Sleuth (1972).

Review #2204. Sleuth (1972).

Cast: 

Laurence Olivier (Andrew Wyke) and Michael Caine (Milo Tindle) Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz (#750 - All About Eve, #1378 - People Will Talk, #1798 - No Way Out)

Review: 

In 1970, the play Sleuth came out to the stage to tremendous success as created by Anthony Shaffer. He had worked as a barrister and a copywriter before his calling as a writer. He based the play as a take on the mysteries written by author John Dickson Carr to go with inspiration from his friend Stephen Sondheim and his penchant for game-playing (incidentally, the first and only screenplay Sondheim wrote was done with Anthony Perkins involving mystery with The Last of Sheila (1973), as inspired by scavenger hunts that were done by who else but Sondheim and Perkin). The result was a Tony Award-winning play that had a variety of British actors playing the two roles, such as Anthony Quayle acting opposite Keith Baxter, with a run-on Broadway happening in the autumn of 1970. Two years later, he was brought on to write the screenplay for the film, one that has just two actors but had credits that listed fake names to fool the audience for a bit (the movie does the same thing). The film rights were purchased fairly quickly, and Shaffer expressed interest in Alan Bates to play opposite Anthony Quayle (who had played the Andrew role on stage originally) ...but when one finds Laurence Olivier, how does one say no? Through the rejection of actors such as Albert Finney and Bates came the bringing of Michael Caine to play opposite Olivier. Shaffer would be a bit busy as a writer, as his first screenplay went onto the screen in 1971 with Mr. Forbush and the Penguins before 1972 saw both Sleuth and Frenzy released. He wrote a handful of screenplays until 1993 that ranged from The Wicker Man (1973) to his last effort in Sommersby (1993).This was the 20th feature film directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Although he worked on the screenplay for a would-be adaptation of a novel called Jane in his later years, Sleuth ended up being his final film prior to his death in 1993 at the age of 83. In 2007, a new version of Sleuth was filmed that had Kenneth Branagh as director to go with Caine now the old pro playing against a younger one, this time playing against Jude Law in a movie that apparently didn't use any dialogue from Shaffer's original script. It probably didn't go as well as when Caine was in that other who-dun-it Deathtrap (as released in 1982, for which some have compared it to Sleuth, although really they arent that similar), that's for sure.

Not many movies can say that they have pros for every cast member, but this is one of those times where the fun isn't so much just the mystery but the fact that you get 138 minutes of two absolutely invested actors in their element for a film that shows a relish for methodical entertainment. When it comes to cat-and-mouse games, it really doesn't get any better than this, and it does certainly lend itself to going into it with as little to know as possible besides the fact that one really can get too absorbed into one-upping the other person. When Olivier encountered Sondheim at the end of filming, he apparently stated that he based his performance off him. Olivier puts his best foot forward in that grand display that arises from an aristocratic display that could only be shown for all of its degrees of tone and reaction by a pro that knows it is the utmost importance to not have it seem like just a bit to play for the straight gag. For all the people that know (and knew) the power of Olivier in a role with meat to play, there are probably almost as many people who know how damn good Caine can make a role within the first few scenes he appears in. The differences between him and Olivier when it comes to curiosity and upbringing for the film make a compelling double act that lends each the chance to explore how far pride can go, particularly among the higher classes. Caine excels in those razor-sharp exchanges that become more and more predicated on the idea that if someone has to win, the loser is going to be buried one way or another. It is the kind of movie to sit back with a drink and just enjoy slowly over the course of the film. Even when one has an idea of where the film might go with its tête-à-tête, the ride never seems to loosen up, and this is for a film with plenty of scenes in a house with plenty of atmosphere and staging to spare (such as with its one particular laughing electronic toy). In the end, however one finds themselves watching this film in the progression of mystery and thrills, one will have plenty to enjoy within its contained dedication shown by all involved in its execution from its director right down to its actors for all that one could ever want.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Rebecca (1940).

Review #1828: Rebecca. 

Cast: 
Joan Fontaine (The second Mrs. de Winter), Laurence Olivier (George Fortescue Maximilian "Maxim" de Winter), Judith Anderson (Mrs. Danvers), George Sanders (Jack Favell), Reginald Denny (Frank Crawley), Gladys Cooper (Beatrice Lacy), C. Aubrey Smith (Colonel Julyan), Nigel Bruce (Major Giles Lacy), Florence Bates (Mrs. Edythe Van Hopper), Edward Fielding (Frith), Melville Cooper (Coroner at trial), Leo G. Carroll (Dr. Baker), and Leonard Carey (Ben) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, #800 - Shadow of a Doubt, #910 - Notorious, #963 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, #964 - The Ring (1927), #965 - Downhill, #970 - Mr. and Mrs. Smith, #977 - Frenzy, and #1343 - The 39 Steps, and #1739 - The Birds)

Review:

It does become interesting to consider just how many movies one can see of the late Alfred Hitchcock, particularly since his line of work has taken up nine percent of all films I've ever seen, which is a weird way of saying seventeen films. Of course, the real story is the fact that this was not only the 26th feature film directed by Hitchcock, it was his first directed in Hollywood. Hitchcock was forty years old when he decided to move to Hollywood, having believed that he reached his peak in his native Britain, and it was the efforts of producer David O. Selznick that led to him moving; the two signed a seven-year contract; Hitchcock would end up producing more films by himself than with Selznick, and they would have their disagreements in terms of personality and professionalism when it came to this film, to where they only worked on one other film together in Spellbound a couple of years later, most notably because Hitchcock liked to film a controlled cut without too much extra footage. As such, this is an adaptation of the novel of the same name that had been written by Daphne du Maurier, and it was Hitchcock who had adapted her previous book Jamaica Inn in 1939. Incidentally, the book had been adapted on radio by Orson Welles in 1938, and a stage adaptation had been done by Du Maurier in 1939. Selznick aimed to be quite faithful to the book, as much as one can do with the Production Code, which had one particular rule about spouse death. Hitchcock was a busy man, since this was also the year of release for Foreign Correspondent, which like this film would be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture (other films nominated were films such as The Grapes of Wrath, The Great Dictator, and The Philadelphia Story). As it happened, Rebecca would win the award, making it the only Hitchcock film to ever win the honor; Selznick, as the recipient of the award, became the first back-to-back winner for a producer. As such, the screenplay was done by Robert E. Sherwood and Joan Harrison, while the adaptation was done by Philip MacDonald and Michael Hogan. 

Several actors were considered for the main roles, such as Ronald Colman, William Powell, Olivia de Havilland, Loretta Young, among others. Sometimes one needs a Gothic vision to really see the talents of Hitchcock come alive, if only because one wants to see just where the rabbit hole goes in mystery and tortured romance, where the unsaid is more biting than the action. 130 minutes never felt so magnificent when it comes to how Hitchcock has handled the macabre with the terror that comes from memories of a deceased wife that haunts both an estate and the husband himself (incidentally, one never sees the title character nor knows the name of the one of the main characters) that creates such diverting paranoia without becoming a costume show; George Barnes and his cinematography help in that regard to make a stirring film look as alive as it does, and it probably isn't surprising that Barnes won an Academy Award for his work. Of course, the cast is just as effective as the crew. Olivier portrays the vulnerability required with such brooding patience that makes for quite a volatile and curious interaction with Fontaine, one ripped by the past that holds him down further than anything else could, which means one is watching a gripping performance that isn't just a show for Olivier (a talented actor already noted for his performance in Wuthering Heights the year before). Fontaine (the younger sister of actress Olivia de Havilland) had a few key roles in films before this film, most notably Gunga Din (1939), but this was the film that made her a key star (Fontaine however did not care for her typecasting for just melodramatic roles, which would include films done by Selznick like Jane Eyre (1943) and even another du Maurier adaptation in Frenchman's Creek the next year). It doesn't take much to see why she became a star, because her performance is quite excellent, one with the exact type of withering vulnerability required in showing doubt that doesn't become overshadowed by the other members of the cast, and the growing confidence by the second half only helps to make a well-rounded performance of curiosity. Anderson (considered one of the great stage actors of her time) makes a compelling adversarial presence, one who lurks around Fontaine that practically glides from scene to scene (complete with a lack of blinking) that makes the final result all the more haunting. Sanders, when he does show up, makes a perfect cad to view against the others, and the rest of the cast keeps the proceedings dignified and well invested. As a whole, the movie is a classic worth viewing among all the other Hitchcock classics for what is seen and what isn't seen in this Gothic mystery that has the highlights from its director and producer in Selznick without becoming consumed by itself. One can debate just where the film rests among the classics, but one knows by the time the film ends that it is up there in the margins somewhere for what it ends up doing with a master at work.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Henry V (1944).

Review #1788: Henry V.

Cast: 

Laurence Olivier (King Henry V of England), Renée Asherson (Princess Katherine), Robert Newton (Ancient Pistol), Leslie Banks (the Chorus), Felix Aylmer (the Archbishop of Canterbury), Robert Helpmann (the Bishop of Ely), Vernon Greeves (The English Herald), Gerald Case (the Earl of Westmoreland), Griffith Jones (the Earl of Salisbury), Morland Graham (Sir Thomas Erpingham), Nicholas Hannen (the Duke of Exeter), Michael Warre (the Duke of Gloucester), Ralph Truman (Mountjoy, The French Herald), Ernest Thesiger (Duke of Berri, French Ambassador), Frederick Cooper (Corporal Nym), Roy Emerton (Lieutenant Bardolph), Freda Jackson (Mistress Quickly), George Cole (the Boy), George Robey (Sir John Falstaff), Harcourt Williams (King Charles VI of France), Russell Thorndike (the Duke of Bourbon), Leo Genn (The Constable of France), Francis Lister (the Duke of Orleans), Max Adrian (The Dauphin), Jonathan Field (The French Messenger), Esmond Knight (Fluellen, Welsh Captain in the English Army), Michael Shepley (Gower, Captain in the English Army), John Laurie (Jamy, Scottish Captain in the English Army), and Niall MacGinnis (MacMorris, Irish Captain in the English Army) Directed by Laurence Olivier.

Review: 

Admittedly, covering a war-time effort is an interesting story in talking about a film. Of course, we are talking about the directorial debut of one Laurence Olivier, who did five overall theatrical productions to go along with his more famous vocation as an actor. As one might expect, he started in the stage, specifically debuting as an actor for the All Saints Choir School at the age of nine. He dabbled in acting on numerous occasions as a growing child, and it was the encouragement of his father that led him to do the profession. He studied at the Central School of Dramatic Art before starting his professional line of work in theater in 1926 (doing so before he was even twenty). He added films to his line of work in 1930, but it wasn't until Wuthering Heights (1939) that he truly received international notice. He showed dedication to any craft he desired to do, whether as an actor or in the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm when World War II approached. He took on theater operating afterwards, which included directing/starring in Shakespearian roles. We are also talking about the first adaptation of a William Shakespeare work that received wide-spread acclaim. Olivier was asked by BBC TV director Dalas Bower (a member of the Ministry of Information) if he could do a rendition of Henry V (written by William Shakespeare roughly around 1599) for film as part of boosting the morale of the public. Olivier had starred in As You Like It (1936), but he felt that it was a considerable challenge to make a film of a Shakespeare work (specifically with the Hollywood angle with directing actors for certain scenes with Shakespeare dialogue - that film along with A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935) and Romeo and Juliet (1936) were each considered flops). At any rate, Olivier stated that it was William Wyler who inspired him to direct the film himself, which would utilize England's lone Technicolor camera at the time (along with filming in Ireland for the battle and England studios...for the rest). Olivier received two of the four Academy Awards (the film was released in America in 1946), and he was rewarded with an Honorary Academy Award for his efforts in bringing the film to the screen. His next effort in Hamlet (1948) would be the first non-American film to win Best Picture and earn Olivier an Academy Award victory for acting (and producing). The next big effort to do the play into a film would not be done until 1989 by Kenneth Branagh, which received notice in its own right (as it contrasts this film with its own presentation of the material that was described as more realistic).

Certain aspects of the play were omitted, mostly in its presentation of the title character (who in one sequence in the play hanged a friend for crimes committed against the French); Olivier, alongside Dallas Bower and Alan Dent, did un-credited work in the writing in bringing Shakespeare's words to the screen. With its lavish sense of color and framing, it likely isn't a surprise that the film (eventually) was a noted international hit with audiences (one that would see the presentation of French royalty in this film as akin to certain current threats of the time), one that was set in both 1415-1420 and 1600, as it is presented as "THE Chronicle History of KING HENRY THE FIFTH with his battle fought at Agincourt in France BY Will Shakespeare" by a Chorus that tells its audience to let imaginary forces work to picture the production. It is all the things one might expect from 137 minutes of classic British cinema, warts and all. It is efficient in the ways intended with stirring passion for its subject matter that makes for a mostly grabbing effort from folks clearly interested in having Shakespeare resonate on the screen. Regardless of where it ranks in British cinema, it has a key place in entertainment value for its country. It is spectacle (with sweeping William Walton music) that grows on you, pure and simple. Olivier obviously was ready to direct a major motion picture along with act as its star, and he does so with confidence that builds through the film with brimming interest. He acts to the screen with the right timing that works for theatrical sensibility (i.e. it doesn't seem molded for only a stage), one with relentless drive that makes the whole experience (such as the St. Crispin Day speech) worth it. The rest of the cast have their own varying levels of presence, most notably with Leslie Banks as the Chorus or with the comic relief. As a whole, it is medieval pageantry that does what it is intended to in stoking the war effort that is both spectacle and curiosity without becoming dated or a Shakespearian misstep, acting dignified without becoming obstinate. It serves as a worthy debut for its actor/director/producer in all the ways, for what it is worth.

Next Time: Rome, Open City.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Inchon.

Review #1763: Inchon.

Cast: 

Laurence Olivier (General Douglas MacArthur), Jacqueline Bisset (Barbara Hallsworth), Ben Gazzara (Major Frank Hallsworth), Toshiro Mifune (Saito), Richard Roundtree (Sergeant Augustus Henderson), David Janssen (David Feld), Namkoong Won (Park), Karen Kahn (Lim), and Rex Reed (Longfellow) Directed by Terence Young (#150 - Dr. No, #278 - From Russia with Love, and #335 - Thunderball)

Review: 

In a way, sometimes a movie gets a reputation because of production troubles or bad word-of-mouth (traditional movies, anyway, although ones outside the mainstream can get through that regardless). Inchon was a perfect storm that has never managed to live down its infamy in the four decades that have passed since it was released. The movie is based on the events that occurred during the Battle of Inchon in South Korea, which occurred from September 10-19, 1950 (the city is referred to today as Incheon, as the country changed their Romanization system for names in 2000), with the amphibious assault being led by Douglas MacArthur, Commander in Chief of United Nations Forces; the battle is considered a key point of the Korean War. MacArthur had been the subject of one previous feature with a biopic that was released four years prior that was directed by Joseph Sargent that had Gregory Peck as the general; the next film to detail the battle wouldn't occur for three decades in Operation Chromite (2016). Of course, the sticking point for a film like this is one that doesn't tie to its international cast or its noted director. Instead, it ties down to five words: Special advisor Sun Myung Moon. Well, since this is a movie review, we can't exactly talk about Moon beyond a few short sentences: For one, he was an anti-communist Korean that formed the Unification Church in 1954, and he later proclaimed himself as a Messiah that stoked plenty of followers and just as many critics (he also was a businessman that dealt in news media, such as with The Washington Times), particularly with his conviction for filling false federal income tax returns and conspiracy in 1984. Perhaps it was an act of God that brought all of these circumstances together to make a uniquely amusing time, since the press kit for the film actually claimed that McArthur approved of his portrayal...from the spirit world, as he had died a decade prior. Of course, the other choices that Moon thought about making a movie about involved Jesus and Elvis Presley (all of this is actually correct, I am not joking). Of course, one can't forget about Terence Young in all of this. Sure, this was the second-to-last film in his forty year career, but Young was at the very least a director who in theory could have executed a well done war film, at least since he could handle three James Bond features to worthy reputation, particularly since he was familiar with international co-productions such as Red Sun (1971). Of course, he also stated that Moon putting his name on the credits of the film would be a mistake (along with the Church's idea to actually distribute the film itself, and they settled with fronting the promotional material), and the film ended up having to be shot in both Korea and Rome. The movie was written by Robin Moore and Laird Koenig, while the story was done by Moore and Paul Savage. Moore was known for his writings such as The Green Berets and The French Connection, but he chafed at the demands for a war story that also had to have numerous narratives within a story that probably was too much to handle in a two hour feature.

Technically speaking, this might be a prescient feature in terms of church-funded mega-failures in the vein of Battlefield Earth (2000), but there is a quick distinction between those films: One can actually see that movie on home video. Inchon has never been released on DVD, and the only reason that anyone can even find footage of the film to view (in dubious quality) is because the movie was shown on the Church's former television network (GoodLife Television Network), for which people transferred it onto VHS for bootleg recordings. The original cut of the film was 140 minutes, and this is the version that was shown on television, albeit with certain swear words edited out, but it should be mentioned that the film shown in theaters was only 106 minutes long, which cut out scenes with David Janssen (best known for The Fugitive, who took the movie to work with Olivier), who had died before release.  I'm sure you don't need to know that this is a dramatization of the battle and not actually based entirely in reality, since lighthouses generally do not serve as the be-all end-all to war victories. Besides, the movie can't even have one consistent narrative, since it also has to balance out its parts with MacArthur for scenes spent with Gazzara & Bisset, which manages to mangle any attempt at perspective beyond boredom (at least when it isn't spending time with a barely hearable Janssen and a "no, I'm not joking" Reed for exposition). Somehow, having Roundtree and Mifune as supporting members doesn't help. Gazzara and Bisset seem more bored than anything when it comes to some spiel about romance or rescuing others from danger. At least one can say Olivier tried. At this point in his life, he was taking film roles for money, and this was certainly one of those roles, since he described himself as like a vintage wine that needs to be drank quickly before becoming sour (he wanted to leave enough money for his family); while he was ill for the last decade of his life, he still marched on as an actor without complaint. He did his research when it came to visiting the MacArthur Museum and even visiting a prominent member that had served under the general during the war while also trying to imitate his voice (which apparently sounded like W. C. Fields) and go through plenty of makeup, although he stated that he didn't think he looked like MacArthur or even himself. The clip at the end of the real MacArthur speaking does not exactly help matters; in the end, he moves like a pale ghost and yet manages to be the only presence worth trying to watch, and it isn't even a good performance. The movie has the attitude of trying to be a spectacle epic with dramatic weight, but it has the striking power of a B-movie, pure and simple. It plods along for way too long with narratives far too boring for anybody to care about while having the spiritual depth of a two-inch fountain. If one is going to watch a war movie that borders on propaganda, by God could they do better than this feature when it comes to actual relevance for showing a useful story. You might as well spend an hor looking for articles on the Internet about Incheon than spend two hours with this dramatization. It is an obvious turkey that is best suited for testing if hearing explosions will interrupt two hours of snoozing; it might not be the worst war film or worst of anything (since the Church aspect probably makes this an easy target), but it sure is one for the ages in terms of turkey-dom.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Sometimes, the best way to look at an action star is to look at what happens when they are put into the director's chair. So it's time for On Deadly Ground.

Dracula (1979).

Review #1293: Dracula.

Cast: 

Frank Langella (Count Dracula), Laurence Olivier (Professor Abraham Van Helsing), Donald Pleasence (Dr. Jack Seward), Kate Nelligan (Lucy Seward), Trevor Eve (Jonathan Harker), Jan Francis (Mina Van Helsing), Sylvester McCoy (Walter Myrtle), Janine Duvitski (Annie), Tony Haygarth (Milo Renfield), and Teddy Turner (Swales) Directed by John Badham (#086 - Short Circuit)

Review: 

1979 was an interesting time for films with Dracula. There were at least three major releases involving a variation of the character released that year: Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) and Love at First Bite, with two minor films also being released that year named Nocturna and Dracula Blows His Cool. It shouldn't prove surprising, considering that the 1970s had already had numerous Dracula films, with a good deal of featuring Christopher Lee - who was featured in eight films as the title role, which ranged from the Hammer films to comedies. Dracula even had its own blaxpoitation film (another time, another year), so why not another Univeral Dracula film? Much like the 1931 film, it is based on both the 1924 play of the same name by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston and the 1897 novel by Bram Stoker. The screenplay was done by W. D. Richter, who you may remember as the writer of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), so there does seem to have a bit of promise. Langella, like Lugosi before him, had starred in the Broadway production of Dracula, with macabre illustrator Edward Gorey behind the sets and costumes that mostly consisted of black-and-white with red accents. The original book had a title character that is animalistic, while the play revised it to being more suave and polite that doesn't loom in the background as much. In that sense, one wonders how a stylish and slightly more polished Dracula proves to be. For me, I find myself in the middle, where I can applaud the attempt at trying to make something interesting with this character, but it can't quite work as a love story nor as a horror film, managing to be as average as the Hammer films that did less with the character before it. It definitely ranks below the aforementioned Nosferatu film in trying to depict a lonesome Dracula, this much is for sure. One can only feel underwhelmed when it comes to the excitement levels of this movie, where disappointment and quiet acceptance run the same street with this film, and it starts with Dracula himself. Langella does fine with the suave nature of such an alluring one to follow, particularly with the way he stares at others on screen. But I feel that he doesn't really come off as a threat in the scenes where the film needs it the most, right down to the lack of fangs (same with Lugosi, but with a different result) and a bizzare love sequence involving a blood red tunnel. Everything else seems so dry in comparison, where camp really sometimes does need to be king. Olivier seems ready to be in some other production for a different time while being a bit too quiet in comparison to the smaller featured Pleasence (who accepted the role of Seward over Van Helsing due to it seeming similar to his role that he played in Halloween the previous year), who also is just okay. Nelligan can't quite make this a riveting quartet for her side as well, where I never really seem to care all too much in this romantic angle. This is a film that needs panache for flavor, and instead one gets expired refreshments. The Hammer films may have varied in quality when it came to the title character (especially in their escalation of ways to kill him), but at least I felt that there was some sort of terror that lurked beyond that cape, where I actually want to see what could happen to the disposable- I mean the supporting characters. The climax is swift, but it's attempt to bait with its last shot is a bit too silly to make it really matter - at least try to be definitive if you only have one shot. The film has certainly an interesting history on how to be found. The original version of the film had warm colors, differing from Badham's desire to film in black-and-white. For future releases, the color timing was altered to de-saturate the look of the film, and a release of the original print has only just begun to be released onto markets. Honestly, one can hope their brightness level is where they want, or be curious over how it looked back in 1979, a time for Dracula like no other. Ultimately, this is an average film, just not having enough in its blood besides style to really deliver passion or scares meaningfully to win out. It could prove a curiosity if one wants to see another rendition of the most famous fictional vampire, for better or worse.

Next Review: The Blair Witch Project.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

Review #1273: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

Cast: 
Jude Law (Joseph Sullivan/Sky Captain), Gwyneth Paltrow (Polly Perkins), Angelina Jolie (Commander Francesca "Franky" Cook), Giovanni Ribisi (Dex), Michael Gambon (Editor Paley), Omid Djalili (Kaji), Bai Ling (The Mysterious Woman), Julian Curry (Dr. Jorge Vargas), Trevor Baxter (Dr. Walter Jennings), Peter Law (Dr. Kessler), and Laurence Olivier (Dr. Totenkopf) Written and Directed by Kerry Conran.

Review: 
Influences can be a wonderful thing. On the one hand, the film takes inspiration from films/comics of the 1930s like Flash Gordon, but on the other hand it also has inspiration from designers of the 1939 World's Fair like Norman Bel Geddes. A decade before the film's release, Conran had started work on making a teaser trailer for his idea in his living room with a bluescreen, spending four years on the project. Eventually, there was enough interest to make the film come to life, albeit as an independent film with plenty of producers for $70 million (or at least that is the reported figure for it, but regardless the film was not a success with audiences upon release). There are numerous things to be said for the film when it comes to its effects, since it is mostly done on a digital backlot. If anything shines, it is likely the digital artists and the crew tasked with making this world come alive. This is a film being sketched out via storyboards (hand-drawn) to be re-created as an 3D animatic by computer. This is a sibling type of contribution, with Kerry serving as writer and director, his brother Kevin serving as concept artist, production designer, and costume designer while his sister Kirsten served as art director. I can certainly applaud the efforts done here for a film that is very ambitious but also a pretty average one. It isn't a laughable experience, in part because one does find some time to gaze at what is going on around the actors, such as giant robots, sky ships, and so on. There is certainly a wonderful look present here that springs to mind the styles of the past that even springs to the characters, which can be hit-and-miss. The story certainly seems like a blueprint for the modern movie era, where one can make a bunch of references that try to distract from its own familiar story; it at least isn't a self-aggrandizing kind of experience, goofy yet friendly to sit through its 106 minutes. Law is up to some of the tasks associated with an adventurer lead, having some charm that comes with the territory that makes him somewhat interesting to go around with. Perhaps the implied history he has with Paltrow's character should've been shown more (as opposed to sprinkling scenes where they talk about it throughout), since they barely have any kind of chemistry with each other. One could just describe their scenes as aloof, as if I need reasons for a reporter to come along to an investigation about missing scientists and giant robots that steal stuff. Paltrow is just okay. She is playing a mildly interesting but familiar type that she makes come out in bits and pieces.  It's amusing how mild these two are when it actually would be interesting to see the others more, such as a lingo-spewing, eye-patch wearing Jolie that proves useful for the five (or so) minutes she shows up, or the robot assassin in Ling that never speaks, or even just Ribisi with talking the tech of this odd world. One wonders what to say about the digitized appearance of Olivier (who had died in 1989) into the movie to serve as a hologram of someone who had (are you ready for this) died decades earlier. So yes, he is used to essentially play a ghost of a mad man, which is pretty amusing, really. It just means that there is no real villain to speak of, since all the other adversaries are just robots, all tasked to do a dastardly plan like this. Sometimes you really need a cackling over-the-top villain. I suppose at the end of the day one has to wonder if the film is worth spending time with. Does it serve as a fine experience with plenty of distractions fitting for sci-fi action/adventure films? In my mind, I shrug my shoulders and leave it up to you. Sometimes it proves good to say a movie is "fine", sometimes it doesn't. I guess that this works out in the movie's favor, playing well as a curiosity with mild expectations that won't be forgotten too hard among other sci-fi adventure films.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Little Romance.

Review #962: A Little Romance.

Cast: 
Laurence Olivier (Julius Edmund Santorin), Diane Lane (Lauren King), Thelonious Bernard (Daniel Michon), Arthur Hill (Richard King), Sally Kellerman (Kay King), Broderick Crawford (Himself), David Dukes (George de Marco), Andrew Duncan (Bob Duryea), Claudette Sutherland (Janet Duryea), Graham Fletcher-Cook (Londet), Ashby Semple (Natalie Woodstein), Claude Brosset (Michel Michon), Jacques Maury (Inspector Leclerc), and Anna Massey (Ms Siegel) Directed by George Roy Hill.

Review: 
I suppose there is a side of me that likes films that have a bit of sweetness to them, or movies that are engaging with their locations and situations. This film (based off the novel E=mc2 Mon Amour by Patrick Cauvin) just happens to be one of those, in part because the main trio of actors throughout a good part of the film: Olivier, Lane, and Bernard, with the latter two having a sweetly tender romance that manages to be fairly entertaining. Is it perfect? No, but there is a pleasurable kind of enjoyment that I got from watching these characters interact, with the scenery (France, Venice, and Italy) also helping in making this a nice time. This was the film debuts of both Lane and Bernard, and they seem comfortable with the roles they play, having a fine naturalism that comes off warmly enough. They play smart characters, but they don't feel too unrealistic to watch. Olivier is charming in a role that resembles a circus clown but with the right sense of style and enough balancing of skill and trickery that comes off as endearing. Kellerman's character is probably the most generic of film but she is at least doing her best in being watchable as the de facto adversary to the romance. I found Hill to be pretty neat and fairly serviceable as the stepfather, with my favorite scene being him confronting Dukes' character (dressed up in Boy Scout garb) near the film's ending. Crawford (making a guest appearance in one scene) is entertaining in his brief amount of dialogue, sharing an exchange with Bernard about who he punched in a film (named Sin Town) once that is a bit witty. The rest of the cast do a fine job in their roles, helping the movie keep a good edge of charm that works fine for me. It may verge on being a bit too cute (or superficial) for some, but I found it to be relatively engaging. The best kind of movie makes you keep watching, and this one does a fine job at keeping interest, with this film being entertaining enough and useful enough to be a solid winner.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Devil's Disciple.

Review #612: The Devil's Disciple.

Cast
Burt Lancaster (Anthony Anderson), Kirk Douglas (Richard Dudgeon), Laurence Olivier (General John Burgoyne), Janette Scott (Judith Anderson), Eva Le Gallienne (Mrs. Dudgeon), Harry Andrews (Major Swindon), and Basil Sydney (Lawyer Hawkins) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, #291 - Goldfinger and #293 - Live and Let Die)

Review
It figures to review a movie (based on a play) based around the Revolutionary War on the day of America' declaration of Independence 238 years ago, and The Devil's Disciple fits that bill just nicely. Is the movie good though? Yeah, pretty much. The most interesting actor is Kirk Douglas, playing a clever little character that fits so unevenly with the rest of the character, and yet he's the most interesting one of the bunch. Lancaster is at least commanding, and Olivier is as well, the cast is pretty good all in all. The action is brief, but it is fun to watch, and while the movie may run short, it does its job pretty well. The movie may take its time to get where it wants, but it eventually makes its mark, and it works well overall, especially today. Happy Independence Day to all, and stay safe.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.