in the same year that Ready Player One is coming out, so make of that what you will), but I find that the movie is fine (if not really anything too great) with weaving a story with some depth from its recollection. For lack of a better way to say it, The Big Chill is a finely packaged film if you're in the mood for what it offers you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Ragnarok.

Review #1009: Thor: Ragnarok.

Cast: 
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Cate Blanchett (Hela), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Karl Urban (Skurge), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Taika Waititi (Korg), Rachel House (Topaz), Clancy Brown (Surtur) Directed by Taika Waititi.

Review: 
It is interesting to see how one will be able to compare this film to the previous two installments, Thor (#041) and Thor: The Dark World (#827), along with how it compares to the other two Marvel films released this year, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (#932) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (#966). In a way, this is a film that wins and loses with regard to comparison. On the one hand, it is likely the lesser of the three Marvel films for this year, but on the other hand, it is likely the best Thor film yet. Hemsworth had already shined in the previous two films (along with appearances that he made in other Marvel films), but he does a tremendous job this time around, having a fun flair that is energetic along with entertaining. Hiddleston also does a pretty good job once again, having a mischievous but also fairly compelling, and his scenes with Hemsworth are entertaining. Blanchett does a fair job as the villain, having a few moments where she seems menacing, though I wouldn't say it is really too memorable or great. Goldblum, on the other hand, is pretty maniacal but also pretty entertaining for such a strange role, and he takes full advantage of it that works pretty well. Elba and Thompson are fine, with Hopkins and Cumberbatch doing well in the time that they appear on screen and Ruffalo being decent as well. The end credit scenes are fairly nifty as usual.

The film certainly tries to play itself for more of a comedic angle this time around, and on some level it works but it also can seem a bit overplayed and distracting, depending on the kind of mood or tone you're looking for. It feels more earned for something like the Guardians of the Galaxy films than it does for this film, but I will say that this film at least does shine with some amusement, with Hemsworth and Ruffalo's scenes being pretty good examples of that. At 130 minutes, it seems to have a fairly coherent pace, and while the film may not work for everyone, it certainly had enough to win me over with the fun that it has.

And with that, this ends the 117th review of Movie Night for the year of 2017. It isn't exactly an accomplishment, but this review means that there are more reviews published than there were last year in total (116). In any case, it's good to see some sort of productivity from myself (heck, there were only 90 reviews in 2015), so here's to productivity and more reviews in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.

Review #776: The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.

Cast
Peter Weller (Buckaroo Banzai), John Lithgow (Lord John Whorfin / Dr. Emilio Lizardo), Ellen Barkin (Penny Priddy), Jeff Goldblum (New Jersey/Dr. Sidney Zweibel), Christopher Lloyd (John Bigboote), Lewis Smith (Perfect Tommy), Rosalind Cash (John Emdall), Clancy Brown (Rawhide), Robert Ito (Professor Hikita), Pepe Serna (Reno Nevada), Ronald Lacey (President Widmark), Matt Clark (Secretary of Defense), William Traylor (General Catburd), Carl Lumbly (John Parker), Dan Hedaya (John Gomez), and Vincent Schiavelli (John O'Connor) Directed by W. D. Richter.

Review

Here's what we can all agree is a "cult film". Buckaroo Banzai certainly have a mind of its own when it comes to being as offbeat and ambitious as possible. It has been described as a "science fiction romantic adventure comedy film", which is one heck of an classification, and it makes sense. Our main character is a scientist/neurosurgeon/rock musician/race car driver, complete with a bunch of assistants called the The Hong Kong Cavaliers. It's not an origin story as much as it feels like the middle of a much larger tale, especially with regards to our multi-talented lead. Weller excels as Banzai, mainly because of how he projects the hero, not being just an action hero, but also a smart quirky aspect to a quirky row of characters. Lithgow hams it up as well as anyone would when named "Lizardo", especially with that wig and teeth. The Cavaliers (Brown, Serna, Smith, Goldblum, Vera) and Lloyd (especially that makeup) are also pretty entertaining to watch as well. Weller and Barkin certainly have some entertaining chemistry together. The movie is certainly offbeat enough to work, although it is a shame that the movie did not succeed financially. It certainly has enough charm and fun in it. The effects still look pretty good for 1984, especially with the Lectroids, who look right for a movie as offbeat as this. The movie ends (naturally) with our heroes walking off together (with a killer end credits theme), announcing plans for a sequel that (so far) has never been made entitled Buckaroo Banzai Against the World Crime League. Ultimately, this is a movie that does what it feels makes sense, without regards to trying to being simple in any regard that you have to see for yourself.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Jurassic Park.

Review #642: Jurassic Park.

Cast
Sam Neill (Dr. Alan Grant), Laura Dern (Dr. Ellie Sattler), Jeff Goldblum (Dr. Ian Malcolm), Richard Attenborough (John Hammond), Ariana Richards (Alexis Murphy), Joseph Mazzello (Tim Murphy), Bob Peck (Robert Muldoon), Martin Ferrero (Donald Gennaro), Wayne Knight (Dennis Nedry), and Samuel L. Jackson (Ray Arnold) Directed by Steven Spielburg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, and #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial)

Review
Jurassic Park is probably one of the most defining movies of the 1990s, and the special effects are the forefront of why this movie is what it is, which is awesome. The effects for the movie are so fantastic to look at, it has managed to not look dated after over 20 years, but it really comes down to the fact that the effects just look great. And yes, computer generated imagery can look good for a film, provided that it doesn't get abused and is used effectively, which this film does (of course it helps that they also used life sized animatronics). The film itself is also pretty good. While the effects may sometimes overshadow the story, it does actually have its moments of scares, making for a decent thriller. I especially like the kitchen scene near the end, it makes for a good way to end the movie, The characters are at least enjoyable, each having at least one memorable scene, especially Neill and Goldblum (Life does indeed find a way). For some reason, it is refreshing to see Wayne Knight (Hello, Newman) in this movie. I guess it's because he is probably the best person to portray a smarmy character and yet still be funny. The science behind the movie is probably questionable (So...flies can just suck blood from a dinosaur and then just happen to get stuck in amber and later just happen to be found preserved millions of years later? The exposition explaining this is actually nifty though.), but the movie manages to shine over it with some fun action and excellent special effects. Take the movie for what it is, and it is one pile of fun.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Independence Day.

Review #193: Independence Day.

Cast
Will Smith (Steven Hiller), Jeff Goldblum (David Levinson), Bill Pullman (Thomas J. Whitmore), Margaret Colin (Constance Spano), Vivica A. Fox (Jasmine Dubrow), Judd Hirsch (Julius Levinson), Robert Loggia (William Grey), and Randy Quaid (Russell Casse) Directed by Roland Emmerich.

Review
Fixed for your consideration, everyone. This review was originally published two years ago and later transferred here; I've fixed some errors to help make it look a little better. Enjoy, and welcome to Earth.

First of all, happy Independence Day. The movie is almost a hack of Star Wars, but at least Star Wars had control and some sort of plot. It has one scene I find really good though, and that would be the destruction of the White House, it's such a memorable scene and also because it doesn't use much dialogue.  The aliens are decent, if you like beige monsters, but the ships are so dull looking. One thing I notice is in the beginning when the ships start to enter in the Earth, I thought they look like movie tin cans being dropped through a background. Maybe it's just me though. The acting is alright, with Will Smith being the main standout. Look, whatever he's in, he makes the film more enjoyable, it's just his charm that carries the movie.  

There are three things that happen near the end that I find a bit...mentionable. One, why don't the other nations have a plan instead of waiting for the U.S to do one? I'm sure the other nations of the world have scientists and such to figure it too, ya know. Secondly, the president's speech. I won't repeat it here but just search for it and you'll know what I mean. It's either the most over the top speech ever spoken, or...the most over the top speech ever spoken. Third, why did Emmerich delete scenes that help explain the film's end? Apparently, there were scenes to help explain this a bit better, that were deleted in the final cut, like how aliens get hacked by a virus that Google would laugh at, though I guess if you let a ship that previously crash landed 50 years ago in Roswell (just go with it) into your fortress, you deserve what you get. Overall, it's been 16 years, and there hasn't been a sequel. Yet. 

Countdown to 200: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars