Lost Horizon (1973).

Review #1601: Lost Horizon.

Cast: 

Peter Finch (Richard Conway), Liv Ullmann (Catherine), Sally Kellerman (Sally Hughes), George Kennedy (Sam Cornelius), Michael York (George Conway), Olivia Hussey (Maria), Bobby Van (Harry Lovett), James Shigeta (Brother To-Lenn), Charles Boyer (the High Lama), John Gielgud (Chang), and Kent Smith (Bill Fergunson) Directed by Charles Jarrott.

Review: 

"A picture of hope, of faith with a spiritual quality. We all need that with the pressures of the world... Everyone's looking for a place that has peace and security."

Sometimes one does not know where to start and stop in their pursuit of a movie Shangri-La. The 1933 novel by James Hilton (who had eight of his works turned into films), had been adapted into a film previously by Frank Capra in 1937. While it was generally received well at the time, it did not recover its $2 million budget for a few years. Incidentally, the same year that this film was released, the 1937 film was first being restored by the American Film Institute. The funny thing is that there is so many hands here known for better things. We have past and future Academy Award winners with Kennedy, Finch, and Gielgud. We have a B-movie actor-turned-dialogue director-turned producer in Ross Hunter that was known for films like Pillow Talk (1959), Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967), and Airport (1970). We have a director in Jarrot that received a fair bit of notice with Anne of the Thousand Days (1969) and Mary, Queen of Scots (1971). Composer Burt Bacharach and Hal David were a classic partnership in contributing songs together. And then...Hunter never produced another theatrical film after this, while Bacharach and David never worked together again. At least writer Larry Kramer (writer for Women in Love (1969)) came out of the affair well, in the sense that the money for doing it helped keep afloat for several years (he would become a playwright the year this film was released along with activism in the gay community alongside AIDS awareness).

An adventure can be tough at 150 minutes, but this is a musical fantasy adventure, which means one is in for incredible pain if it is done terribly. Would you be surprised to hear that this did not prove well with audiences? Bette Midler called it "Lost Her-Reason", and there isn't much in the film to argue against that. For the first thirty (or so) minutes, one is seeing a straight-laced adventure, as it has to set up its trappings and characters with clichés-I mean personality with flaws to inevitably confront later on. In that sense, it probably could have been an interesting adventure film that could have updated itself with finding a place of inner peace with the secrets that lurk within. And then Gielgud shows up, fur costume and all, to help usher them into their strange little utopia, complete with a re-used set (castle) from Camelot (1967). There might be a chance at a scene involving characters having a conversation, whether that involves a thought process over meeting the Lama or just about why it may be futile to think about smuggling gold out of paradise. Of course that can't happen, because it is a musical of the worst kind: one that doesn't know when to shut up. Simply put, the songs aren't too particularly interesting, the music to go alongside it is too sickeningly sweet to go alongside the fact that only three actors actually sung their lines (Kellerman, Shigmata, and Van). Of all the things to make a musical, why would you take an adventure like this and make a musical of it? The funny thing is that this was already tried: In 1956, the book was turned into a musical in Shangri-La (with Hilton credited for co-contribution to the book and lyrics), where it promptly ran for 21 performances on Broadway. The film was the last of a line of musicals that received a roadshow release, done after the boom of films like Mary Poppins, My Fair Lady, and so on (Pete's Dragon (1977) was evidently the last one to have such release).

I hope Finch (noted for films like A Town Like Alice (1956) and Sunday Bloody Sunday (1971)) liked what he saw from being the head of a dignified mess. After all, most of his "songs" are through internal monologue, for which he isn't singing them, but that's...better than the others? Worse? It is wooden all the way, but that is technically better than the star-studded clunkers following him. Ullmann (famous for a variety of roles, mostly with director Ingmar Bergman) acts in theory with the idea of sweet charm, dancing her way through dubbed songs with stiffness expected from casting non-musical actors for a musical. Now, now, Kellerman did in fact do her own singing and dancing, but that doesn't exactly leave her with more dignity in a Saturday school special type of acting fit for such a silly character, one that looks like she wants to be anywhere else but here. Kennedy is just as baffling, because one would almost think they should have tried for camp, but yet here we are with strange choices all the way through. York plays the strangest character present in both book and film: the skeptic, which he doesn't do well with in the least, probably because however legitimate his concerns with an obvious utopia are, he can't really do much with actually carrying this to anything worthwhile - besides, he is meant to be the brother of Finch's character, and the age difference between them is 26 years (!) - they might as well have been playing father-and-son. Hussey (most famous from Romeo and Juliet (1968), a film long sought to cover) falls to the wayside in silliness, mostly because one is more curious to see how the effect will go when the secretly elder one will age outside of the mountain...it ultimately reminds me of a peanut, which is pretty amusing. At least Van, a musical actor known for productions like No, No, Nanette and others for two decades, is somewhat right for what is needed in comic relief and singing, although one almost wonders if he would've been better as the lead somehow. Shigeta (who also did his singing like Kellerman and Van as a pioneer for leads for Asian Americans alongside TV and singing) seems sorely lacking, one who needs more to do than to just help shepherd these bread-like personalities through utopia silliness. This was the third-to-last role for Boyer, acting in a chair to some effect for like five minutes in a film that seems to have not updated itself one bit from films of Boyer's era. Gielgud later described his role as an "idiotic walkabout", one that seemed to not let him really act alongside noting his slight shame in taking the film to help in money problems. Being wrapped in a warm fur costume and a dubious script without having to sing and get paid for it? Sure, why not. There are technically highlights, in picking out the silly moments besides the hokum that comes through with such pallid singing, but my favorite is near the end, where Finch and York are travelling slowly away down the mountain, trying to keep up with the guides and they yell at them to slow down...which promptly leads to an avalanche occurring over the guides. The other little nugget comes from when Finch tries to go back in the end, and a brief song happens after he apparently reaches it - I just like to pretend he actually just when snow-blind again. On the whole, there is very little to like from a film that deserves all of its notations of turkey classification in how silly it all proves to be within an intolerable 150 minute run-time, ineffective execution of songs and dance, and its lack of anything meaningful to make a worthwhile adventure in utopia that merits needing more than one adaptation of the original material by Hilton. In short, it sucks.

Happy Thanksgiving. Next Time: Thirsty for more? It's time for Hobgoblins.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Chariots of Fire.

Review #1464: Chariots of Fire.

Cast:
Ben Cross (Harold Abrahams), Ian Charleson (Eric Liddell), Nicholas Farrell (Aubrey Montague), Nigel Havers (Lord Andrew Lindsay), Ian Holm (Sam Mussabini), John Gielgud (Master of Trinity College), Lindsay Anderson (Master of Caius College), Cheryl Campbell (Jennie Liddell), Alice Krige (Sybil Gordon), Struan Rodger (Sandy McGrath), Nigel Davenport (Lord Birkenhead), and Patrick Magee (Lord Cadogan) Directed by Hugh Hudson.

Review: 
"The artist is a credulous animal. He is often a dreamer. And if he finds someone who appears to share his dream, or, even better, someone with the means to realize that dream, then that artist tends to believe in Santa Claus."

Sometimes you just need a film about the will to win. I suppose if anyone had to try and make a sports film about the triumph of victory with perseverance and faith, it might as well be one from the British about something historical. Whether that makes for a true classic or not is up to the viewer, who no doubt will have heard that one tune from Vangelis that starts the film up, one that is inspirational and all the jazz. This was a co-production between Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox (international) that was spearheaded by British producer David Puttnam, having been behind films such as Bugsy Malone (1976) and Midnight Express (1978) that wanted to do a film in the mold of A Man for All Seasons (1966) - where one had to follow their conscience, which just happened to fit the mold of the story of the 1924 Olympics that was written by actor-turned-writer Colin Welland. The director tasked to do the film was Hugh Hudson, a first-time film director mostly known for advertising and documentaries. If they managed to accomplish an accurate film, let them enjoy the fruits of said attention, even if there had to be certain liberties taken to get to this point: One can't really be serious to believe a runner wouldn't know about a heat being on Sunday right before going on a trip to compete in the Olympics. Two characters are based on folks that refused permission to have their real names to being used, while a romance for one of the leads is actually ten years too early. There is a mix of established and young faces, with Cross, Charleson, Farrell, and Havers being backed up by Holm, Gielgud, and Anderson. The sentiment must have paid off, since the film won four Academy Awards (one each for Puttnam Vangelis, and Welland), including Best Picture (over films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Reds - a punchline in it of itself).

If one really gets a tremendous inspiration from the story of two runners making their mark on the world through their faith and courage, go right on ahead. It has all the things one could for appeal for the traditionalists (with a modern electronic music touch) that goes for the inspirational without leaning on extreme sentiment or anything with too much contrivances - entertainment or otherwise. And yet, here I am, trying to figure out why it proves so average in my experience - a picture of illusion and platitudes that nearly choke out the air of actually finding something to really say anything meaningful about liking it. In other words, it feels like someone pulled over a bag over my head and somehow got me to the market while I only saw a bunch of decent images in the bag. We are talking about a "sports film" of running, after all. It seems like the kind of film people rush to elevate on a pedestal when trying to make a "prestige picture" that only just balances its story of Liddell and Abrahams to where I appreciate the effort and some of its aspects that go with it while not really reaching a high point. David Watkin does well with the cinematography, and Cross and Charleson are at least calm enough to make their struggle one to care for. Gielgud and Richardson are exactly what you could expect from the college angle, dignified and with reason even when doing a scene about expressing certain doubts about Charleson and his methods to glory. Holm proves to be most enterprising of the bunch, endearing in steadfast conviction that we care to see for what we see spliced in from time to time in teaching to victory without falling to all the clichés. In the end, it just depends on what one really sees the film in the prism of entertainment. Some people really get swept up in a film that is all about conviction and country - I just see it as not too far removed from other "sports films" that have their own little foundation of courage for the underdog, where you might as well call it Rocky (1976) for British people and running. If you are into a film of the stiff upper lip in the face of adversity for 124 minutes, this may very well be for you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Murder on the Orient Express (1974).

Review #1446: Murder on the Orient Express.

Cast: 
Albert Finney (Hercule Poirot), Lauren Bacall (Mrs. Hubbard), Martin Balsam (Bianchi), Ingrid Bergman (Greta Ohlsson), Jacqueline Bisset (Countess Helena Andrenyi), Jean-Pierre Cassel (Pierre Paul Michel), Sean Connery (Colonel Arbuthnot), John Gielgud (Edward Beddoes), Wendy Hiller (Princess Natalia Dragomiroff), Anthony Perkins (Hector McQueen), Vanessa Redgrave (Mary Debenham), Rachel Roberts (Hildegarde Schmidt), Richard Widmark (Ratchett), Michael York (Count Rudolf Andrenyi), Colin Blakely (Cyrus B. Hardman), George Coulouris (Dr. Constantine), and Denis Quilley (Antonio Foscarelli) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, and #1065 - Deathtrap)

Review: 
"My job is acting, and that is why I hate interviews or lectures, explaining myself to an audience."

Sometimes the devil is in the details when it comes to making a film, and this can be two-fold for a movie like this, an all-star mystery film based on the book of the same name by one of the most famous authors of all time, Agatha Christie. Her novel featured the famed character Hercule Poirot, who was featured in over forty novels and short stories since the very first in The Mysterious Affair at Styles (1920). Murder on the Orient Express (1934) had been inspired by numerous events, such as a stuck Orient Express train that was there for five days in snow along with the infamous kidnapping of Charles and Anne Lindbergh's baby. Christie had her works first adapted into film with The Passing of Mr. Quin (1928), while the first Poirot adaptation followed with Alibi (1931, starring Austin Trevor). Four actors have played the character of Poirot in film: Trevor, Tony Randall, Finney, Peter Ustinov, and Kenneth Branagh, although the most famous portrayal of the character is likely David Suchet's portrayal (1989-2013) that adapted the entire catalogue of mysteries by Christie as 70 episodes for British television. Despite reservations about a film adaptation, this proved to be one of the very few that she liked (the other was Witness for the Prosecution) prior to her death in 1976.

To put in perspective how careful one had to handle such a diverse international cast, five actors (Gielgud, Quilley, Redgrave, Bergman, and Finney) were participating in the production in the day while doing West End performances in London in the night time. Finney (third choice after Alec Guinness and Paul Scofield, both unavailable) must have had it worst of all, since he needed tremendous makeup done to emulate his character but also need sleep, which reportedly led to a routine where he would be taken out on a stretcher while asleep and the crew would do makeup on him as he was being traveled to the set. Finney, a graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, had started his career with the theatre in 1956 (starring as the title role in Henry V), before taking on television and film with The Entertainer (1960), and he would come into prominence with his lead roles in Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (same year) and Tom Jones (1963) in a varied career that had a good deal of success for over five decades before his death in 2019 at the age of 82. As a who's who for a whodunit meant to evoke the elegance of a different time (such as Richard Rodney Bennett's striking musical composition), this proves quite satisfactory for all parties involved. Whether one is familiar with the famed novel or not isn't too important - the mystery is carefully crafted with these distinct faces that are each given a few moments to shine while set primarily on a railway car that makes for a quality 128 minutes. Finney is quite excellent with a role basked in makeup and a careful disposition that makes him the ideal man to match up with a mystery like this, particularly when it comes to seeing his initial interactions with others before the train leaves compared to when he lays out the climax of the whodunit (a scene shot numerous times to capture all the adequate angles) - he leads the film on with well-crafted care. Balsam and Coulouris accompany him for the hunt with care, while Widmark makes for a fine conniving presence to set up his murder. Of the stars that appear, the ones who seem to stand out are Bacall, Bergman (who rejected playing a bigger part while having one stand out five-minute interrogation scene, which resulted in a Best Supporting Actress win at the Academy Awards - her third overall), Gielgud, and Perkins. Each stand their ground when it comes to making their moments count in laying out their side of a story, although no one really lends a bad performance anywhere, since having a bit of scenery-chewing now and then comes with the territory without derailing the suspension of disbelief. By the time one gets to its conclusion, one finds them satisfied with how things raveled and unraveled without fail or stumble. Films can serve as escapism for its audience, and a murder mystery with plenty of agreeable faces and voices complete with a game Finney at the head and a craftsman in Lumet make for a good time worth a curiosity in its era.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Around the World in 80 Days.

Review #1393: Around the World in 80 Days.

Cast: 
David Niven (Phileas Fogg), Cantinflas (Passepartout), Shirley MacLaine (Princess Aouda), and Robert Newton (Inspector Fix), with appearances from Edward R. Murrow (Prologue narrator), Finlay Currie (Andrew Stuart), Robert Morley (Gauthier Ralph), Noël Coward (Roland Hesketh-Baggott), Sir John Gielgud (Foster), Charles Boyer (Monsieur Gasse), Sir Cedric Hardwicke (Sir Francis Cromarty), Melville Cooper (Mr. Talley), John Carradine (Col. Stamp Proctor of San Francisco), Jack Oakie (Captain of the SS Henrietta), in addition to Fernandel, Cesar Romero, Reginald Denny, Peter Lorre, George Raft, Red Skelton, Marlene Dietrich, Frank Sinatra, Buster Keaton, Col. Tim McCoy, Joe E. Brown, Andy Devine, and various others. Directed by Michael Anderson (#717 - Logan's Run)

Review: 
"Do not refer to Around the World in 80 Days as a movie. It's not a movie. Movies are something you can see in your neighborhood theatre and eat popcorn while you're watching them....Show Around the World in 80 Days almost exactly as you would present a Broadway show in your theatre."

It should only prove fitting that a film like this was meant to be treated as a major event for the masses, since this was an experience like no other for a decade that had plenty of spectacle to show in a time that desired entertainment that manage to receive accolades for itself. No expense would be spared in making such a monumental exercise of excess, with six million being spent for over 60,000 extras and 70,000 costumes made/rented alongside thousands of actors and plenty of miles traveled to show something to try and impress the viewer, which should only prove appropriate for its producer in Mike Todd. He worked in a variety of jobs after dropping out of high school, such as selling shoes, drugstore soda jerk, and construction businessman before eventually finding interest in Broadway in the late 1930s. Over the course of the next few years, Todd would produce several shows on the stage that ranged from burlesques to musical comedy revues to even an operetta. In the 1950s, he found himself involved with film when he got involved in getting behind Fred Wallers' widescreen process Cinerama, which was featured most notably with This is Cinerama (1952). He soon moved to another venture involving a widescreen process that would bore his name in Todd-AO with Robert Naify in 1953, which would become a theater sound leader for films in the next few decades that simplified its setup to one camera and lens, with the Todd-AO widescreen process being debuted in Oklahoma! (1955).  Todd would reap plenty of benefits from producing this film, winning an Academy Award for Best Picture to go along with four other awards for color cinematography, editing, scoring, and adapted screenplay (which had three writers, including John Farrow, who directed a bit of footage before quitting). Tragically, Todd would die just two years after the film's release in a plane crash at the age of 48.

This was based off Jules Verne's 1872 novel of the same name, which has been adapted to several forms of media alongside film over the past century. Interestingly enough, this film begins by showing snippets from another adaptation of a Jules Verne work in A Trip to the Moon (1902), likely one of the most influential films of its time from noted director Georges Méliès. Both do a fine job when it comes to showing a sense of wonder and imagination, this much is true. In the case of Todd's production, he surely wanted to keep people's attention for 182 minutes with a travelogue around the world that is worth one look for the curiosity of it all, particularly whether to see if it has lost any of its luster to time, which does sometimes seem the case. One cannot deny that Niven and Cantinflas do a tremendous job together, inspiring curiosity and humor at times when together. Niven does his part with the type of dignity and composure that one enjoys for an adventure. Cantinflas, a Mexican icon for comedy then as now, proves to be quite amusing with his antics, such as when gets into a bullfight (as performed by the actor himself). MacLaine (in her third role of her film career) shows up somewhere in the middle of all this, and she nearly becomes lost with all theses presences around, where Newton's bluster proves effective as a foil to all of this. One may very well play a game of spot-the-international star when trying to pass the time when it seems the film is flying up its own ego, whether that means a wordless piano performance from Sinatra or hammy times with Raft and Carradine or one-shot turns like Lorre or Keaton, where half don't even have names to go with their "role", although at least it is nice to see Hardwicke and Gielgud. The film is nice to look upon at times, whether through a costume or some scenery to view upon. It is a film aiming for light-heart entertainment that succeeds on fair craftsmanship in the parts that matter without becoming a complete shell of arrogance that could kill a more pompous ambition. Adventures like this can be fun if one is in the mood for what it is trying to sell and have three hours to spend with spectacle.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

First Knight.

Review #1274: First Knight.

Cast: 
Sean Connery (King Arthur), Richard Gere (Lancelot), Julia Ormond (Guinevere), Ben Cross (Prince Malagant), John Gielgud (Oswald), Liam Cunningham (Sir Agravain), Christopher Villiers (Sir Kay), Valentine Pelka (Sir Patrise), Colin McCormack (Sir Mador), and Alexis Denisof (Sir Gaheris) Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret! and #664 - Airplane!)

Review: 
Making a medieval movie certainly is a familiar one, especially when it comes to the King Arthur legend. It seems irresistible to compare this film to Excalibur (1981), but there are key differences present in the script, with a screenplay from William Nicholson and a story from Lorne Cameron, David Hoselton and Nicholson that takes inspiration from the writings of Chrétien de Troyes regarding Lancelot and Arthur, which has an absence of fantasy elements. The age difference in this love triangle is also significant, with Ormond being out-aged by Connery and Gere by 35 and 15 years, respectively. But this really isn't a movie where one can just use the age as an easy out to give a critique. No, this is a film that is already pretty mediocre enough to sink itself, squandering its cast alongside an entertaining Jerry Goldsmith score with a film that doesn't have enough energy in the right places to make this a consistently worthwhile experience. When one thinks a battle sequence would help the film get going, the film eventually proves that seeing people fight with swords and mini crossbows doesn't quite pan out this time around. Connery takes 30 minutes to appear, which means one will spend quite a bit of time seeing the presumed seeds of chemistry between Gere and Ormond being planted, which really seem more like dollar-store seeds more than anything. If you had a part in making a King Arthur play in high school (or less generously, middle school), you would likely find more interest present between these two characters that actually resonate better than what is seen here. Even having Connery in the picture doesn't help this love triangle seem anything more than a badly written romance novel, as if one needs campiness to make this have a spark. Gere comes out of it the worst of the three, not seeming interesting enough to really drive things into suspense, whether with a sword or with a woman, while Connery seems so mildly interested in what the script says as a paragon of virtue nearing his end (nice to make a centuries-old spoiler), and Ormond manages to comes off okay. The two share just a kiss, as if any more passion would prove too shocking or riveting. Cross doesn't prove too well as a villain, perhaps because the film is too dull to really make him seem like an interesting one to follow around, especially when it comes to the final fight, notably done with CGI swords to make for faster movements. Gielgud makes a small appearance that works just as well as one could expect without being a mark of ridiculousness for the famed actor. There just happens to be too much baggage and not enough energy, honestly. If you don't have tension nor passion in a film like this, you have a disappointment that proves to be a utter frustration to sit through, where one can pick at its failings and still wonder what they missed. It isn't laughably bad, but it sure isn't a fun one to go through, whether one is big on the King Arthur legend or not.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Arthur 2: On the Rocks.

Review #538: Arthur 2: On the Rocks.

Cast
Dudley Moore (Arthur Bach), Liza Minnelli (Linda Marolla Bach), John Gielgud (Hobson), Geraldine Fitzgerald (Martha Bach), Kathy Bates (Mrs. Canby), Paul Benedict (Fairchild), Stephen Elliott (Bert Johnson), Cynthia Sikes (Susan Johnson), Ted Ross (Bitterman), and Barney Martin (Ralph Marolla) Directed by Bud Yorkin.

Review
I have reviewed this particular character before, with the remake (#203) which while I may have given a bit too much credit, wasn't awful. I then reviewed the original Arthur (#206), and...yeah, I have a confession to make. After watching the original Arthur once more just recently before doing the sequel, I realized that the first one is actually better then what I first thought. Moore does a very entertaining performance. He of course can be hilarious to himself and others, but the scenes he shares with Gielgud are brilliant and showcases Moore at his best. And Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do) is a really good song, especially for a film like that. Steve Gordon did such a good job in sadly the only film he directed. So yeah, I will change my ranking for Arthur, all because of my regret.  And then there's this sequel. Make no mistake, I won't ever revoke my thoughts on a film like Arthur 2: On the Rocks. A seven year wait, and all you get...is a lemon of a sequel. Does it have its moments? Sure, even really awful movies have their brief moments (Except for of course, #442 - The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, which has no merit because that would require me to let out my repressed memories of that film), and the beginning of this film at least tries to make an effort. Then...Arthur goes broke.

After that, the movie segues into even more mediocre quality, until of course it reaches the last possible trick it has, John Gielgud...who appears an hour into the movie (as a drunken hallucination, mind you), and leaves after eight or so minutes. Is he funny? Sort of, but by then, the movie has sunk to a depressive quality that makes you wonder why was this even made. And yes of course Arthur gets his money back, if he didn't, the movie would end with him (and the audience to a lesser extent) doomed. Arthur doomed because the light at the end of the tunnel turned out to be an oncoming train, and the audience, who just realized their time was just wasted. It's all too predictable, half the time you're just waiting for him to get his money back because seeing him try to make the best of his...drunken state, while a novel attempt at trying to twist things up, is not very entertaining. Minnelli is okay, I suppose. At least Stephen Elliott (who is okay, delusional, but okay) returns, though his daughter played by Jill Eikenberry in the original didn't. Sikes is okay, though she can't save the movie. Moore seems more aged, seemingly tired of this role, he even disowned the film after it was released. The movie seems to have a few subplots: An adoption subplot, Bach's attempts to get his money subplot, and Bach's alcoholism struggle, none of the subplots are great, the movie tries so hard, and yet it falls so flat. This is a sad movie when it all comes down to it, it's not awful, it's just a disappointment. If you want to see more of Arthur, I'd recommend it. If you want to see more sequels to movies that were probably forgotten after they were watched, I'd suggest Staying Alive, Grease 2, or Airplane II: The Sequel.

Overall, I give it 4 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.

Movie Night: Arthur (1981)

Review #206: Arthur.

Cast
Dudley Moore (Arthur Bach), Liza Minnelli (Linda Marolla), John Gielgud (Hobson), Geraldine Fitzgerald (Martha Bach), Jill Eikenberry (Susan Johnson), Stephen Elliott (Burt Johnson), Thomas Barbour (Stanford Bach), Ted Ross (Bitterman), and Barney Martin (Ralph Marolla) Directed by Steve Gordon.

Review
This review has been revised since the original review, citing my newfound appreciation for it. It figures, I mention any kind of movies in reviews of other movies, and somehow it comes back to be reviewed (Heh, what's next, Batman and Robin?). Anyway, the cast is excellent, I find that Moore does well (Given he has to play a drunken millionaire). You might wonder which Arthur is better portrayed, Brand or Moore. Personally, Moore is better. I feel that he is simply more fun to watch and more...lovable then Brand. It's fun to watch and has a good theme to go with it (Best That You Can Do is the title, and it actually got an Oscar for Best Original Song). The film is more balanced that gives you a good laugh or two. It's been 10 years since Moore's death, an there are people out there that still miss him. A good film, better then the 2011 version.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.