Speed Racer.

Review #2574: Speed Racer.

Cast: 

Emile Hirsch (Speed Racer; Nicholas Elia as Young Speed Racer), Christina Ricci (Trixie; Ariel Winter as Young Trixie), John Goodman (Pops Racer), Susan Sarandon (Mom Racer), Matthew Fox (Racer X / Rex Racer; Scott Porter as Young Rex Racer), Roger Allam (E.P. Arnold Royalton), Paulie Litt (Spritle Racer), Benno Fürmann (Inspector Detector), Hiroyuki Sanada (Mr. Musha), Rain (Taejo Togokahn), Richard Roundtree (Ben Burns), Kick Gurry (Sparky), John Benfield (Cruncher Block), Christian Oliver (Snake Oiler), Ralph Herforth (Jack "Cannonball" Taylor), Yu Nan (Horuko Togokahn), Nayo K. Wallace (Minx), and Melvil Poupaud (Johnny "Goodboy" Jones) Directed by The Wachowskis (#1272 - The Matrix)

Review: 

"We had that exact conversation so many times.  The whole impetus for 'Speed Racer' came out of the fact that we are visually-thinking people.  We go to art galleries and art museums all the time.  We go into the Art Institute and every room there, there are paintings that look completely and utterly different from the other rooms.  But in cinema, everything looks the same.  And it's a really aggressive straight-jacket, aesthetically.  We started talking about cubism, for instance, and we started talking about could you make a cubist film?  And we realized that if you try to make a cubist film for adults, you will end up like Picasso, running from the angry mob when he first showed Guernica.  They wanted to kill him.  Literally.  It's because adults… they reject change, and an aesthetic change is too aggressive a death for them.  Every generation experiences aesthetic death, and when you really assault an aesthetic, people freak out.  But we said that kids are okay with aesthetic change." - The Wachowskis

Not all adaptations are created equal. It was originally known as Mach GoGoGo in its native Japan that was created by Tatsuo Yoshida, who previously did an automobile racing comic with Pilot Ace. It started out as a manga in 1966 and became its own anime in 1967 that took inspiration from Viva Las Vegas (specifically the image shown with Elvis) and Goldfinger. The American localization changed it to Speed Racer (which saw the character "Go Mifune" morph into "Speed Racer") with plenty of editing and dubbing from Peter Fernandez. Sure, there were various TV adaptations of the franchise in the years that followed with The New Adventures of Speed Racer (1993), Mach GoGoGo/Speed Racer X (1997), and Speed Racer: The Next Generation (2008; made to promote the film), but, well, I think you see which one stuck around in people's heads (for me, I've seen clips of the 60s show, namely ones that make light of the English dub that selectively use clips that make it sound like Speed is a sociopath). As early as 1992, Warner Bros. wanted to make a movie adaptation, and over the years the project saw various turnover (Johnny Depp was once cast as the title character, for example). Eventually, by 2006, the folks who recently finished the Matrix trilogy (at the time) in the Wachowskis were hired to write and direct in what became quite the spectacle. Speed Racer came out on May 9, 2008, premiering the same week as What Happens in Vegas...and one week after Iron Man, and I think you know which movie ended up being the big hit of its time (yep, Vegas-nah, just kidding, it actually was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which premiered two weeks after Racer with its own type of curiosity*). The next movie of the Wachowskis came with Cloud Atlas (2012), which coincidentally has its own small following.

It's easy to see where the line between "oh hey, the movie is doing this!" and "oh, the movie is really doing this" gets blurred with this movie many, many, many times over. There were parts where one can either roll along with in its "sensibility" or just roll their eyes, such as say, its fluid transitions, its top-heavy fiddling of exposition, or the wavering interest in these characters (if Spritle and Chim Chim fell into a pit, would you miss them? Or Sparky the mechanic?). I pondered over what I experienced with seeing the movie and honestly, I'll give it credit for its passion even I really wanted a bit more. It wants to be bold, it wants to be colorful, it wants to stick out, it wants to just be its thing, and yet somehow, in all of its car-fu and "modern sensibility", it is more of a "good" movie on the track (reminding me of, say, Grand Prix [1966]) than off it. For whatever reason, for me, at least, it just is a much more interesting movie when it tries to be creative about a car race would look if designed by an insane person with green screen as opposed to when it tries to be cute in its dialogue (honestly, when playing with little toy cars as a kid, I was more of a line-'em-up guy more than "here's the story involving guys telling their evil plan" guy). Hirsch is given the job of trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with a role that doesn't really have for him to really do when not in the Mach 5, but at least his earnest innocence does come out for some enjoyment (incidentally, he remains proud of the film). Sure, one wishes they had a little more time to spend with Ricci or the delightful ham in Allam (who among us haven't seen a corporate overlord being a twerp right in front of people and trying to skate along anyway?); Goodman seems to be having a bit more fun than, say, Sarandon, for example.

It just goes and goes for 135 minutes, and you either admire its tenacity (i.e. the equivalent of running around and making stuff up) or you just wait for it to shut up and flush. As silly as it sounds, either give me a racing movie that really does me care about Speed and the dynamic of, take your pick (Speed and his offbeat parents, Speed and his totally-dead brother Racer X*,, or, and this is just taking this too seriously, a dynamic that doesn't stall as long as humanly possible on Speed and Trixie doing the art of kissing*). Sitting around gawking at what is shown from the cars beyond the usual four-wheel action probably would make an interesting experience. You either find its conclusion one of triumph and go (speed racer) for it or go (speed racer) for the remote, and I would say, hey, I could go (speed racer go) enough to say it was worth one viewing. It goes all out for those to see and hear to the point of near-insanity and you probably will at least get where some might call it a "cult classic". I'm not sure if I would see it again, but I at least can say it was worth one trip. It overwhelms and rewards the curious (perhaps now more than ever), for better or worse.

  

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day #1

Song of the day #2, for obvious reasons

Next up: Looking back at a movie I wasn't too big on the first time...

*Remember when trying to survive a nuclear explosion in a lead-lined fridge was a thing to whine about? Looking back, yea, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was pretty neat, and I'll stand on that hill with pride.

*Wonder if the English adaptation was inspired by Son of Dracula with R...a...c...E...r...X.

*Hell, why stop there? Let's just go full crass and have Speed and Trixie do it right on the race track. Sure, you lose the kid market, but you would have a key experiment: can you make a racing movie where the O doesn't automatically stand for octane? On second thought, maybe I should just watch Crash (1996) at some point in time, I keep hearing that movie is sick as hell. I hope you understand that, yes, I love throwing stuff out for notes. 

Blues Brothers 2000.

Review #1699: Blues Brothers 2000.

Cast: 

Dan Aykroyd (Elwood J. Blues), John Goodman (Mack McTeer), Joe Morton (Commander Cabel Chamberlain), J. Evan Bonifant (Buster Blues), featuring Aretha Franklin (Mrs. Murphy), James Brown (Reverend Cleophus James), B.B. King (Malvern Gasperone), The Blues Brothers Band [Steve "The Colonel" Cropper (rhythm guitar / vocals), Donald "Duck" Dunn (bass guitar), Murphy Dunne (keyboards), Willie "Too Big" Hall (drums and percussion), Tom "Bones" Malone (trombone / tenor saxophone / vocals), "Blue Lou" Marini (alto saxophone / tenor saxophone / vocals), Matt "Guitar" Murphy (lead guitar), Alan "Mr. Fabulous" Rubin (trumpet / percussion / vocals)], The Louisiana Gator Boys [various musicians, featured below], Erykah Badu (Queen Moussette), Blues Traveler, Lonnie Brooks, Eddie Floyd, and Kathleen Freeman (Mother Mary Stigmata) Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, and #1465 - An American Werewolf in London)

Review: 

"I was very pissed off by what Universal did to me on ‘Blues Brothers 2000′ and that was my first experience with the new corporate Hollywood. It’s very different. Everything is by committee now, and they destroyed that movie, though the music is still good."

If you remember correctly, the Blues Brothers was the result of two guys who loved the blues. John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd (who credits Donnie Walsh and Richard “Hock” Walsh as the model for their characters) had performed together on Saturday Night Live with the act a few times before being asked by Steve Martin to be his opening act at one of his shows, which resulted in the live album Briefcase Full of Blues in 1978. This, alongside Belushi's success with Animal House (1978) only served to attract the interest of studios to engage in a bidding war to make a movie. Of course, that movie was racked by chaos involving substances and one half of its writing team being fairly green at the art of creating a screenplay. In other words, it wasn't easy to make a movie involving numerous music acts and the destruction of 103 cars while shooting exclusively in Chicago, or one that focused exclusively on the blues (in a time that was more about disco and less about the blues and soul) while dodging complaints of being too over-the-top (i.e. people who don't know shit) to become a classic. Perhaps it only makes sense that Aykroyd kept the name around with the chain restaurant (and live music concert hall) House of Blues, which has managed to have a few locations around the country, and Aykroyd has taken to tour on occasion with the band (alongside with John's younger brother, Jim). So yes, I suppose it makes sense that Aykroyd wanted to do another movie involving the blues and put more acts on film. Of course, it is also possible that Aykroyd and Landis wanted to re-capture lightning in a bottle when it comes to success - this was after all the sixth collaboration between the two of them, all of which that were done in the 1980s. Just remember, this was done in 1998.

Reportedly, Landis and Aykroyd did not have a great time with filming. While they were the writers behind the script, Universal Pictures made their stipulations clear that involved requiring a PG-13 rating and a child lead. Of course, the original pitch that the two was apparently just a re-hash of the original, since it would have featured a plot involving refurbishing the old orphanage (which would have featured Jim Belushi cast as "Brother Zee" alongside Goodman as a trio). Of course, Belushi could not do the film due to contractual obligations (at the time, he was cast in a lead part in the series Total Security, which didn't even make it to 1998), so the script instead was modified to include Morton. Have you ever seen a movie that looks and seems DOA as quickly as this one? Making a sequel eighteen years after the fact is already a tough task, but making a comedy sequel that has the task of replacing one part of its key nucleus is like trying to do The Three Stooges with only two actors. Of course, Belushi wasn't the only actor to have died in the gap between the two films (the film opens with a tribute to Belushi, Cab Calloway and John Candy). Oddly enough, everybody else in the Blues Brothers Band returns, and they all get to have a scene dedicated to re-uniting them all together, because how else would this film run for two hours? Well, there is one solution that would probably have worked to the benefit of everybody who don't care for stories about pint-sized kids getting mentors and voodoo witches: focus entirely on the music. Heck, cut around the "plot" with no explanation and call it artistic license, that would probably work just as well (that, or alienate a whole bunch of folks who wonder where Eric Clapton came from). Call it the "Mission from the Blues" Edition, if you will. Let me be clear: teenagers don't watch movies just because the rating is PG-13 instead of R, and they sure won't watch it just because there's a kid as one of the leads. That isn't say to that foul language and certain situations is important to making something people want to watch, but this is a movie that clearly is the result of studio notes from people who think they know better.

Perhaps it is my imagination or my memories have faded from the year that followed watching the original film, but Aykroyd seems to have thoroughly faded into nothingness when it comes to generating anything more than a quivering thought of a chuckle. The fact that he doesn't take off those Ray Ban sunglasses doesn't help either, a dubious marker of shame for someone who probably should have known better as both writer AND star. Honestly, I do wonder if Goodman would have prevailed with the original script when it comes to zippy energy. He seems kind of pale here, seemingly stuck in that suit and sunglasses like a statue without a home to draw a response. Morton gets to play both uptight authority and inevitable "Blues Brother" in the same film, and it is perhaps a fitting marker of dubiousness that his most notable scene is one where he sees the error of his ways by levitating in the air and changing his outfit. Embarrassment is a hard word to swallow when it involves your lead trio. Well, there is Bonifant, but you and I both know that child actors are either forgettable, passable, or terrible. Take a guess how he does. Perhaps if one had never heard of the original movie they would be okay with this one, or maybe if they watched it solely to see blues musicians play on a big screen. Name dropping is an annoying habit, but yes, there are quite a few performers to see (mostly near the end) for the "The Louisiana Gator Boys": B.B. King, Isaac Hayes, Lou Rawls, Billy Preston, Bo Diddley, Koko Taylor, you get the idea. It is far more interesting than the car wrecks or the attempts at plot that go nowhere (which involves the group being turned into plastic statues after being forced to play Caribbean music...???). In the end, this reeks of something you might see in the direct-to-video junkpile, yet here we are with a $31 million/123 minute movie of failure that benefits from moments of music more so than anything else - indeed, it is some sort of accomplishment to have brought back the same director and a portion of the same cast after many years apart and make a sequel inferior in every way. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

The Big Lebowski.

Review #1517: The Big Lebowski.

Cast: 
Jeff Bridges (Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski), John Goodman (Walter Sobchak), Julianne Moore (Maude Lebowski), Steve Buscemi (Theodore Donald "Donny" Kerabatsos), David Huddleston (Jeffrey "The Big" Lebowski), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Brandt), Tara Reid (Bunny Lebowski), Philip Moon (Woo), Mark Pellegrino (Blond Treehorn thug), with Peter Stormare (Uti Kunkel/Karl Hungus), Torsten Voges (Franz), Flea (Kieffer), Jack Kehler (Marty), John Turturro (Jesus Quintana), David Thewlis (Knox Harrington), Sam Elliott (The Stranger), and Ben Gazzara (Jackie Treehorn) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, and #1063 - Blood Simple)

Review: 
"What's interesting to us are the people you know that are very good at what they do but aren't necessarily successful."
"The movie people let us play in the corner of the sandbox and leave us alone. We're happy here."

Brothers can make for great things together, and it is the work of film that Joel and Ethan Coen are best known for. They had an interest in film from a young age by what they viewed on television living in Minnesota and doing their own remakes on a Super 8 camera. Joel spent his studies in college in film programs such as New York University while Ethan studied in philosophy at Princeton University. They made their first feature together with Blood Simple (1984), which they had enticed backers with through a trailer they did together that led to a funding over the course of a year - the resulting film was a hit, and other films followed (with fair degrees of attention from critics and audiences). Over the course of over three decades, the Coens have made a total of eighteen films together, for which they have written, directed, produced and also edited together.

If there truly was a cult movie that stoked so much fervent interest in the years that followed being (at best) a modest hit with audiences, I would say that this is exactly the right film to qualify as "cult classic". With countless examples of lines that people can repeat to each other endlessly and an actual festival dedicated to a screening of the film alongside bowling and wearing costumes of certain characters. When it gets to that kind of blandishment before watching a film, either you'll be hooked in or you won't care that much about it, and others have certainly described it as their favorite film of the Coen brothers (when asked about the film years after release, J. Coen noted the "enduring fascination for other people than it does for us"). Attention can be everything, but I know in my mind that this is a pretty good film. It certainly does not reach greatness, nor does it teeters towards mediocrity, it just serves as a nice little experience worth a fair curiosity if one is in the mindset for it. One can abide it with no problem, whether in its attitudes of eccentric presences and a story that the Coens aimed to seem like a "modern Raymond Chandler story" that goes where it wants in twists before unraveling in relaxation. It's a silly movie at times, such as with its dream sequences, but it never wavers in cheapness or becomes anything too outlandish.

In a role generally referred to as iconic (along with one of his favorites), Bridges certainly grabs onto such a terminally relaxed role (with one inspiration being producer Jeff Dowd) with ease that strides from scene to scene with absolute feeling in out-of-shapeness that is obviously suitable for what is needed in casual charm (Eagles slander notwithstanding). Goodman (based in some part on friend John Milius) rolls with bombast and blazing timing in speaking his mind with no restraint needed. The others prove fine to follow along with besides our undeniable curiosity over the main duo, to a point. Buscemi says a few lines in second gear to Bridges and Goodman (with one distinct retort to tell him to shut up a few times), which I suppose makes sense in the fringes of chuckling along. Turturro shows up for moments at a time, to which I check my watch, chuckle in theory and move on to someone else (preferably a character that isn't a pederast, so not only is Turturro playing a useless character, he's playing a useless pedo). Huddleston moves things along past slack with a little edge to him, while Hoffman follows with care. Moore livens in quirks for those small moments one thinks it is needed, while Elliott provides a well-suited narrator.

Really, if the plot was tightened just a little bit more or some a trimming of all these characters may have meant a better movie (again though, one tries to not express a desire for what they wanted out of a film and just talks about what is in it instead). If one ranges entertainment through how much they enjoyed the characters they saw moreso than a deep plot, all power to you. Plenty of good movies can do that and also become icons in their own right. To me, it is good enough to overcome a decent (if not quite as interesting as it should be) setup because it generally results in fascination for where it could go next with interest. It has a nice look (credit to Roger Deakins along with the Coens' desire for a retro pop film in contemporary times) and certainly will provide those who desire to see what all the fuss is about something to remember for nearly two hours. Whether it serves enough to repeat lines from it or even go to church over it (Dudeism, because of course that is a thing) is up to you to sit on the couch and decide for oneself.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Atomic Blonde.

Review #978: Atomic Blonde.

Cast: 
Charlize Theron (Lorraine Broughton), James McAvoy (David Percival), John Goodman (Emmett Kurzfeld), Til Schweiger (The Watchmaker), Eddie Marsan (Spyglass), Sofia Boutella (Delphine Lasalle), Toby Jones (Eric Gray), Bill Skarsgård (Merkel), Sam Hargrave (James Gasciogne), James Faulkner (Chief C), and Roland Møller (Aleksander Bremovych) Directed by David Leitch (#905 - John Wick)

Review: 
This is adapted from the graphic novel The Coldest City by Antony Johnston and Sam Hart, It is good to ring in the new month of August with another film from 2017, which has had quite a diverse amount of films, such as John Wick: Chapter 2 (#906), released earlier in the year. I say this because of how this film reminded me of that film and the previous Wick film, which Leitch help direct (though this is his first credited feature as director). Like those films, this movie has a great sense of execution with its action sequences, managing to not blur the line between action hero and killing machine. The plot of the film takes time to really gel, in part because of it doesn't try to be simple with its espionage, but it is never boring in part because of the actors and their performances. Theron pulls off an entertaining performance that is as engaging and capable as one would expect from something like the James Bond films, and her scenes with Boutella are also fairly compelling (and not gratuitous in any shape or form, thankfully). McAvoy is pretty clever, managing to have a sort of mania and enjoyment that balances off of Theron rightly enough. Goodman and Jones are also fine highlights, and the rest of the cast all seem necessary and useful to the plot. There are numerous highlights within the action scenes, with the staircase scene featuring good editing and fine pacing to it, and the cinematography by Jonathan Sela (who happened to do the cinematography for the first Wick film) is also a fine highlight. The music is also neatly handled well (in part because of it being set in 1989), with my personal highlights being "The Politics of Dancing" by Re-Flex, "London Calling" by The Clash, and "Under Pressure" by David Bowie and Queen. The run-time of 115 minutes is likely a bit too long, although it isn't anything too harmful. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but there definitely is enough competent action and presence by Theron to justify checking this one out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Always (1989).

Review #958: Always.

Cast: 
Richard Dreyfuss (Pete Sandich), Holly Hunter (Dorinda Durston), John Goodman (Al Yackey), Brad Johnson (Ted Baker), Audrey Hepburn (Hap), Roberts Blossom (Dave), Keith David (Powerhouse), Ed Van Nuys (Nails), and Marg Helgenberger (Rachel) 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, and #642 - Jurassic Park)

Review: 
It has been said that this is one of Steven Spielberg's weakest films, but it is easy to admit that with regards to his resume prior to (and after) this film's release; it is also easy to see his love for the 1943 film A Guy Named Joe and the passion that he must've had to make a remake of it. Is this a flawed movie? Yes, but it is the kind of movie that can qualify as a guilty pleasure, for better or worse. The main cast is fairly enjoyable together, having good chemistry with each other (particularly in the first half); I liked Hunter the best in part because her hard but consistently believable tone works best against Dreyfuss and his flippish nature, though Goodman is a welcome comic relief. Johnson is fairly decent in his first co-starring role in a major film, though his chemistry with Hunter isn't as entertaining as the case with Dreyfuss. Hepburn (appearing in two scenes) is graceful as ever in her final film appearance. When it comes to showing the action with the planes (through aerial photography, rear projection and models) or when the movie wants to have some laughs, that is when the film is at its best; when it comes down to saying some of the dialogue about love and death, that is when the film nearly drowns itself in sappiness and sentimentality. At 123 minutes, it does feel a bit long with all of those awkward (but not manipulative) kind of lines, but I found the film made up for some of it with its fiery climax, with Dreyfuss and Hunter handling themselves quite convincingly. It's not a bad movie, but it is obviously not on the top of any totem pole of quality for Spielberg. The best things about the movie is what it isn't, needless to say. It's a nice harmless movie that works best for some, but likely not for others.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Kong: Skull Island.

Review #919: Kong: Skull Island.

Cast:
Tom Hiddleston (James Conrad), Samuel L. Jackson (Preston Packard), John Goodman (Bill Randa), Brie Larson (Mason Weaver), John C. Reilly (Hank Marlow), Corey Hawkins (Houston Brooks), John Ortiz (Victor Nieves), Tian Jing (San Lin), Toby Kebbell (Jack Chapman), John Ortiz (Victor Nieves), Corey Hawkins (Houston Brooks), Jason Mitchell (Glenn Mills), Shea Whigham (Earl Cole), Thomas Mann (Reg Slivko), and Terry Notary (King Kong, motion capture performance) Directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts.

Review:
It's easy to admit that the idea of doing a Kong reboot could be regarded as unneeded, if put in the wrong hands. Having the film be set in 1973 (one could almost nickname the movie "VietKong", actually) is certainly an interesting choice. For me, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and everything that it wanted to be: a fun good time. It's easy to admit that this is a popcorn movie, with a great amount of entertainment and characters that would be right at home in a explorer movie. For me, this might've been just a bit better than the 2014 Godzilla film (#582), as this film definitely lets one see more of Kong - right from the beginning, in fact. Obviously there is more to the movie than just Kong (with some fine CGI and some fine motion capture from Notary), there's also the fine effects of the Skullcrawlers and enough eye-candy (with regards to how the movie is shot) and cinematography that I appreciated. There isn't any kind of cop-outs nor teasing, it flat out goes for the thrill and chills - and it succeeds. Hiddleston is a fair enough lead, but obviously the big standout is Jackson, who just hams it up in such an adversarial manner that just clicks. Larson is also a fair lead as well, with Goodman being as gruff and relatable as ever. Reilly is also pretty fun, having an eccentric but likable presence. The rest of the cast does a fine job, being useful enough. Honestly the best kind of lead are leads who act and move convincingly without just being screamers/stilted glory hogs. They aren't too developed, but they also aren't too one dimensional either. There is a good mode of pace and design, with monster fights that manage to be riveting. Obviously this is a movie that works as fun entertainment (and something to try and get one ready for a Godzilla/Kong matchup a few years down the line), and there's nothing wrong with that. It achieves what it wants to accomplish without derailing itself at any point, while letting Kong be Kong.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Monuments Men.

Review #851: The Monuments Men.

Cast:
George Clooney (Lt. Frank Stokes), Matt Damon (Lt. James Granger), Bill Murray (Sgt. Richard Campbell), John Goodman (Sgt. Walter Garfield), Jean Dujardin (2nd Lt. Jean-Claude Clermont), Bob Balaban (Pvt. Preston Savitz), Hugh Bonneville (2nd Lt. Donald Jeffries), Cate Blanchett (Claire Simone), Serge Hazanavicius (René Armand), Sam Hazeldine (Colonel Langton), and Dimitri Leonidas (Pvt. Sam Epstein) Directed by George Clooney.

Review:
Don't worry, the next review will be something in horror. This one just happened to come up.
It's clear that Clooney (who also wrote and produced the movie along with Grant Heslov) wanted to make a good movie about a real life event (while based on the book "The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History" by Robert M. Edsel and Bret Witter), with a fairly established cast and a fair budget of $70 million. The end result however comes off as just an average kind of production that really seems lacking in its own kind of personality. The light-hearted barbs throughout the movie are good, but there really isn't much to these characters that you wouldn't see in any other corny kind of work. It's not so much that these characters are uninteresting, it's that the actors (such as Murray) can only stretch it as far as the script wants them to go (with the set up for these characters also being a problem). Clooney is vaguely there as a main character, with only the end scene being noteworthy, in showing some sort of emotion. Damon is only interesting when paired with Blanchett, but it doesn't go anywhere unexpected. Murray and Balaban are fine, but I still wish there was something to the background of even just one of these characters. Even taking into account some of the historical quibbles, it's not really anything that entirely special. The movie is just a bit under two hours, but it feels so long to the point where I was wondering when it actually will get to to some sort of action. It's not that the movie would've been better with more war action, it's that the movie takes its time to actually get to searching for the art. While I admit that I didn't hate the experience of watching it, I kept feeling that reading a book or documentary based on the real life Monuments Men would've been a bit more substantial. The movie does have wonderful scenery, but it is wasted in a movie that really seems to go nowhere other than just through some vague sort of motions. If you're looking for a movie to watch late at night to sleep on or watching it for an Art class (like I did), I suppose it could work on some level for you, but you might be better off researching the subject matter instead.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Emperor's New Groove.

Review #790: The Emperor's New Groove.

Cast
David Spade (Emperor Kuzco), John Goodman (Pacha), Eartha Kitt (Yzma), Patrick Warburton (Kronk), Wendie Malick (Chicha), Kellyann Kelso (Chaca), and Eli Russell Linnetz (Tipo) Directed by Mark Dindal.

Review
The movie actually has a deep production history, with development of what at first was called Kingdom of the Sun beginning in 1994. However, the movie soon spiraled from being a romantic comedy musical in the style of The Prince and the Pauper to a buddy film. A documentary of the process (and its retooling) was even made, and while I do appreciate the movie that was ultimately made, it is slightly bittersweet, with regards to the movie that was never made. Anyway...

I vaguely remember watching bits and pieces of the movie once (or twice) during one of my classes around 8 years ago, and I remember it certainly seemed to do its job to the class (I was a kid, cut me a break for not remembering more about it). Years later, I finally get a chance to watch it again, and it's interesting how short the movie is, running in at only 78 minutes. The movie certainly has a simple structure, with a narcissistic lead that has to redeem himself, with a good-hearted buddy, and so on. But at least it can be said the movie keeps itself contained to only a few batch of important characters, and it never really feels like the movie is padding itself out. The way that it handles itself as a light-hearted buddy film is the main selling point, because it manages to have a good degree of fun with itself, from the main character recapping and narrating over the first half of the movie (complete with barbs) to a chase scene montage, complete with a map marked by dotted lines...which the characters notice. The main four cast members seem to have a good time (particularly Kitt, who wonderfully hams up as the villain), and the movie runs as a good pace with just enough flair and quickness to make for a relatively decent experience. Is it a great movie? No, but it doesn't need to be.

Guess what? It's time for another countdown, this time to Review #800, starting with this review.
10... 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

10 Cloverfield Lane.

Review #784: 10 Cloverfield Lane.

Cast
Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Michelle), John Goodman (Howard Stambler), and John Gallagher, Jr. (Emmett DeWitt) Directed by Dan Trachtenberg.

Review
Once again, I'm back at the theater, and it figures I do it on the one day with a discount for tickets. The end credits for the movie lists eight people for the cast, with three of them being our main cast and the other five being (very) minor roles. The movie mostly takes place within a bunker, and the enclosed nature of the movie works really well, with the biggest strength being its cast, and for good reason. Winstead is interesting to watch interact with everything that happens around her, but she also is a capable heroine, which is nice. Gallagher is certainly not a bad part of this cast, and he does contribute to making the movie bit of humor without being annoying. The big highlight is John Goodman, mainly because of how effective he is in a thriller that relies on tension and fear, which all the cast succeeds at doing. It can be fun to watch at one moment and then turn dark another moment, with the movie getting better and better as it progresses. None of the characters are annoying in their motivations, nor inherently unlikable, which is also a plus. Even without the Cloverfield labeling (I'll get to the other Cloverfield soon), it works well on its own. The climax of the movie is a bit of a departure from the thriller aspects, but it does manage to make the movie keep its good footing going. Admittedly, the ending does leave room for a sequel, which I wouldn't mind because I'd like to see what other stories could be told, and that is the last sign a movie did its job.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Artist.

Review #697: The Artist.

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

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

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Babe.

Review #389: The Babe.

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

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

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Borrowers.

Review #287: The Borrowers.

Cast
John Goodman (Ocious P. Potter), Jim Broadbent (Pod Clock), Bradley Pierce (Pete Lender), Celia Imrie (Homily Clock), Flora Newbigin (Arrietty Clock), Tom Felton (Peagreen Clock), Mark Williams (Jeff), Raymond Pickard (Spud Spiller), and Hugh Laurie (Oliver Steady) Directed by Peter Hewitt (#022 - Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey)

Review
To begin with, this was based off the book of the same name (Which apparently had four more books after that) by Mary Norton. (Yet another review of a film adpated from a book) The acting is reasonably good, with John Goodman doing the best job (Last reviewed in #074 - Monsters, Inc.), along with Broadbent (Last reviewed in #87 - Robots and...#124 - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2.) and...Tom Felton...and Mark Williams. Huh- And Hugh Laurie. Probably just an odd, odd coincidence. Woah, I got way off topic here. Anyway, the effects are good enough, even being a bit imaginative at times. Its story is decent enough to run a (once again) decent length of 89 minutes. In the end, after nearly 15 years this a hidden gem.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: ParaNorman.

Review #240: ParaNorman.

Cast
Kodi Smit-McPhee (Norman Babcock), Tucker Albrizzi (Neil Downe), Anna Kendrick (Courtney Babcock), Casey Affleck (Mitch Downe), Leslie Mann (Sandra Babcock), Jeff Garlin (Perry Babcock), Jodelle Ferland (Agatha Prenderghast), Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Alvin), and John Goodman (Mr. Prenderghast) Directed by Sam Fell (#166 - Flushed Away) and Chris Butler.

Review
On a Saturday like this, I watched this certain film at my local Cinemark theater, the first time I've done that in a few years, and the first for a film review. On the big screen, in the dark with not much noise in the way. And the film was good. To begin with, the animation looks good. It's weird and nice at the same time, giving off a cool feel. The story works well, it gets darker as the film approaches its end, making me feel reminded of Coraline when watching it. And yet, the film is still funny. It has some good chuckles (that aren't just reserved from the trailer) that keep this smart film working all throughout. Fun fact: The Countdown to 250 begins here. 10...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Monsters, Inc.

Review #074: Monsters, Inc.

Cast
John Goodman (Sully), Billy Crystal (Mike), Steve Buscemi (Randall), Jennifer Tilly (Celia), and James Coburn (Mr. Waternoose) Directed by Pete Docter, David Silverman, and Lee Unkrich.

Review
This is one of many gems of Pixar Animation (Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, Cars, #153 - The Incredibles, #155 - Finding Nemo, #222 - WALL-E, #288 - Up), as this film succeeds in telling a story with good animation, good acting, and of course a story that sells you the premise. It truly is one those films that will make you scared/laugh/cry...I recommend it for anybody, especially if you need a scare. Or two...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.