Next of Kin.

Review #2553: Next of Kin.

Cast: 

Patrick Swayze (Detective Truman Gates), Liam Neeson (Briar Gates), Adam Baldwin (Joey Rosselini), Helen Hunt (Jessie Gates), Andreas Katsulas (Johnny "Papa John" Isabella), Bill Paxton (Gerald Gates), Ben Stiller (Lawrence Isabella), Michael J. Pollard (Harold), Ted Levine (Willy Simpson), Del Close (Frank), Valentino Cimo (Rhino), Paul Greco (Leo), Vincent Guastaferro (Paulie), and Paul Herman (Lieutenant Tony Antonelli) Directed by John Irvin (#1591 - Hamburger Hill)

Review: 

Sure, you probably saw this on a DVD pack sometime or maybe your dad had the film on the shelf (this is a case where both applies, because it lurks on both the bottom of the film shelf and also on an "action multi-pack" with stuff such as The Last Boy Scout). You might say this is a case of a movie being so mediocre that I have to strain to find words to talk about it. This was the seventh film of John Irvin, who had moved over from his native England (where he did documentaries, TV adaptations such as Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) to do feature films, with a few of his first being a mix of British and American productions, such as The Dogs of War (1980) and Raw Deal (1986), respectively. The years after this film saw him do a varied amount of films and TV work afterwards, mostly outside the States. The movie was written by Michael Jenning in his only film credit (the only other credit is writing for a TV movie called "Spot Marks the X"). Made on a budget of roughly $12 million and released a few months after audiences could see Swayze in, say, Road House, the movie was not a major success with audiences.

Admittedly, I wanted to like the movie. You've got young promising talent with Neeson, Hunt and Stiller (one of these people won an Academy Award, and somehow it wasn't Neeson) to go along with ideas of interest with Baldwin and Katsulas and a semi-game Swayze for a movie...that never really goes that far. It lumbers for 108 minutes with what can only be described as "the bare minimum" in generic nature that will work for some and make others shrug when it ends and leaves the memory bank just as quickly. It's a revenge tale that has an idea in mind: a tale serving revenge "country style" (no, I will not use the word "hillbilly") that you would imagine would sound like someone trying to drunkenly combine Deliverance and The Godfather. But no, it basically just meanders around Chicago with Swayze trying to corral Neeson from blazing a path fierier than Sherman's March to the Sea*, complete with one stunt about jumping onto a train. It is an aimless movie that only really commits to having a battle between country style folks and gangsters for the ending, which naturally has to be at night, with arrows being involved (somehow, there's a scene of preparing lunch for the travelling country boys that amuses me in its placement). There are flashes of lunacy from Baldwin to be compelling, but it mostly feels like moving the chairs on the deck waiting to see if something really comes into play beyond neutral gear. Swayze basically has the movie stolen from him by Neeson, who just has the offbeat energy to be more compelling in a misguided quest (and accent, because if you have the shot to cast a Northern Irishman to play a man from Kentucky, you take it) than whatever is supposed to be the case with an ordinary family dynamic between Swayze and Hunt. Obviously one character has to go at minimum to advance the plot, but it sure is a shame to see Paxton go so early, but it almost seems necessary to do so with Stiller in a nepo baby role that basically screams "move along". It all is just a long-winded revenge tale where you find yourself entranced at the stuff you've seen before in these type of movies or just check your watch. At least the climax tries to present something different in resolving the wounds of a blood feud, corny as it can be. As a whole, Next of Kin might as well be the Ink blot test of action movies: you see what you see and go from there in either liking the experience or forgetting it just as quickly as you saw it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Stretching a reference, sure. But fuck the Confederacy.

The Naked Gun (2025).

Review #2409: The Naked Gun.

Cast: 

Liam Neeson (Lt. Frank Drebin Jr.), Pamela Anderson (Beth Davenport), Paul Walter Hauser (Capt. Ed Hocken Jr.), Danny Huston (Richard Cane), CCH Pounder (Chief Davis), Kevin Durand (Sig Gustafson), Liza Koshy (Detective Barnes), Eddie Yu (Detective Park), Moses Jones ("Not Nordberg Jr."), and Cody Rhodes (Bartender) Directed by Akiva Schaffer.

Review: 

Okay, I wanted to wait a bit on this one. Hey, remember The Naked Gun? The trio of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams, and Jerry Zucker had been behind The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977) and Airplane! (1980) and they wanted to do another spoof movie, with the TV show M Squad as the basis, since they liked the show (which you might remember starred Lee Marvin back in the 1950s). But Michael Eisner of Paramount Pictures liked the concept enough to try and secure a six-episode TV show (against the better judgement of the trio) that ended up being aired on ABC in 1982...and the network didn't get it (a show with no laugh track that looked like a 60s program? Too hard for audiences). Six episodes (two directed by Joe Dante) were shown, but two were dumped in the summer. Eventually, through the efforts of them and Pat Proft, The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (which took a few bits from the show) came out in 1988. Zucker described the kind of spoof that they did as one not of comic timing but dramatic timing that had actors act as if they didn't know they were in a comedy, with Leslie Nielsen being a natural. Sure, the two sequels (Zucker directed 2½: The Smell of Fear [1991] and co-wrote 33⅓: The Final Insult [1994] with Proft) were mostly fine in quality, but I think you understand the fun involved. Oddly enough, there really were plans for a fourth movie many, many years down the line in 2009, complete with it being intended for TV with Nielsen (ironically, the script was to be written by Alan Spencer, who had developed his own cop parody years prior with the TV show Sledge Hammer!). Nielsen passed away in 2010 before anything could happen, but plans bubbled again with Ed Helms in mind to be the lead, and Zucker and Proft were even tapped to write (with a secret agent son of Frank Drebin) that went nowhere. Finally, in 2021, plans bubbled again with Seth MacFarlane being hired to develop the project (which wouldn't have Zucker or Proft involved, although at least the former isn't bitter about it) and pitch it to Liam Neeson (who had worked with MacFarlane with A Million Ways to Die in the West [2014]) to star. The result is a movie written by Dan Gregor, Doug Mand, and Akiva Schaffer (with various contributions by Mark Hentemann, MacFarlane and Alec Sulkin); you might know Schaffer from such movies as Hot Rod [2007] and Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping [2016].

There are probably a few people who love or hate reboots, remakes, the whatever word you want to call it. I'm pretty on the fence on the idea because maybe I am not old enough to really stress about the world soon having two Running Man movies. There are quite a few nice things I can say about this movie, which is a nice relief. Neeson seems to be the right choice to go from a litany of dramas and action movies to try and play comedy, doesn't he? Admittedly, doing a "new version" of something might make one hesitate (especially when nearly doing the "horror movie followed up with the same title" thing), but I think what The Naked Gun does best is to simply roll along with the lines with daffy enthusiasm, right down to ending on a take on freeze frames. It probably helps that the runtime (85 minutes) just seems right on point for having the viewer satisfied with quick satisfaction that doesn't seem rushed or seem like an overgrown made-for-TV sheen. It just aims to deliver as many gags as possible with an interest in having fun with the idea of real-world foibles like oddball rich people (some obsess over naming apps after letters, others obsess about their pants), oddball technology, cloying over the old days (people actually hate Clippy? Shame!)*, and so on. Even for someone in their seventies, Neeson clearly has the touch for comedy to really carry this movie as long as it needs to go, operating the proceedings with such gruff sincerity that isn't simply just trying to be Leslie Nielsen all over again (the instance of gun fu at one point is particularly amusing). It happens that he has some worthwhile chemistry with Anderson*, who is just as adept in mowing down lines with sharp rhythm that might be worth seeing again in the future. Huston (as following the tradition of Ricardo Montalbán, Robert Goulet, and Fred Ward in Naked Gun adversaries) actually ends up being pretty neat, smarmy but totally just having fun with being the kind of guy who would be in a comedy about trying to make people fight each other (the last scene in particularly is pretty funny). You then have a worthy supporting ensemble that runs down from Hauser (a neat successor to Sr's George Kennedy) to the always on-time Pounder. There are a litany of gags and cameos that accompany the movie like any good ol' comedy would do without seeming like painful obligation and it leaves the possibility of wanting more without reeking of desperation. As a whole, it probably is the best of the three follow-ups to the original Naked Gun,

which is a hell of a thing to say when wanting to talk about a commitment-filled comedy in 2025.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*What the hell is a TiVo, anyway?

*Apparently, Anderson was to be in the third Naked Gun movie but had to turn it down. The circle is complete.

The Dead Pool.

Review #2162: The Dead Pool.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Patricia Clarkson (Samantha Walker), Liam Neeson (Peter Swan), Evan C. Kim (Inspector Al Quan), David Hunt (Harlan Rook), Michael Currie (Captain Donnelly), Michael Goodwin (Lieutenant Ackerman), Jim Carrey (Johnny Squares), Anthony Charnota (Lou Janero), and Ronnie Claire Edwards (Molly Fisher) Directed by Buddy Van Horn.

Review: 

Sure, there might be something to say about how the Dirty Harry series managed to end at probably the right time. This was the fifth and final film with Eastwood in the series as originally devised in the previous decade of the 1970s by Harry Julian Fink and R.M. Fink. Say what you will about how the film is in some sort of manner of "politics", the film was a popular one of its time and of now because, well, people do go to watch handily crafted films of action and suspense done right. Magnum Force (1973), The Enforcer (1976) and Sudden Impact (1983) were all adequate sequels to the original, even if they had their varying qualities of definition that ranged to a middling climatic punch to headline-drawing confrontations with smart remarks or heightened contrasts in the pursuit of "justice". I'm just more surprised I didn't turn cynical with any of the sequels, but it probably has something to do with the slap-bang touch that comes with that passiveness of Eastwood as the one constant, because even the directors aren't the same through and through. This was the second of three films directed by Buddy Van Horn, who had served as a second unit director on Magnum Force (1973) and had directed Eastwood in Any Which Way You Can (1980) among other various things; Van Horn's third and final effort was with Eastwood in Pink Cadillac (1989), the action-comedy flop. The screenplay (written entirely by people who never wrote a film again) was done by Steve Sharon while the story was done by Sharon, Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw. The latter two had served as scientific advisors on Eastwood's Firefox (1982) and consultants on Brainstorm (1983) but are perhaps best known for their book on life extension and smart drug movements in Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach.

It probably is a bit tough to seek out a ranking of where the sequel films lie when compared to each other, but one can at least say this one was decent enough for Eastwood to not think about going for another one. You have time to dwell on Guns N' Roses appearing in music and literal form to go with toy car bombs, a young Neeson and Carrey (one going around saying "luv" for dialogue at time and it isn't the comedian saying it) and you get the idea. Getting to 58 and still seeming at home with quips and general dry ways of handling the material is not a bad place to be if you are Clint Eastwood. It wouldn't be his last one of the action genre or the buddy stuff, because he would do variations on it with films such as The Rookie two years later. And yet, well, he is still the professional you usually see in his films (directed or what have you), which is that particular type of dryness that cares about the facts over fluff of the moment. Clarkson does fine in the rapport of media with cops that at least isn't too much of patronizing schtick. Not to spoil anything, but one really might be disappointed in just who the villain is when it comes to presence, but this isn't that new when talking about Dirty Harry sequels, but at least the climax gives some useful cat-and-mouse trickery. I sure could have had more Neeson when it comes to trying to deal in spectacle and obsession in scuzzyness. I suppose seeing nuts that want to be on television or take down folks in delusion sounds about right. The chase sequence involving little dialogue and one particular idea of dealing with explosives does the job without becoming silly. Granted, the film doesn't exactly have the best way of handling its threat to our hero, particularly with a runtime of just 91 minutes, but it all still comes together. The people that dig films like this when it comes to fun slam-bang films (with some sort of message this time around involving the media doing things like you'd see coming from the media) will be fine here while the ones who probably weren't too big on Eastwood as a whole know exactly what they have to pick at here with an inferior sequel that might make them think they are watching A View to a Kill (okay, Eastwood and Moore were each near 60 and each film is set in the Bay Area...). In a sea of decent Dirty Harry sequels, you can't go wrong with any of them as acceptable films for a look around procedure and what can be bent in the idea of justice when it comes to the cloying hands of bureaucracy and eyes all around. As such, The Dead Pool is totally fine for entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Darkman.

Review #1495: Darkman.

Cast:
Liam Neeson (Peyton Westlake / Darkman), Frances McDormand (Julie Hastings), Colin Friels (Louis Strack Jr), Larry Drake (Robert G. Durant), Ted Raimi (Ricky), Nicholas Worth (Pauly), Dan Hicks (Skip), and Jessie Lawrence Ferguson (Eddie Black) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, and #1483 - Evil Dead II)

Review: 
"Some mornings you wake up and think, "Gee, I look handsome today." Other days I think, "What am I doing in the movies? I wanna go back to Ireland and drive a forklift".

There is a distinct difference to the superhero film from decade to decade that is particularly interesting to note, whether involving the era before Superman (1978, which namely involved serials), or the years that followed after the release of Batman in 1989. There were a group of heroes of comic and comic strip form that found their way into being turned into a film, for better or worse. However one thinks of the superhero genre as a whole, it is nice to see the stark differences between 1990 and 2020, and you can compare the pickings of what came from the former: Dick Tracy, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Captain America, and this film. It came about due to Raimi's desire to make a film based on The Shadow (which found itself adapted into a film four years later), with the failure to obtain the rights leading him to make a hero film of his own, which would be inspired by his love of the classic Universal horror films of the 1930s to have a man who lost his face that found a way to take on other faces. This was Raimi's next film after Evil Dead II along with his first studio film (fittingly with Universal Pictures), and it would go through numerous drafts that resulted in five credited writers: him (who also did the story), his brother Ivan, Daniel and Joshua Goldin, and Chuck Pfarrer (with twelve drafts reportedly being written before a script to shoot came about).

With a darker outlook toward the nature of what it means to wear a mask and fight for some sort of justice, Darkman is a fascinating film of the superhero genre, intense with frenzied ambition that makes a capable thriller. At the helm of its mix of horror and action is Northern Irish actor Liam Neeson, who had worked for several years in theatre and gradually-rising roles in film that liked the turmoil of the title role that mixed with Raimi's desire for an actor that could do acting within plenty of makeup (done by Tony Gardner) and charisma. Neeson delivers a well-done performance here, one with plenty of emotive charm that runs the gamut from sensitive to self-hatred with touches of The Phantom of the Opera that make it all work with finesse. McDormand follows along with fine sensitivity and focused grace that makes a solid performance that resonates with Neeson just fine. Friels proves adquately slimy, but it is Drake (known mostly for his work on L.A. Law) who proves the most adept at disturbing excellence, a quiet but gruesome intensity to appreciate. The atmosphere of the film is captured well in darkness with its designs and music from Danny Elfman without seeming schlocky or too familiar to other films. The film has a kinetic and pulpy feel to it with its pace of 96 minutes that does good with making an involving story of a troubled soul come across with some depth and believability (the effects do their part as well) that lend for some interesting moments that go with a servicable climax and bitersweet ending. On the whole, this is a fine achievement that pierces at the dark with solid performances and a carefully done style that blends thrills and horror capably enough to stand as its own kind of superhero story.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

K-19: The Widowmaker.

Review #1258: K-19: The Widowmaker.

Cast: 
Harrison Ford (Captain 2nd Rank Alexei Vostrikov), Liam Neeson (Captain 3rd Rank Mikhail "Misha" Polenin), Peter Sarsgaard (Lieutenant Vadim Radtchenko), Joss Ackland (Marshal Zolentsov), John Shrapnel (Admiral Bratyeev), Donald Sumpter (Captain 3rd Rank Gennadi Savran), Tim Woodward (Vice-Admiral Konstantin Partonov), Steve Nicolson (Captain 3rd Rank Yuri Demichev), Ravil Isyanov (Captain 3rd Rank Igor Suslov), Christian Camargo (Petty Officer Pavel Loktev), and George Anton (Captain-Lieutenant Konstantin Poliansky) Directed and Produced by Kathryn Bigelow.

Review: 
I could make up a sentence about how tense submarine dramas can be when done right, but I can't really say I have watched many of them. Sure, I have watched films with submarines before (like Fantastic Voyage), but the only submarine film I have covered was The Hunt for Red October (1990). Honestly, the urge to watch this film has never really been high, but sometimes you just have to get rid of the non-obvious picks so it never ever needs to linger on the shelf uncovered, especially for such a meh month like August. Is there anything interesting one could say about this film? Well...at least you can see the ambition (i.e money spent) jump at you on screen. As annoying as it may seem to note its box office failure (making only $65 million on a $90 million budget, with one production company being the National Geographic Society), it does become evident not too long into its run-time why this wasn't a big hit. Ford and Neeson can only do so much with a film that just does the bare minimum with garnering tense entertainment. It weebles and wobbles for 138 minutes, playing a game of tension and reaching stalemate more times than garnering overall victory. There are other ways of spending two hours, and this ranks as a middling option. One can be really wishy-washy about a film that just isn't energetic enough to really heap praise over nor crow about.

One thing I can note is the fact that the set of the sub is actually the same size of the real K-19 sub this film is loosely adapting from, complete with narrow corridors. Even if the film isn't completely accurate to historical facts involving the real K-19 (whose nickname upon the accident was actually Hiroshima), at least it can be said that this isn't a complete embarrassment to the real crew members that were on the ship, who had objected to the initial script (with the resulting script revisions also resulting in changing the names of the crew). At least the sub action seems pretty authentic, which can go hand in hand with the radiation effects. Ford and Neeson play off each other fairly well with what they are given - you may not get to really know these two beyond just being the heads on a cursed ship, but at least they seem fairly interested to be there - with ensuing attempts at Russian accents seeming okay. The other members of the cast are fine, if not really anything to write home about more than a sentence or two, with Sarsgaard showing fair promise at least. If one knows about a historical event (and its participants) more than just a search on the Internet, does it help in the enjoyment (or the opposite) of the film adaptation? It certainly seems a bit interesting to take a subject that didn't really have much notoriety due to the crew not being able to speak on the matter for decades and try to make something worthy for film, for better or worse. There isn't any shoehorned characters there for the sake of being there, and it holds itself up as a film without being too contrived even during its climax and epilogue scene. If the film makes you care what could happen to these characters in the sub, then it surely has done the job of making worthy entertainment. If the shoe fits, surely you could have a fine time with this one. If it doesn't do that (as is the case with me), try another film.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace.

Redux Review #142: Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace.

Cast: 
Liam Neeson (Qui-Gon Jinn), Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi), Natalie Portman (Queen Padmé Amidala), Jake Lloyd (Anakin Skywalker), Ian McDiarmid (Senator Palpatine / Darth Sidious), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Pernilla August (Shmi Skywalker), Frank Oz (Yoda), Ahmed Best (Jar Jar Binks), Oliver Ford Davies (Sio Bibble), Hugh Quarshie (Captain Panaka), Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu), Ray Park (Darth Maul, voiced by Peter Serafinowicz), Terence Stamp (Supreme Chancellor Finis Valorum), Keira Knightley (Sabé), Silas Carson (Nute Gunray), Brian Blessed (Boss Nass), Andy Secombe (Watto), and Lewis MacLeod (Sebulba) Written and Directed by George Lucas (#113 - Star Wars and #141 - American Graffiti)

Review: 
Countdown to 150 Reviews, 10, 9, 8...
Well, it has now been 20 years since the release of this film, the first of the three Star Wars prequel films. Fans may remember the revised editions of the Original Trilogy reviews (originally published 3/30-4/1, 2012) back in 2016, in light of Star Wars: The Force Awakens being released months earlier. I figured it was time to revise some admittedly okay reviews (original publish date of 5/19-5/20, 2012) right before Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker comes out. I hope you enjoy these reduxes. 

Review: 
It goes without saying that Star Wars is one of the biggest media franchises of pop culture. It has transcended film, television, and beyond over the decades - the original trilogy is still beloved by many, whether from people who seeked it out upon original release or found it playing somewhere on their screen in the present day. Return of the Jedi was the last of these films for 16 years, with Lucas not being inspired to do further films of his saga until the advent of CGI led him to believe it could help him do what he felt was needed. The result proved polarizing, especially in the age of a growing Internet - and age doesn't really help make this film seem too much better. This is a film that bears more on spectacle and details than a fully developed adventure. Perhaps Lucas fared best when he had at least one other writer trying to guide story ideas into something more than just an assortment of old arch-types and myths. The space opera has now shifted into one with mixes of action and politics - which makes for a somewhat stilted result. Like before, there are plenty of creatures and worlds to look at, even if it seems a bit less involving to stick for. I appreciate the effects for what they try to deliver, since they hold up well for 1999 - but wondering what is a blue/green screen and what isn't does get a bit distracting sometimes. The story seems spread too thinly, distracted over whether to be a movie about the Republic or Anakin, spending too much time to really drive itself forward. To say nothing of the logistics of electing a queen at 14, or midichlorians (which is still something to ridicule even with the dawn of a further trilogy), or referencing things from the previous films (did you know who built C-3PO? Weird, I know), and so on. Making fun of these aspects is more interesting to do while watching the film rather than spend a paragraph writing, one must say. The film does fine with spectacle pieces like the pod race sequence or the Darth Maul duel, but the former verges on meandering and the latter is nearly distracted from its other battle at the same time to have the right impact. With all of these characters (new and familiar), only a select group seem truly necessary, but the dialogue doesn't give them many favors. The trilogy is meant to be a tragedy of Anakin Skywalker, and yet the first film can't really plant many seeds to make that start to bloom, perhaps since the initial focus is on a kid (after all, Lucas moved his age from initially being 12 to 9 to try and fit the effect of him separating from his mother better). It didn't need to be a rehash with him being a young adult like Luke, but Lloyd is fledged with an unenviable task of playing an eventual Darth Vader in only one go. Having just one actor (and a change in pace, no less) for three films might have made them roll with more impact - at least we would have been spared a kid Anakin asking someone if they are an angel.

In a sea of interesting acting choices, it should only prove fair to have them seem routine behind some sets and screens. Neeson seems a bit too pallid to evoke much drama, with his final fate not having as much impact as it likely could have. McGregor doesn't quite have his familiar role pinned down here, and the lack of a dynamic between him and his future student in Anakin doesn't help much. Portman is hindered more by a ridiculous decoy plot than anything, but at least she does make some sort of curious impression. Lloyd doesn't quite have the conviction to make this role work, but how can anyone turn dialogue such as "Now this is podracing" really work (while being on a starfighter - long story) without ridicule? Any time with him and Portman is just weird in general. McDiarmid does well with playing the subtle kingmaker of his own doing without hitting a snag. August is quietly effective, even when occasionally lost in the spectacle background. Best plays a role that Buster Keaton would likely laughed off as too clownish with effort - it may not work out well, but at least he isn't the only fault present. The others (including a criminally underused Stamp) are pretty forgettable, and Darth Maul proves to be a fair but not too inspiring threat. Obviously the real threat is supposed to be the bigger one to look into (even if you already know who said threat is), but it only served to make for a trilogy of cut-scene quality adversaries. The droids don't prove too imposing, either, just big stick-looking things to fill the screen. By the time it gets to its climatic battle sequences, it proves to be a glut of overload, though the Maul fight is a bit nice. At least the lightsaber fights stick out for their attempts at finesse. In the end, the movie is a mish-mash of old story types, a dash of hubris, and ultimately something ridiculous to behold for each generation of fans, old and new. Some can rush to defend it for its quirks, and I understand that basis all the same - to me, this is an average adventure compounded as a disappointing Star Wars film.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Excalibur.

Review #1210: Excalibur.

Cast: 
Nigel Terry (King Arthur), Helen Mirren (Morgana Le Fay), Nicholas Clay (Sir Lancelot), Cherie Lunghi (Queen Guenevere), Paul Geoffrey (Sir Perceval), Nicol Williamson (Merlin), Corin Redgrave (Duke of Cornwall), Patrick Stewart (King Leodegrance), Keith Buckley (Sir Uryens), Clive Swift (Sir Ector), Liam Neeson (Sir Gawain), Gabriel Byrne (King Uther Pendragon), and Robert Addie (Prince Mordred) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz and #975 - Deliverance)

Review: 
The legend of King Arthur is a myth that has lived on in various forms of media for centuries, such as in prose or in novel form. Naturally it has served as something to adapt to the world of film, each having their own sort of style to tell the tale - whether involving a comedic take (A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, itself an adaptation of a novel from Mark Twain), or as an adaptation of a Broadway musical in Camelot (1967), or as a parody in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). In 1969, John Boorman had wanted to make a film about the Merlin legend. His plans to do the film with United Artists did not come to pass owing to the scope of the script (for which he wrote with Rospo Pallenberg), with the studio offering him the chance to do an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. While Boorman did not end up doing an adaptation of such material, he incorporated set design and imagery ideas from that stalled attempt for this film, which is based off the prose Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory. It is obvious that Boorman clearly wanted to make the definitive version of the legend, utilizing its 140 minute run-time to try and make a big grand story spectacle from life to death. It reads a bit like a history paper written in a fever dream by someone who really wants to get all of this information down before it flashes away - it may seem a bit long, but that's because he really wants to wow you with all that is going on. The spectacle does tend to outweigh the actual characters at times, and a lesser made film would buckle under the pressure - but Boorman manages to keep it all together to make an engaging fever dream of a movie.

The film has an interesting look to it, owing to the lighting choices (such as the forest scenes or parts involving the sword) that occurred due to production having rain fall on each day of the shoot, filmed entirely in Ireland. The result makes it seem like one is watching a otherworldly type of movie, with eerie and fitting cinematography from Alex Thomson. The aluminium on the knights glistens well at times, especially. The key highlight of the film is Williamson, who can switch from clever wit to foreboding when needed, wise and tricky as one would hope. He sells the film well whenever he pops up on screen, that is for sure. Terry (who dabbled in film on occasion when not on the British stage) has the task of trying to play the man of the myth from adolescence all the way to a withered man without seeming lost in the tale - he does just fine with that. Mirren (also known for her work in the theatre) isn't given too much depth with her conniving part, but at least she is game to have some scheming fun for her moments. Clay and Lunghi don't fare as great, each being a bit passive while not having too much chemistry of sorts with Terry, whether friend or lover. It doesn't come to the point where it undercuts the film as a whole, but it feels more haphazard than it probably should. Geoffrey ends up having to try and help carry the film a bit for the film's last half, and while he does seemingly make the role grow from when he is introduced, he can't help make it seem that the film could run out of steam when it tries to give focus on the Grail. The others of the cast fill their roles when required (including early performances on film for Stewart and Neeson, which is neat in some way). The film promotes itself on nobility and comradeship from its fabled Knights of the Round Table, where the king embodies the land he and his subjects walk on. It is a film that indulges in sets of armor, violence and a sense of hope, juggling itself amiably as an epic that merits its own place in entertainment among fantasy films. Perhaps it doesn't hold up as well as it should with some of its narrative workings, but it makes up for it with plenty of fun, spectacle and a fairly game cast that works out a quest of the legend and comes up with most of the right ideas in time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Widows (2018).

Review #1166: Widows.

Cast: 
Viola Davis (Veronica Rawlings), Michelle Rodriguez (Linda Perelli), Elizabeth Debicki (Alice Gunner), Cynthia Erivo (Belle), Colin Farrell (Jack Mulligan), Brian Tyree Henry (Jamal Manning), Daniel Kaluuya (Jatemme Manning), Jacki Weaver (Agnieska), Carrie Coon (Amanda Nunn), Robert Duvall (Tom Mulligan), Liam Neeson (Harry Rawlings), and Garret Dillahunt (Bash) Directed by Steve McQueen.

Review: 
I admit that this film came as a surprise on my radar, being something that fell right into the middle of November (right before Thanksgiving) with a bit of buzz but certainly one that probably would've benefited from being released in a different (and less busy) month, although at least it isn't one of those films that fall under limited releases. In any case, I was surprised to hear that Widows is based off a British prime-time television crime drama of the same name (written and created by Lynda La Plante), which aired as a six-part series each in 1983 and 1985 (along with a sequel series named She's Out in 1995). The show was remade previously in 2002, although the main plot dealt with theft of a painting. In any case, the film (with a screenplay from McQueen and Gillian Flynn) takes bits and pieces from the show while mixing in a political aspect (in this case, a robbery during a debate) that certainly make this film seem busy for its 129 minute run-time. Whether or not the film is fine entertainment relies on how much you invest into these characters and its buildup into its heist. For me, I thought the film worked just enough to make for some fine entertainment, having the right amount of capable thrills and a few moments of grimness and character moments to make for a solid winner. Davis pulls in a capable performance, showing strength in regard to what her character must go through with sudden events with a capability that makes her interesting to follow along with, whether when dealing with loss or dealing with having to set up a heist. Rodriguez is fine, but Debicki stands out quite well as the third arm of the heist, being charming and entertaining to follow along with as well. Erivo, the last arm of the team, does pretty fine with her time on screen, not having as much to say but doing her role without too much of a hitch. Farrell is effective in his plot-line, showing charisma alongside ooze in the fiber of his virtues, particularly when played off with his power broker on-screen father in Duvall, who plays his brief time to play it with such rude effectiveness. Henry also showcases his own degree of ambition that plays off fine, particularly when he and Farrell share a scene together involving an election for alderman. Kaluuya plays his ruthless enforcer role fairly effectively. Neeson is decent for his brief time on-screen. It has a fine deal of twists and action sequences that make for some entertaining execution, building up its characters and respective plot with a fair bit of juggling that makes for consistent (if not gradual) enjoyment. The film works better more often than not when dealing with the widows than the parts involving the election, although at least the two parts do feel natural enough to not seem too much like two different movies. I wonder how the film would have gone with a different length - would it have served better with a trim or lengthening in run-time? In any case, the movie serves its purpose of entertainment well with a fairly dynamic cast and a good amount of execution in the right places to make it something worth checking out.

Welcome to December. I meant to have this written prior to my birthday on the 1st, but time had to be spent to make sure that at least one review was done before November ended. Hopefully there will be a good amount of reviews to go around for the final month of the year, which is shaping up to have just as many (if not a bit more than) reviews as the year before.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Krull.

Review #927: Krull.

Cast:
Ken Marshall (Colwyn), Lysette Anthony (Princess Lyssa), Freddie Jones (Ynyr, the Old One), David Battley (Ergo the Magnificent), Bernard Bresslaw (Rell the Cyclops), Alun Armstrong (Torquil), Liam Neeson (Kegan), Robbie Coltrane (Rhun), Dicken Ashworth (Bardolph), Todd Carty (Oswyn), and Bronco McLoughlin (Nennog) Directed by Peter Yates (#506 - Bullitt)

Review:
Remember Battle Beyond the Stars (#819)? That 1980 movie that tried to be Magnificent Seven in space? Or Starcrash (#755)? That movie with more absurdity than dancing on a trampoline? Or The Man Who Saved the World (#371)? (same question still applies). These movies obviously had some influence from the original Star Wars film, but they also managed to have a strange sense of fun within themselves. So naturally, I figured it was time to take on a movie that meshes science and fantasy genres while also having its inklings of Star Wars in it. I also figured that since I would be going to my first Comic Con (in my home county) on Saturday, this would serve as something to accompany all of the fun along with giving you a review to help close out the month. So how is this movie? Stranger than you think.

Marshall is the main lead, but he doesn't really have much prsence besides just being a formula kind of hero, and he isn't really too unique. Anthony (with her voice dubbed by Lindsay Crouse) doesn't really have much to do, in part due to her spending a good deal of the movie captured. It's strange how the two leads really don't have too much presence nor too much time for romance, while the supporting cast manages to quite fun. Battley (and his character) serve as comic relief, and he does have the right kind of presence to make his character enjoyable. Jones plays the "wise man" role fairly comfortably, and he shares a fine scene with "The Widow in the Web" as well. Bresslaw and Armstrong are also pretty fine as well.  The effects for his change to animals is a bit murky, but it works fine for 1983. One of my favorite parts is him turning into a puppy for the kid character to play around with (for one scene, anyway), because that's what he wished for. There is a general feel of adventure and high strung design, with lines like "power is fleeting, love is eternal" seemingly accompanying it that make for a strange watch. The set design (such as with the Black Fortress) is quite nice. I do like how the main weapon is some sort of five point throwing weapon of "magic". It's almost as amusing as the evil bad guy moving his fortress every sunrise (clearly he likes travel, though he seems to forget how to deal with humans in combat). There's even a prophecy stated in the beginning, talking about how there will be a queen who will choose their king and rule their world while their son will rule the galaxy (cosmic difference, clearly). It's not every day that a movie basically tells you that the hero and the heroine will win in the beginning, so good on you I guess. The music by James Horner is pretty good, working for the adventurous spectacle that the movie attempts to pull quite well. Is the movie corny? Sure, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. There really is something different when there's a scene involving the characters trying to ride horses (called "fire mares", who do indeed fly). It meshes its sword and sorcery along with laser guns with the mending skills of someone with a lot of imagination just sparking out. I found this to be a fairly enjoyable (if not somewhat amusing) movie that works on its own kind of level.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Lego Movie.

Review #540: The Lego Movie.

Cast
Chris Pratt (Emmet Brickowski), Will Ferrell (Lord Business and "The Man Upstairs"), Elizabeth Banks (Wyldstyle), Will Arnett (Batman), Nick Offerman (Metal Beard), Alison Brie (Uni-Kitty), Charlie Day (Benny), Liam Neeson (Bad Cop/Good Cop and Pa Cop), Morgan Freeman (Vitruvius), Channing Tatum (Superman), Jonah Hill (Green Lantern), Cobie Smulders (Wonder Woman), Craig Berry (Blake), David Burrows (Octan Robot), and Jadon Sand (Finn) Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.

Review
I grew up with LEGOs. I loved how even though it seemed to simple to build with, it was actually a complex but still excellent system, and I do still have them in my house somewhere. So naturally, I went to go see the movie based on them. Movies based off toys don't have the best track record here (#057-#058 Transformers 1-2, #201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, #442 - The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, though #190 - The Transformers: The Movie wasn't half bad), but I went to the theater to see if the movie could break that trend. People who go to theaters have their traditions such as making noise, stealing discarded popcorn from people who've left the movie after it ends, commentating on the film, etc, etc. One of my traditions is to notice the amount of people waiting with me in line for a film...an hour before being allowed to go enter the theater, which either teaches the lesson to forever hate lines...or realize how big hype can be. And this film certainly does live up to the hype. The animation is beautifully done, meshing computer and the minifigure mannerisms that make Lego half of what is excellently. The cast is really excellent, Pratt does a fine job for such a normal but still special character. Ferrell is fun to hear, and the live action scenes he shares with Jadon Sand are touching and really effective. The movie has many moments of comedy, along with many moments of brilliance, and of course many moments of action, all three aspects make for a supreme combo of fun.The things that happen in this film really do bring me back to my younger days, hearing about the danger of gluing bricks together, having an average man be a hero, even the idea of a Lego Movie sounds like what I and probably others always wanted to do when we were younger. We probably didn't actually film these movies (Always hide your tracks in case it becomes an Old Shame years later), but yeah. The movie's greatest strength is the love and care the filmmakers have for the subject matter, and combined with the multitudes of people at my theater laughing and loving this movie, The Lego Movie is a great experience to watch, and is a delightful surprise for young and old. I may heap a high rating for this film, but in this case, I don't mind.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Schindler's List.

Review #351: Schindler's List.

Cast
Liam Neeson (Oskar Schindler), Ben Kingsley (Itzhak Stern), Ralph Fiennes (Amon Göth), Caroline Goodall (Emilie Schindler), Jonathan Sagall (Poldek Pfefferberg), Embeth Davidtz (Helen Hirsch), Małgorzata Gebel (Wiktoria Klonowska), Mark Ivanir (Marcel Goldberg), Beatrice Macola (Ingrid), Andrzej Seweryn (Julian Scherner), Friedrich von Thun (Rolf Czurda), and Jerzy Nowak (Investor) 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, and #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull)

Review
This is a polarizing film. This is a film that blends into any time period, managing to have shock and horror, but not disgusting you to the point of leaving. It keeps you in, managing to work for all with Spielberg obviously wanting to do this project, and to do it right, and for good reason. Films usually don't always touch us, some are for entertainment, some are for art, some are for others, but this is for many, many people, as a tribute, which works to the film and to the people. It is a reminder, it is a sad tale, with the black and white working especially well. The acting is good, especially from Neeson, who manages to leave an impact on you. It's been twenty years since this film, and even so it still works very well. It is what most call a masterpiece.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Batman Begins.

Review #062: Batman Begins.

Cast
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard/Ra's al Ghul), Katie Holmes (Rachel Dawes), Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon), Cillian Murphy (Dr. Jonathan Crane), Tom Wilkinson (Carmine Falcone), Rutger Hauer (Earle), Ken Watanabe (decoy Ra's Al Ghul), Mark Boone Junior (Flass), Linus Roache (Thomas Wayne), and Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight and #055 - Inception)

Review
I find that this film is pretty good, for the most part. It successfully reboots the franchise (which died after the 1997 bomb Batman and Robin) with an origin story that reintroduces people to him, and sets the ball in motion for the sequel. I felt the acting was good, but there were some little gripes. For one, I found the coveted "throat voice" of Christian Bale very, very unconvincing (what's next, Superman having the voice to disguise himself? It would be better then his glasses trick...). I also felt the action was jumbled, so you couldn't really tell what was going on. Scarecrow actually doesn't get a lot of screen time, and he's taken down so easily. And my final little gripe is how the Tumbler looks so...ugly. Is this the Batmobile, or a tank? Look I know there's a scene that says its a tank, but how is this a "mobile"? But nonetheless, the film is good, for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The A-Team.

Review #049: The A-Team.

Cast
Liam Neeson (John "Hannibal" Smith), Bradley Cooper (Templeton "Face" Peck), Quinton "Rampage" Jackson (B.A. Baracus), Sharlto Copley (H.M. "Howling Mad" Murdock), Jessica Biel (Charissa Sosa), Patrick Wilson (Agent Vance Burress/Agent Lynch), Brian Bloom (Brock Pike), and Gerald McRaney (Russell Morrison) Directed by Joe Carnahan.

Review
The film doesn't do much to be like the classic 80's show (which I should see) The film has loads of action, all in silly fun (especially the Tank flying through the sky). While the film isn't exactly good, it still manages to get your attention with some memorable things (that thing I just mentioned a line ago) If you want something to spend your time on that while not making you think (it's an action film), it will entertain you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.