Hulk.

Review #2039: Hulk.

Cast: 

Eric Bana (Bruce Banner), Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross), Sam Elliott (Thaddeus Ross), Josh Lucas (Talbot), Nick Nolte (David Banner), Cara Buono (Edith Banner), Kevin Rankin (Harper), and Celia Weston (Mrs. Krensler) Directed by Ang Lee (#1525 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and #1564 - Life of Pi)

Review: 

"[The Hulk represents] the true self we are all hiding in the dark. When the audience sees it they will be dealing with their own Hulk, the unknown, the truthful self we try to cover up."

In the spring of 1962, the first issue of The Incredible Hulk was published by Marvel Comics. As created by artist Jack Kirby and Stan Lee; both were inspired by different things, with Kirby having witnessed a mother lift a car off her trapped child and Lee being influenced by Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The result was a character in Bruce Banner, scientist and man who turns into a large green monster when subjected to emotional stress (like anger). In 1977, the character was first adapted to live-action television, as devised by Kenneth Johnson that had Bill Bixby as Banner and Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk, which ran from 1977 to 1982 with a handful of television movies (1988-90) that has served as the iconic interpretation of the character in some eyes. Production for a film about the Hulk ran for a decade, as organized by Avi Arad and Gale Anne Hurd, who produced the film for Universal Pictures. A handful of writers came and went (stay with me on this), starting with Michael France, which then led to John Turman, then back to France again, then back to Turman, then re-writes by writers not given credit in the final result like Zak Penn, J. J. Abrams, Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, then to Jonathan Hensleigh to try to write and direct, then back to France, then to Michael Tolkin and David Hayter, then to James Schamus (a frequent partner with Lee in writing and producing), and I think you get the point. Schamus, France, and Turman were given credit for the screenplay while Schamus was listed as the sole writer of story. At the helm as director would be Ang Lee, fresh off the success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) who once told his star in Eric Bana that he was shooting the film as if it was a Greek tragedy (which would be in contrast to the Hulk aspects created by Industrial Light & Magic). While the film was a modest success with audiences, the next Hulk film would instead be a "reboot", which had Edward Norton as the star that resulted in The Incredible Hulk (2008).

Maybe the timing just wasn't right for a mega-popular Hulk film. Schamus has been quoted as stating his fears about the potential of the film when it came time for the release of Spider-Man (2002) and the idea of the Marvel brand becoming a genre of itself. Honestly, I'm more surprised that he didn't take into account that Hulk was the third of three features released in 2003 that were based on Marvel characters, following in the wake of Daredevil and X2 (no points to which film is the better of those three). Of course, the real progenitor of making Marvel films goes first with Blade (1998), but that's another argument entirely (and yes, one shouldn't forget Blade is something I will argue in perpetuity); hell, it wasn't long after that Batman Begins (2005) came to give audiences a refined origin story to a familiar comic character. Honestly, the one film that I was reminded of when it came to certain techniques used to reach for a comic atmosphere was Dick Tracy (1990), although obviously the split-screen technique and psychodrama involving "the green monster in us" aren't exactly a clear match for the latter's attempt at style. The 138-minute runtime signifies two things: a movie that is somehow a bit too long and yet seems a bit lacking in the expectations department. It is a quality feature, because how could it not be with that level of casting and commitment, but it doesn't thread the needle on making its title character any more interesting than mild melodrama. Bana actually does make a quality presence to balance out this tragedy of man and beast, one who is vulnerable to the world in emotional distance in all of the facets that matter in viewing drama. He doesn't wash away from our mind when it comes to pass to actually see the motion capture Hulk (as voiced by Lee). Your milage may vary on how much of it you need to really see, but one thing I can say is that it certainly looks "interesting" when compared from day vs. night, which translates to "fine, just don't show me the Hulk fighting dogs again". I wish I could say Connelly and Elliott make the best of such mild roles, but that would be window-dressing for folks that are trying to sleepwalk through mildly involving dialogue. You could almost put anyone there and it might be the same result in mild lingering drama. Lucas at least seems venal enough to merit a ridiculous end-fate. It probably speaks something about expectations when the most interesting supporting presence is seeing Nolte chew all the scenery possible in power-mad haggard beardman of traumatic chaos. Oh sure, the climax is going to be a CG-muddle, but the buildup to Nolte deciding, yes, he can just chew on this little wire, is at least something to give me a smile (oh hell, you can play the angle of a man wanting to see his "real son", but the underlying curiosity of seeing Nolte engage in the role is always apparent, abuse or not). At any rate, the film is okay. Whether it is thought of as ahead of its time or a missed opportunity, it can be certainly be said that it is the perpetual misfit, one that is fated to stand out in its distinct stylings from other features of its time that cannot be tied down so easily as being any one thing. Being an average misfit isn't always a bad thing, so take that for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

American Psycho.

Review #1984: American Psycho.

Cast: 

Christian Bale (Patrick Bateman), Justin Theroux (Timothy Bryce), Josh Lucas (Craig McDermott), Bill Sage (David Van Patten), Chloë Sevigny (Jean), Reese Witherspoon (Evelyn Williams), Samantha Mathis (Courtney Rawlinson), Matt Ross (Luis Carruthers), Jared Leto (Paul Allen), Willem Dafoe (Donald Kimball), Cara Seymour (Christie), and Guinevere Turner (Elizabeth) Directed by Mary Harron.

Review: 

"What occurred to me is that just enough time had passed to make a period film about the ’80s, and say things about the ’80s, and bring out the satire. And that was interesting to me."

As a director, Mary Harron has aimed to make above all else movies with meaningful things to say beyond just the label of feminism. Born in Bracebridge, Ontario in Canada to an actor/comedian in Don Harron, although the divorce and re-marriage in her family led to her living between Toronto and Los Angeles and later England. Her parents liked to take her to films they wanted to see that were generally art films (i.e. not exactly suitable for children), with her early large influences being Alfred Hitchcock. Later studies at places such as the National Film Theatre and she studied English at St. Anne's College, Oxford University before moving to the States in New York to become a journalist. She wrote and created a magazine for what became the punk scene in the city before later becoming a drama critic in later years. In the 1990s, her interest in the life of Valerie Solanas spurred her into wanting to do a documentary (since she was working as a producer on a program dedicated to American pop culture at the time). In turn, this idea was suggested to become a film, which resulted in the 1996 film I Shot Andy Warhol. In total, Harron has directed seven films in over two decades, with the most recent being Dalíland (2022). The movie is based on the 1991 novel of the same name by Bret Easton Ellis. The original book generated controversy because of its portrayal of violence toward women (as a whole the book is far more visceral in its descriptions by its unreliable narrator in Patrick Bateman of murder along with emotional psychotic breakdowns). Ellis has described the main character of Bateman as being "crazy the same way I was", although he has only admitted this in recent years (he initially stated during the release of the novel that his father was the inspiration while also later calling the book "a criticism of male values that were around me", one that he found easy to observe as a gay man). Ellis had called the book "unfilmable", but Edward R. Pressman bought the rights to film the book in 1992 and persisted for eight years. Numerous names were considered to direct such as Stuart Gordon and David Cronenberg (with Ellis even writing a draft), but Harron accepted an offer to do the film in 1996 under the condition that she could write her own draft. She brought Guinevere Turner on to help write the script while also trying to find the right Bateman (for her part, Turner found the book horrifying alongside really funny while also believing the right spin could make for a "really subversive, feminist movie"). By 1998, Harron thought she found her ideal actor with Christian Bale (at the time mostly known for Empire of the Sun (1987), when he was 13), because she felt he was the only who understood the role as being (in their words) "an alien who landed in the unabashedly capitalist New York of the '80s" when he found the script quite amusing. However, Lions Gate Films tried for a time to recruit Leonardo DiCaprio to star in the film (which Harron vehemently disagreed with), complete with Oliver Stone taking over as director. Thankfully, disagreements between the two led to the return of Harron and Bale, albeit with a small budget of roughly $7 million.

The movie was indeed a modest success at the time of its release in 2000, albeit with a polarized response by some due to the level of violence. Actually, looking back, it is almost as amusing to consider the perception of the film back then as it is to actually look at the film now and share a laugh as the effective satire it ultimately is. It is the work of somebody who may or may not be guilty of murder slipping by in a world focused entirely on lifestyle above all that examines misogyny and masculinity with an awareness and timing that is brilliant to sift through for 100 minutes. Undeniably, the movie is all on Bale and his performance. His method of performance involves plenty of rhythm to go with clarity and control that brings out plenty in isolation and alienation beyond the winning smile shown in a man that in his words is "simply not there". He has the outward charm of someone like Tom Cruise (intentionally done) that is both unsettling and captivating, one who seems to sell every scene he is in (present in all but one) as one of numerous people that we see within the mask they seem to wear (why else does the axe sequence seem to linger on half of his face covered in blood) It is evident that his method preparation paid off for an effective performance that is the perfect act of a warped man in a warped time that shows the vanity of man through people who are never seen working in any scene. The others can only help but drift in the ideal manner when wrapped in the gloss of the 1980s, such as the restaurant trio of Theroux, Lucas, and Sage, or with Witherspoon and her confidence that goes like oil on water when paired against Bale. Sevigny is probably the most sane person in the general web of things, at least because she is in it slightly more than Dafoe and his blend of investigative query/baiting. There are a handful of interesting moments to note (at least ones that have not become Internet memes), ones that show Bale gliding through his environment in the most entertaining of alienated ways, such as him casually admitting his crimes in conversation or him doing a strut right before the axe death with "Hip to be Square" playing.

Ellis described the book as one that he didn't think needed to be turned into a film, since he felt that the ambiguity of the novel would be turned into something "infinitely less interesting" with a medium of film that seemingly demands answers (incidentally, the book later inspired a 2013 musical). The novel leaves it to one's interpretation about what was real and not real, while Turner and Harron's script was intended to show a real effort to have things be real for the main character but at some point "sort of perceiving things differently, but they're really happening." The ending is deliberately meant to confound one over just what really happened (personally, I assume a chunk really happened because watching a movie about murders being shown only to be told they aren't real is dumb as hell). Ellis has been quoted numerous times as to finding the film either as "fine" without being entirely necessary or as one that is "in some ways a complicated movie for me. But overall I like it." As a whole, American Psycho is a worthwhile use of your time for those who are interested in seeing a film that belongs to more than one genre and thus is not instantly easy to peg in one assumption. It is a lean and mean satire with elements of horror that will sift in your head and not escape any time soon after it is finished, which makes for a pretty good time. It is the kind of really good film that may even grow on you further, which probably says a good deal about how far the film's stature has grown in two decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Beau Travail.

Glory Road.

Review #1664: Glory Road.

Cast: 

Josh Lucas (Don Haskins), Derek Luke (Bobby Joe Hill), Mehcad Brooks (Harry Flournoy), Austin Nichols (Jerry Armstrong), Jon Voight (Adolph Rupp), Evan Jones (Moe Iba), Red West (Ross Moore), Schin A.S. Kerr (David Lattin), Alphonso McAuley (Orsten Artis), Sam Jones III (Willie Worsley), Damaine Radcliff (Willie Cager), Emily Deschanel (Mary Haskins), and Al Shearer (Nevil Shed) Directed by James Gartner.

Review: 

"I certainly did not expect to be some racial pioneer or to change the world." - Don Haskins

Sometimes, it is necessary to do a bit of a history lesson with a film, particularly one near and dear to my interest: sports...Texas Western was the first team from my home state to have won a NCAA Tournament (and the only one until Baylor in 2021), and they did so with a historical distinction as the first all-African American lineup to play in the Championship, which they did 72–65 over Kentucky on March 19, 1966. As one should say for any movie based on a true story...send in the fact checks. After all, we are talking about a movie with the same producer behind Remember the Titans (2000) in Jerry Bruckheimer, which has its own shares of dubious playing with the facts (particularly if you had asked one particular player).  Yes, one can say "it's just a movie", but one will always want to find the truth anyway...saying that you are a movie, not a documentary is hogwash - at that point, you might as well just say you aren't a slide-show too (trust me, there are other sports movies that merit this kind of skepticism...like Rudy). Consider the first point, in that Haskins actually arrived at Texas Western (now the University of Texas at El Paso) in 1961, not 1965. Those four years are important to note, because in that time there was a trend-setter in field of college basketball in Loyola University Chicago (as coached by George Ireland) - the 1963 team was the pinnacle of a program that was the first to start an all-black lineup in the NCAA (doing so in 1962), and the title game for that year would feature lineups with a majority of African American players as starters (four for Loyola, three for Cincinnati, who went to three straight title games in five straight appearances in the Final Four); if one wants to relate this to the Southeastern Conference, one of their programs in Mississippi State didn't even play in the NCAA Tournament until playing Loyola in the Sweet Sixteen because of said prejudices against lineups like Loyola (interestingly, 25 programs played in the '63 tournament but only 22 played in the '66 tournament) - the conference did not integrate until the following year. Why stop there? The University of San Francisco won titles in 1955 and 1956 with famed players like Bill Russell, K.C. Jones and Hal Perry. Nolan Richardson, a pioneering coach in his own right for Arkansas, got his start in college basketball as a player for...Texas Western, in the same year that Haskins was hired. Consider the stage and time: the NCAA University Division Basketball Championship Game (as it was called) wasn't even broadcast on national television, instead being shown by a company called Sports Network Incorporated (thankfully, the tape of the game is intact). The slam dunk would be banned by the NCAA for a period of years starting in 1967, and there was no three-point shot (take a guess which was which with these stat-lines: 22-for-49, 28/34 free throws, 27-of-70, 11/13 free throws). Checking the score-card reveals an easy slip: Texas Western never trailed after they went up 16-11. Heck, the first game of the year for the Miners isn't even correct, as it depicts a tough four point win over Eastern New Mexico...they won that game by 49 points. Interestingly, it covers the East Texas State game as being a road game...it was actually the second game of the year (in El Paso, not two weeks before the Tournament; the university, now known as Texas A&M–Commerce took umbrage with the filmmakers for what they felt was liberties taken with them in that game/after the game)…the five point struggle was actually 22. At least it reflects the last game of the year okay, in that they lost the same day that Kentucky had lost...but it was a two point loss, instead of the runaway loss portrayed here. Honestly, if you are going to make a sports movie, perhaps don't show the scoreboard with blatantly wrong scores - I don't care if it was done to add drama or not, it just seems ridiculous to make such bizarre moves. The nail in the coffin is the game versus Kansas (the third of five games played by Texas Western), for which it depicts the blunder by Jo Jo White as ending the game...nope. Besides, Haskins and his team wasn't exactly a Cinderella story. By the time Haskins had started his fifth season as head coach, he had led them to appearances in the postseason three times while going 78-25 (Haskins, in over three decades of coaching, would go 719–353 as coach; incidentally, if you are curious about Rupp and his own legacy, he went 876–190 in four decades as coach for Kentucky, who after years of trying to recruit to integrate with a great talent and not simply one for the bench, managed to do so in 1970, the season before his retirement).

Amidst all of this is the fact that we have a rookie director in James Gartner at the helm. It is the only credit that he has in feature films, as he is generally more known for work within commercials. The film takes material from the 2005 novel of the same name that was written by Don Haskins and journalist Dan Wetzel, with the screenplay adaptation being done by Chris Cleveland, Bettina Gilois, and Gregory Allen Howard - you may recognize the latter name as one of the key writers behind Remember the Titans (2000) and Ali (2001), for which we have mentioned before has its own little quibbles in facts.  One thing that I can personally say is this: It is irresistible, at least for me anyways, to see a team take a blue-blood program to the cleaners and win as Texas Western did, because one has to have their little moments, albeit with a very formulaic movie. It tries to find a balance with its cast and the significance of the moment in the struggle against prejudice over something as simple as just playing the game of basketball on their terms. In that sense, some players will stand out better than others, such as Luke or Kerr, who each prove quite entertaining in charm and in awareness when it comes to showing the degrees of college life, which makes one take perspective. Probably the one interesting scene that involves the team comes before it gets rolling, which involves a game of playing trash cans for fun - curious, yet far more interesting than something like the scene of the night before the title game with Lucas telling his team who he will start and why (I included that quote in the beginning of this review for a reason, and that is because Haskins picked his five on who was best to play and that was it). Lucas seems to follow the lines of Disney sports movies with tough-minded coaches (such as Remember the Titans and Miracle (2004), for example), one that feeds upon discipline that proves quite laconic at times. It is a decent performance, one that reflects Haskins that just seems to also reflect other sports movies of its ilk for better or worse (Deschanel, his on-screen wife, might be confused for a shadow with how the film shows Haskins at home with his family in those small moments, but that is neither here or there). Voight (remember him from his turn in Ali? Here's another makeup show) certainly has an interesting task at hand. He isn't exactly an adversary to the main task at hand but rather is like the dragon waiting at the end with a fire to win that can be seen from the drawl and expressions. I think he does fine with the role, one that provides a contrast and similarity with Lucas in the pursuit of victory with bare tinges of anything other than desire for victory. Look, at the end of the day, we have a movie that is 106 minutes that is okay with what it does. One gets a feeling for the feeling of the time without being smothered in patronization for it, and the basketball action is engaging enough for those who care about that sort of thing. If it makes folks want to check further into basketball history within the context of its times and pioneers to go with it, I think that will prove more than enough in generating solid entertainment.

Congratulations go out to Baylor University for having won the NCAA championship tonight. It took a bit longer to get this review out in order to accommodate a bit of research, but I am sure you folks will understand.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ford v Ferrari.

Review #1302: Ford v Ferrari.

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Carroll Shelby), Christian Bale (Ken Miles), Jon Bernthal (Lee Iacocca), Caitriona Balfe (Mollie Miles), Tracy Letts (Henry Ford II), Josh Lucas (Leo Beebe), Noah Jupe (Peter Miles), Remo Girone (Enzo Ferrari), Ray McKinnon (Phil Remington), and JJ Feild (Roy Lunn) Directed by James Mangold (#912 - Logan)

Review: 
I do not consider myself a big fan of racing. Granted, I do partake in flipping channels to see a race from time to time, but I can't say I know much about the 24 Hours of Le Mans or really much about manufacturers (one can do that when being on their feet to travel anywhere). Granted, one doesn't really need to do sports to enjoy sports dramas, and this film proves that assessment well with its execution. It has a dynamic cast that sit into the 1960s trappings without any hesitation and plenty of charm to go around to drive a fair rendition of the fact to make something worthwhile for 152 minutes without losing itself. The 1966 edition of Le Mans had already inspired a book with Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans (2009) and a documentary with The 24 Hour War (2016), but this manages to inspire curiosity for its main subject without seeming trapped in too many familiar territories. 

It is a crowd pleaser, but it is a convincing crowd pleaser that works to gain attention for more than just parts involving cars going around fast (which is of course a great attraction in of itself). Undeniably, the highlight is Bale, capable of charm and eccentric nature that rolls well whether with Damon or his on-screen family. Damon is also well on his game too, relaxed yet endearing with delivering with the auto drama with conviction that serves the material with dignity. It really could just be a buddy film between these two, really, complete with grocery fights and wrench throwing. Balfe and Jupe also prove fine in the family aspect that gives a bit of depth when it comes to seeing a racer back home off the element. On the other side of the auto drama involves Bernthal, Letts, Lucas, and Girone in trying to capture the Ford-Ferrari rivalry (alongside micromanagement conflict, naturally), and each do their roles alright. For a film that doesn't really drive home an adversary but more so just drives conflict (specifically with Lucas' character) with a bit of amplification, at least one can see the passion behind trying to show a tense war of manufacturers trying to make their cars run fast and run well for a whole day on a world stage. It makes you care for a race like this much in the same one can get caught up in the moment when they watch their first ever auto race. If you never watch another race like this, at least you can say you had the privilege, which certainly rolls in this film's favor. It is a film about ingenuity in the fact of having the guts and talent to challenge the standards (in this case, racing), and that can be something you can find in plenty of sports films. It sure does prove to be a good time for while it lasted, that much is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Stealth.

Review #1089: Stealth.

Cast: 
Josh Lucas (Lt. Ben "Big" Gannon), Jessica Biel (Lt. Kara "Guns" Wade), Jamie Foxx (Lt. Henry "E-Z" Purcell), Sam Shepard (Capt. George Cummings), Joe Morton (Capt. Dick Marshfield), Richard Roxburgh (Dr. Keith Orbit), Ian Bliss (Lt. Aaron Shaftsbury), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Tim), David Andrews (Ray), and Wentworth Miller (EDI) Directed by Rob Cohen (#043 - The Fast and the Furious and #924 - The Boy Next Door)

Review: 
For a movie that is called "Stealth", the film's only real secret is that it is terrible within the first twenty minutes. From its preposterous plot to the underplayed characters that are followed up by equally underplayed acting, this film was a notable failure upon original release, making just over half of its reported budget of $135 million dollars. It would seem they put more thought into spending money for the effects than anything else, for the movie's detriment as it turns out. The effects aren't terrible, but there isn't a moment where you really feel the need to appreciate what is being shown on screen, with the action sequences being the worst offenders at this, feeling like bad cut-scenes that never cease to try and stymie the eyeballs. I was reminded of Broken Arrow (1996), a film I covered five years ago, while watching this flick - and that is not a compliment, seeing how that one was actually more riveting in comparison, where even Top Gun (1986) would be embarrassed at this thing. The movie uses the "set in the near future" excuse as a way to try and throw lingo (such as quantum computing) and the concept of AI, which is even more amusing if one has seen 2001: A Space Odyssey and its version of AI with HAL 9000, which was thought of in the 1960s as opposed to the 21st century like with Stealth, with the AI here seemingly placed to make it seem a little less like a generic action film and more like a generic science fiction action movie, but there is no way that any sane person would consider this sci-fi. This is more the kind of movie you would reject for $1 at the pawn shop than a worthwhile thing to watch.

There is something about this movie can't generate excitement beyond a chuckle at how over-the-top it presents itself that makes it a chore from start to finish. The acting is the nail in the coffin for this film, with our main trio of Lucas-Biel-Foxx being ridiculous to follow through with, in part because their characters are relentlessly generic and none of them are really up to the task of elevating them to watchability. The closest to entertainment value is Foxx, who has a few moments of amusement. Lucas and Biel have zero chemistry with each other, and they equally add zero charisma to these roles, coming off as boring people to follow that aren't entertaining even in the action sequences. Shepard doesn't do too bad, but the film seems to be beneath him, reminding me of how much more fun I had with him in The Right Stuff (1983). The most amusing voice is Miller, playing the "rogue AI", a trope that you can see coming nearly five minutes after he is first introduced. The plot is all over the place with stuff that you can readily expect and stuff that you wouldn't dare expect, but the most amusing aspect is a line of dialogue referring to the AI, in that it apparently downloaded all of the songs from the web. Yes, an rogue AI that not only goes against commands but also is a pirate of music companies. Oh, the horror. Trying to analyze the film or tear down its flaws piece by piece would be just as exhausting as watching the movie, only less time-consuming. By the time the film has the gall to end with a post-credits scene, you will have already started the process of trying to forget what you have seen, in the hope that it won't bore you to death any further than it already has in its 121 minute run-time. Even as a bad flick, it isn't enjoyably bad, managing to be a relentlessly dull and plodding piece of dreck.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Secondhand Lions.

Review #385: Secondhand Lions.

Cast
Haley Joel Osment (Walter Caldwell), Michael Caine (Garth McCann), Robert Duvall (Hub McCann), Kyra Sedgwick (Mae Caldwell), Nicky Katt (Stan), Josh Lucas (Adult Walter Caldwell), Michael O'Neill (Ralph), Deirdre O'Connell (Helen), Christian Kane (Young Hub), Daniel Brooks (Sheik's Great-Grandson), Kevin Haberer (Young Garth), Eric Balfour (Sheik's grandson), Emmanuelle Vaugier (Jasmine), and Adam Ozturk (The Sheik) Directed by Tim McCanlies.

Review
When I watched this earlier today, I had...never heard of this. Yeah, a film made 10 years ago (in a decade where I've reviewed 85 of them), and yet has Michael Caine (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #134 - Austin Powers in Goldmember) and Robert Duvall (#036 - Network, #116 - To Kill a Mockingbird, #191 - The 6th Day, #383 - The Natural) in it. Is it any good? Sure. Some might find it "schmaltzy", I find it to be good. Sometimes a film is just fun for what it has, and this has a wholesome heart and a lot of fun to it. Caine and Duvall play off each other well, with Duvall being the breakout star who steals the show, and this being a good thing. While Caine may seem off cast (Trying to portray a Texan), he still manages to do a fine enough job. Osment is allright, not too bad, for a...teen actor I suppose. The film starts off fine and gets better as it goes along. It has its moments and it does entertain for the most part. It has adventure, excitement, and a lot of fun to go with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.