Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

Review #2321: Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

Cast: 

Taylor Schilling (Dagny Taggart), Grant Bowler (Henry "Hank" Rearden), Matthew Marsden (James Taggart), Graham Beckel (Ellis Wyatt), Edi Gathegi (Edwin "Eddie" Willers), Jsu Garcia (Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia), Michael Lerner (Wesley Mouch), Jack Milo (Richard McNamara), Ethan Cohn (Owen Kellogg), Rebecca Wisocky (Lillian Rearden), Christina Pickles (Mother Rearden), Neill Barry (Philip Rearden), Patrick Fischler (Paul Larkin), Sylva Kelegian (Ivy Starnes), Jon Polito (Orren Boyle), and Michael O'Keefe (Hugh Akston) Directed by Paul Johansson.

Review: 

You may or may not know the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Born and educated in the Russian Empire, she moved to the States in 1926 and wrote a handful of novels and plays (I vaguely remember reading Anthem as a high school freshman over ten years ago but can remember more about Orwell's Animal Farm by a landslide). Describing the book as her magnum opus and one about "the role of man's mind in existence", the book grew a certain following among libertarians among a wide variety of reviews (one review said that within the novel, "a voice can be heard ... commanding: 'To a gas chamber—go!'"). Every year, over 400,000 copies of the words of Rand (including the novel) is donated to high schools by an institute that bears her name. For decades, there had been rumblings of trying to make the novel into either a film or a miniseries, with Rand even trying to make a screenplay before she died in 1982. The rights ot the film had been given to her heir in Leonard Peikoff, who had sold an option on producing the film to investor John Aglialoro in 1992 (a chairman of Cybex International and a member of the Board of Trustees of The Atlas Society). Through failed attempts at a miniseries on TNT and a project overseen by Howard and Karen Baldwin and Lions Gate Entertaiment that went nowhere in the 2000s, Aglialoro eventually took it upon himself to write screenplay with Brian Patrick O'Toole (as opposed to using the script by Randall Wallace that would've somehow made the movie into a two-hour work) that eventually got into production just two days before the film option was to expire. Stephen Polk was replaced by Paul Johansson as director just before filming began; Johansson is mostly known as an actor to go alongside directing fourteen episodes of One Tree Hill and go figure that this is his only directing credit. Shot over the course of less than six weeks for apparently over $10 million (speculation was that it actually was $20 million, but at any rate, "red camera technology" was used to get digital images for the film), the movie had to go through covert marketing outside of the usual norm that saw promotion from whatever "FreedomWorks" is. The movie never was released to more than 500 theaters at any point during its release cycle that started in April of 2011. Aglialoro went so far as to call critics who panned the film as "lemmings" that were scared of Ayn Rand and called it motivation to get the sequels made, which were done with lessening budgets and different directors and cast for each successor in 2012 and 2013. 

Honestly, I don't really try to put much of a political slant in these reviews (editorializing is more fun in calling Evel Knievel a bum than trying to spend sentences on Michael Moore, for example), I just go for what might be interesting (with Turkey Week being the "fun" alternative). It was either going to be this film or God's Not Dead (2014) and I shudder to wonder if I picked the sillier movie by accident. You just have to love a movie where an overhead shot cuts to a closeup where one says, "In order to save my family's business [actor pause] I'm going to have to abandon it" which is then immediately followed by a guy playing with a train set. I just have to ask myself: what in the actual hell is this movie? Where the hell did the money go to make a movie that has the trappings of a Hallmark movie? Do libertarians treat this movie like folks treat religious movies? The only thing "epic" about this movie is that it has the absolute weirdest sensibility about storytelling and dialogue that feels like it was written by aliens. This weirdo rendition of 2016 somehow makes the real one look sane by comparison, complete with obsession for trains. The jargon that gets spoken on screen makes me appreciate the technobabble heard on Star Trek episodes because at least those episodes didn't feel like pants about to rip in two from stress or involve a "State Science Institute". Folks disappear when people ask about "John Galt" while their photo turns to black-and-white that lists their name as if it was an NCIS episode, with the last guy being "on strike". People either share exhubrance for being in boardroom meetings or trains in a manner that suggests the movie is actually the product of someone actually having sex with a boardroom or train. I suppose there might have been something about "makers vs. takers" and capitalism to talk about here, but the whole experience is hollow and not at all compelling enough to not move past being a self-righteous screed about governments and money that has the persuasive power of a homeless man talking to you about certain men being the Devil for 97 minutes. The only amusement I get is the random bits with name actors trying to make sense of playing such weird caricatures, whether that involves Armin Shimerman (best known as Quark on possibly the best Star Trek show in Deep Space Nine) talking about "social danger" metals or Polito and Lerner playing spooky elites. Schilling and Bowler don't prove ideal to serving these leads because the characters have very little depth to actually deliver substance (you would almost rather see a hammy actor) that might actually make you wonder if they swapped brains with Neil Breen. Beckel just gives off crazy vibes. By the time one gets to burning oil wells for the climax (okay, funny word to use for the film but still), one is as satisfied in getting to the "End of Part I" title card as one would be in finding that one's housekeys were on the roof. As a whole, this is a baffling movie to watch, having little to offer people in actual production value that looks and feels cheap in the ways that matter most for a hollow experience. It somehow seems out of date and out of touch in terms of delivering a point beyond meandering mealy-mouth mush.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Candidates that fell by the wayside for our fifth and most successful Turkey Week in terms of terrible crap seen: 

Mitchell (1975), If Ever I See You Again (1978), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Simon Sez, 

 Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, Killing Me Softly, Project Moonbase, Shanghai Surprise / Body of Evidence, The Slime People, Don't Go in the Woods, H.G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come, Folks!,

The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Billy Jack Goes to Washington, Return to Blue Lagoon, 

The Starfighters, The Identical / God's Not Dead, Date Movie, and 2024's Reagan / The Crow. 

We shall see where the road takes Turkey Week in 2025.

Radioland Murders.

Review #2241: Radioland Murders.

Cast: 

Brian Benben (Roger Henderson), Mary Stuart Masterson (Penny Henderson), Scott Michael Campbell (Billy Budge), Michael Lerner (Lieutenant Cross), Ned Beatty (General Walt Whalen), Brion James (Bernie King), Stephen Tobolowsky (Max Applewhite), Michael McKean (Rick Rochester), Corbin Bernsen (Dexter Morris), Bobcat Goldthwait (Wild Writer), Anita Morris (Claudette Katzenback), Jeffrey Tambor (Walt Whalen Jr), Larry Miller (Herman Katzenback), Christopher Lloyd (Zoltan), Harvey Korman (Jules Cogley), and Dylan Baker (Detective Jasper) Directed by Mel Smith.

Review: 

Believe it or not, I have had this film very, very, very loosely on the radar for years. Here's a good question for you folks: would you believe that this film had George Lucas as a writer? Among the fifteen films where he has been credited as a writer (story or otherwise), it probably goes without saying this is the most obscure of the group. Lucas thought of the story for the film around the time he had developed American Graffiti, which if one remembers was released in 1973 (Lucas equated the friendship had in the film between the kids and the disc jockey to a phenomenon that Radioland would explore further when it comes to radio infused with fantasy). The co-writers of that film in Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck were asked by Lucas to work on the script for the film, which in the mind of Lucas was meant to be aimed as a homage to films such as Who Done It (the Abbott and Costello film from 1942); strangely enough, if one looks up this film on Wikipedia, it lists two other films involving murders at a radio station. The success of films such as Star Wars (1977) among other things kept Lucas busy, but eventually he came back to the idea of a film based on his interests in old-time radio, once stating that "You can trace radio back to the old storytellers around the fire. It's been lost over the years." By the time of the 1990s, one could utilize computer technology for their films, and this apparently is one that really used it to distinct usage, such as the sights in the exterior of the main building the film takes place to go along with select interior walls to go with a certain shot for the climax. Jeff Reno and Ron Osborn (best known for their work on the TV show Moonlighting) were hired to deliver re-writes to the script, evidently under the request of Universal Pictures. The director was Mel Smith, who had done plenty of work within sketch comedy in his native England prior to directing his first film with The Tall Guy (1989), which Lucas liked. The result was a production that had plenty of rushed work near its ending stages, with Lucas apparently doing some unit work alongside Smith. One description of the film was "cinematic pickup sticks." The film, once budgeted for $10 million that eventually rose to $15 million as a Lucasfilm production for Universal, came and went into theaters to incredibly small audience turnout. Smith directed three further films before his death in 2013 at the age of 60, most notably with Bean (1997).

Why don't we be a little nice for a moment when it comes to a movie now three decades old: there are gags in it that are worth a chuckle (heh, radio will never die...), and it is actually a bit interesting to figure what is an special effect in a movie that one wouldn't expect to need many effects, which make for a curious eye (or what have you) on the chase at times. It looks like a radio production for worthwhile decor. One gets a slight chuckle at seeing George Burns basically play himself for one last film bit (incidentally, Burns, playing a 100-year-old comedian for a bit, would die in 1996 at the age of 100). Now, where were we? You don't usually see it happen, but this is one of those sad, sad, sad times where you can see just where a film is about to die that makes one really understand the meaning of "death by a thousand cuts". I feared it would happen late in the 108-minute runtime but nope, this is a movie that either ropes you in with its barrage of slapstick and zany nature or makes you internally scream for it to shut up and breathe. It tries to be quick in pace with its 1939 setting that tries to make one interested in the workings of its radio trappings and the growing murder mystery...and it really strains credibility once you wonder why it couldn't just have been one or the other instead of this miserable mishmash. See, one really wants to like these people and the strange quirks that come with a soundman being played by the most lucid actor possible in Lloyd or the goofy military-stylings of Beatty...and then one gets to the leads and finds the charm levels are essentially right down the tube. It doesn't seem particularly fair to denigrate Masterson (then known for roles such as Immediate Family [1989]) and Benben (the then star of the HBO sitcom Dream On), because surely, they were at least game to do the gags with quick timing and the routine I'm sure you would expect of a once burning romance. But with Benben and his preening mugging in a role that is meant to be funny in its comedy of circumstance (get it? he happens to be around when murders keep happening? eh?!), you can't craft a winner when essentially stuck in a pit with a plastic spoon when Masterson is essentially left adrift to try and match. The sitcom-level dynamic just comes off as noise bereft of life. Even seeing Lerner there makes one sad because if you're going to see someone play a familiar role, you sure as hell want it to be in something more rewarding (Goldthwait somehow makes his performance in Scrooged seem subtle). Campbell isn't even on the level of a goofy Baker while poor Tobolowsky is merely ordinary until the film remembers it has a mystery to solve. By the time the film lumbers to the end of who did what and why to go with how and where it will go, you are gladder that it has ceased transmission. In trying to capture what one thinks the screwball was all about in the realm of rapid-fire construction, being outclassed by previous throwback attempts like Oscar (1991) is a sad state of mind to be in. With middling interest in characters that don't win one's attention for an overcooked script, one can only find pity within a film that never really had a chance.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Hell, come on down Dutch.

Godzilla (1998).

Review #2161: Godzilla. 

Cast: 

Matthew Broderick (Dr. Niko "Nick" Tatopoulos), Jean Reno (Philippe Roaché), Maria Pitillo (Audrey Timmonds), Hank Azaria (Victor "Animal" Palotti), Kevin Dunn (Colonel Hicks), Michael Lerner (Mayor Ebert), Harry Shearer (Charles Caiman), Arabella Field (Lucy Palotti), Vicki Lewis (Dr. Elsie Chapman), Lorry Goldman (Gene), Doug Savant (Sergeant O'Neal), Malcolm Danare (Dr. Mendel Craven), Ralph Manza (Fisherman Joe), and Glenn Morshower (Kyle Terrington) Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day and #413 - The Patriot)

Review: 

"I’m totally proud of Godzilla. I’m always saying this, I mean I know there’s a lot of naysayers, but I’m proud of it. I’m not really a fanboy, so I was changing Godzilla. It was also, probably, a situation that I was a little bit talked into it.”

Why should I be surprised? Actually, this is one time where I'm glad I was born in 1996, because I really don't want to know how the hype would have been if I was at least ten years old for the release of this film, which is now 25 years old. This is the kind of movie that had a whole promo campaign all about "Size Does Matter". The idea for an American Godzilla wasn't too farfetched. There had been dubs released in theaters, if you recall: the original 1954 film got turned into Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956), the 1955 sequel got turned into Gigantis, the Fire Monster (1959), oh, Invasion of Astro-Monster (1965) was co-produced by Toho and UPA, and The Return of Godzilla (1984) got turned into Godzilla 1985. Plans to make a feature film started bubbling in 1992, when TriStar announced they acquired the rights to the character from Toho to make a trilogy of films. Jan de Bont was considered to direct by 1994 for a 1996 release, and he apparently had something in mind involving Atlanteans, a "Gryphon", and a creature designed by Stan Winston. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio were approached to do the screenplay, although Don Macpherson was later hired to do re-writes. Budget concerns by TriStar eventually led de Bont off the project in favor of doing Twister. Despite all of this, in 1996 (the year after Toho tried to end their series with Godzilla vs. Destoroyah), Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin (right before the release of Independence Day, and I would like to point out that Emmerich apparently was big on doing his next film involving a meteor hitting Earth inspired by The Right Stuff) were hired to craft a Godzilla film, complete with Patrick Tatopoulos being hired to design an animal (not a monster) that would move fast. Emmerich and Devlin were credited with the screenplay and also the story (with Elliott and Rossio) while Devlin served as a producer. Around-the-clock work in trying to get the effects (a good deal done in CG) done meant that a final cut was only assembled just days before the premiere, with a lack of studio screenings being done before its release in May (three months later, an animated series came out as a follow-up that ended up lasting until 2000). The film, made for over $100 million, was one that made money, but a general lack of enthusiasm all the way around led to TriStar letting the sequel rights expire in 2003. Emmerich was apparently never a big Godzilla fan, describing them as just "weekend matinees you saw as a kid...you'd go with all your friends and just laugh" (he liked the first but apparently wasn't big on the follow-ups with monsters fighting each other). Devlin later stated his belief that there were two mistakes that were made with the film and its script: a lack of commitment in what Godzilla was as a character (i.e, hero or villain, since they went with "just simply an animal trying to survive") and lending its exposition of the character backgrounds in the middle of the film rather than in the start. Rossio wrote a whole essay with the title "The One Hundred Million Dollar Mistake". Some have mockingly renamed the film to such titles as "G.I.N.O." (Godzilla In Name Only) or "Zilla", and years later, Toho even went with a "Zilla" trademark. TriStar handled the distribution for a dubbed version Godzilla 2000 (which started production shortly after the release of this film) in 2000, funny enough.

At least Devlin could be given credit for trying. But Emmerich? No, he screwed up a layup of making a disaster movie where a monster goes around breathing fire and wreaking havoc that could play like an Irwin Allen epic. I haven't watched an Emmerich film in a decade, but this is shovelware for tbe birds. You might say, hey, he tries to make popcorn entertainment movies, why not give him a break if you weren't too hard on Independence Day and The Patriot...? Nah, I can't give credit here, because this being the first all-around American rendition of a Godzilla film makes for the easiest target to call a piece of crap in all of history. This is a movie that names two characters after prominent critics of Emmerich's work and doesn't even take the chance to squish them. This is a movie where the creature can just disappear for chunks of the film and... reproduce asexually while having an origin of nuclear testing...by the French. I think being hard on this stupid film is not only a wise idea but a righteous one. 2024 will see a fourth Godzilla film from the States (oddly enough, Rossio co-wrote the story to Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire [2024]), and it likely will dwarf the one presented here by the simple act that it will be made by someone who cares about what they are making. It makes Godzilla, King of the Monsters!, that movie with dubbing and Raymond Burr playing a stand-in explaining stuff, look like a godsend in comparison. Fiery breath and an underwhelming human cast is the equivalent of being served a hamburger filled with plastic while the soda cup is filled with stuff from 1978. 

At least Broderick seems to be engaging with his role rather than looking like he wants to shrink away in humiliation. That doesn't make it any easier to bear the idea that a film about a monster (sorry, animal, but that just sounds stupid) with the most boring human characters to support it. Lame gags about his character name and a horribly misplaced timing of trying to get us to be on these characters for the middle have him fare nearly the worst of everyone. According to one source, a lead executive was so displeased at what he saw from Pitillo's performance that he wanted to find someone to re-voice the role. I would like to point out that she was one of three folks that had three-film contracts for Godzilla (alongside Broderick and Reno). How mean could I possibly be? Well, I will simply just say that she would probably be better fit for the third lead in a Gamera film. Most perplexing is Reno, if only because again, when I think of guilt and trying to deal with what they create, a bunch of bumbling French operatives is not high on the list. What exactly is the purpose of having accomplishes all being named Jean? With the various little attempts at humor involving bad coffee, I'm almost surprised they didn't give the team a skunk mascot. Lerner and Dunn are probably the only highlights of the film, and all they are doing is just stuff you would expect from people playing to the check that we like. It isn't even worth making a reference with talking about Azaria and Shearer. It meanders for over two hours and fails to even reach half of the level of something like say, The Towering Inferno ever did. The "asexual reproduction" makes the whole thing preposterous, the sequences of baby Godzillas elevates it further, the end sequence of Godzilla being taken down by military missiles closes the entire thing out to the stupidest possible level, because if there is anything to learn from a series about a radioactive monster and consequences, the best way for it to go down is a credibly interesting presence to counteract it...i.e., not the military. Emmerich can say whatever he wants about what he thought about getting into the project or the result, the bottom line is that this is a hacky movie that isn't particularly thrilling or particularly noteworthy for spectacle that hadn't been done in Jurassic Park (or its mediocre sequel) or other Godzilla films before it. I can't claim to have seen all of those feature films, but even the ones that are just okay at best knew that they were trying to make something worthwhile for an audience to watch. This just exudes misery.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

In some ways, every year gets better and better for Movie Night. Happy 13th anniversary, folks. Two record-setting months of interesting reviews made a useful 2023 and hopefully sets the stage for some re-invention in 2024.

No Escape (1994).

Review #2043: No Escape.

Cast: 

Ray Liotta (John Robbins), Lance Henriksen (The Father), Stuart Wilson (Walter Marek), Kevin Dillon (Casey), Kevin J. O'Connor (Stephano), Don Henderson (Killian), Ian McNeice (Tom King), Jack Shepherd (Dysart), Michael Lerner (Warden), Ernie Hudson (Hawkins), Russell Kiefel (Iceman), and Brian M. Logan (Scab) Directed by Martin Campbell (#173 - GoldenEye, #220 - Green Lantern, and #285 - Casino Royale)

Review: 

Honestly, the only reason I picked this movie is because of the confounding elements that come from its director and stars. How does a movie that features Ray Liotta as star and Martin Campbell as director one year before GoldenEye (1995) slip by under the radar? The most noted film that Campbell made as a director came considerably late in his career, you know. Born in New Zealand, he moved to London to become a director for softcore sex comedies and action TV in the 1970s, as represented by The Sex Thief (1973) and The Professionals, respectively. His most notable television project, however, came with the six-part serial he directed for BBC Television in 1985 in Edge of Darkness (incidentally, he would direct the feature film remake in 2010). Campbell's first film away from his initial start was Criminal Law (1988), which was as successful as his next in Defenseless (1991), which is to say not very much. At any rate, No Escape may have been a ineffective hit with audiences, but GoldenEye, the first James Bond film in the 1990s, was a major hit that he followed with The Mask of Zorro (1998). The film is based on the novel The Penal Colony by Richard Herley, with the screenplay written by Michael Gaylin and Joel Gross.

Technically, the movie does look like the cost to make it was $20 million, because it is a decent-looking "sci-fi action film", but the plot has the rumblings of something unearthed from decades ago in the B-movie realm. Think about it: a man is dropped into a totally inescapable situation and finds either savages or a slipshod attempt at community that has his own reasons to escape. Set in the then-future year of 2022 involving a lead character that suffers PTSD from his experience in Benghazi, the result is something you can see coming right from the very get-go. I really wished I liked the film better, but the only thing that may stick out for you beyond the name actors is the odd distinction that it has no women in the cast (what zero interactions with women does to a person, heh). It just seems too ordinary as a dystopian film (even with a for-profit prison depiction), so stop if you've heard this before: a loner rogue ends up leading people off to safety, an elder that is secretly dying ends up sacrificing oneself, a greedy authority (and/or traitor) figure gets what they deserve, and so on and so on. Liotta is at the very least a solid presence to give the movie some sort of attempt at a redemption story, one where he simply cannot escape being with people despite his traumas and desire to run. Henriksen certainly has a knack for playing authority figures for a handful of his roles, but it is merely too little for him to really lean into for anything meaningful (perhaps it is dwarfed by having Hard Target (1993) on my mind). Wilson seems to be having a nice time playing the heavy, even with the makeup done to portray "the law of the jungle", but yea, we both know that the conflict between him and Liotta isn't exactly the stuff that compelling duels are made of. Dillon is in the most obvious of sacrificial lamb roles and it has very little to trot in meaningful interest, which slips by more than Hudson, who comes and goes with little to no distinctions. Hell, the "rat" character and the "eccentrics" aren't exactly ones to write home about, the movie just seems a bit too plaid to do anything that would stick out that could threaten the serious time the film aims for that ends up for not much when you realize it is a B-movie with nowhere to go but the middle because you don't really know these folks that much or feel like you want to know about them for 111 minutes. As a whole, it is a movie that comes and goes without anything really meaningful to say about people beyond the mildest of conflicts of "decent" and "very bad" that can only go one way when you already know where the cards are stacked to escape. It is a decent-looking movie with decent-seeming people that just can't find that extra ingredient to carry it over the finish line, but maybe you might find something to notice for yourself.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Harlem Nights.

Review #1639: Harlem Nights.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Vernest "Quick" Brown), Richard Pryor (Sugar Ray), Redd Foxx (Bennie Wilson), Danny Aiello (Phil Cantone), Michael Lerner (Bugsy Calhoune), Della Reese (Madame Vera Walker), Berlinda Tolbert (Annie), Stan Shaw (Jack Jenkins), Jasmine Guy (Dominique La Rue), Vic Polizos (Richie Vento), Lela Rochon (Sunshine), David Marciano (Tony), Arsenio Hall (Reggie), and Thomas Mikal Ford (Tommy Smalls) Written and Directed by Eddie Murphy.

Review: 

It goes without saying that Eddie Murphy was a prime comedic star for the 1980s. It sure is something that one can be the headline presence in nine feature films in that era and have only one of them be an outright stinker (Best Defense, although the jury will be out on The Golden Child, another one that Murphy detested, until I actually get around to it...). He had various influences growing up that ranged from Richard Pryor to Bruce Lee, but it is the former that he most aspired to be most like. After all, Murphy thought he was going to be famous from a young age, but it was listening to one of Pryor's albums that made him think about doing comedy. And...you know the rest, but there is one thing to state about this film: it is the only time he has directed his own film, for which he also served as executive producer. The film ultimately turned out to be a mixed result. On the one hand, Murphy and the others did enjoy themselves quite a bit, to which Murphy described it as a blur that was amazing for coming together - at least in recent times, since he also called it part of his bizarre periods that catered to what he thought would please everybody while plagued with adulation, where the funny stuff seemed to be more offstage than in the film. One apparent inspiration was the real life conflict between gangsters involving Harlem, as Dutch Schultz and Bumpy Johnson had a conflict in the mid 1930s. Strangely enough, Johnson had been used as the inspiration for a variety of films with gangster characters, such as Shaft (1971) and The Cotton Club (1984). 

It can certainly be said that this is a weird vanity project, one that has a labor of love for wanting to work with inspirations that result in a wild up-and-down film. It was a mild success with its $30 million budget, but it also received mostly derisive attention for its time that has only slightly molded down into the box of "cult classic" from others. In other words: a mixed bag, one that can either be the equivalent of a good time spent for amusement, or one that can be thought of as too familiar or vulgar to work in either action or comedy. For me, I thought it was just fine - cliché period piece or not, there was still something for me to enjoy, even though it obviously isn't the best way to make one's own vanity piece (believe me, The Postman (1997), vanity piece or not, was far more embarrassing to go through). If a regular film student had done this basic premise, we would probably think of it as average fluff, but Murphy being the driving force basically magnifies everything to 10. Of course, the obscenities don't help, but am I really going to be the one to cry about swear words in a film? Class and bawdiness are the yin-and-yang of any time period, really (at least the ones that people want to live in instead of their own). Truthfully, the film works best when trying to not strain for a joke, where it allows itself to enjoy the crisp look that one will either tolerate as something they've seen before or wish they were watching another film about switcheroos (once one does The Sting (1973), can one really ever go back?). In that sense, while Murphy likely should have had someone else direct or had a script polishing, he does a fair job in balancing himself out, being semi-funny with a few quips in a generally warm-headed performance that anyone would be fine with in having mentors around while blowing folks away. On the other side of lead actors, this one was near the close of Pryor's career. He had suffered a variety of health problems (having been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1986, for which he said got worse in 1990) alongside doing a selection of wide-ranging comedy work (which ranged from Jo Jo Dancer, Your Life Is Calling to Superman III), and this was his third-to-last starring role. He had his own reservations about his performance, one that he toned down from script-to-screen that seemed (to him) to be bothered by his MS diagnosis, and he felt that he never connected with Murphy and his "mean" comedy. Honestly, it is a fine performance, one that obviously is trying to play that line of weariness in being a mentor and also an adept player to what is needed - it results in a few amusing moments.  This was the last film role for Foxx, who incidentally would star alongside Reese in a Murphy-produced television show with The Royal Family (1991), which ended up being Foxx's last project prior to his death at the age of 68. He still seems to have the spark needed in wiry background amusement, and one can see a useful duo between him and Reese. Not to be forgotten for their own contributions in being a name for themselves before filming is Reese, who was known for her jazz and gospel singing for three decades alongside vast work in television. The film suits her well for a variety of amusing moments of bombast, with the sequences between her and Murphy (one of which involving a fight in an alley) proving a worthy highlight. Aiello and Lerner each make useful adversaries (cliché, but still), riding the line of imposing threat in each line of focus (whether as a beleaguered boss or a jealous cop in a hovel) that fits the standard needed. Others make appearances here and there that in theory could lead somewhere (such as a subdued Guy), but it ends up with Hall being the most interesting one to see in a short role, playing the crying game of mayhem pretty well. As a whole, 116 minutes of run-time is either too long for a film of this caliber or curious enough to want to see it all the way through. It is nobody's idea of a great crime comedy, but Harlem Nights could be worth your while if you find the sum of its parts enough to satisfy your curiosity. 

Next Time: The first film on my mind for this project - Boyz n the Hood.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Eight Men Out.

Review #1287: Eight Men Out.

Cast: 
John Cusack (Buck Weaver), Clifton James (Charles Comiskey), Michael Lerner (Arnold Rothstein), Christopher Lloyd (Bill Burns), John Mahoney (Kid Gleason), Charlie Sheen (Happy Felsch), David Strathairn (Eddie Cicotte), D. B. Sweeney (Shoeless Joe Jackson), Michael Rooker (Chick Gandil), Don Harvey (Swede Risberg), and James Read (Lefty Williams) Written and Directed by John Sayles.

Review: 
Yes I know, not a horror film. However, today is the start of the World Series, which incidentally features my Houston Astros, so how could I resist covering a baseball movie? This one had been on my list for quite a while, so it only makes sense to do it now. Enjoy, and let's hope for a wonderful World Series result.

It is interesting to note the passing of 100 years since the Black Sox scandal, in which eight players of the Chicago White Sox were accused of throwing games in the 1919 World Series in conspiracy with gamblers. A public trial ensued in 1921, for which none of the accused players were convicted of any crime, although they were banned from playing professional baseball for the rest of their lives. A tale as old as time for baseball (a sport I adore) undeniably has inspired writers to adapt it into stories. Eliot Asinof wrote an account of the scandal in 1963, while W. P. Kinsella's wrote a magic realist novel with Shoeless Joe (1982, which was adapted into Field of Dreams the same year as this film). It isn't hard to say that baseball fans will certainly have interest in seeing this tale come to life in film while non-baseball fans will have a little harder time getting behind what this movie wants to show with this (questionably accurate) period drama. When it comes to baseball movies, this is probably safe middle ground stuff, doing just fine with its look and some of its ensemble moments while being a bit lacking when it comes to making everything really stick (particularly when it comes to some egregious liberties taken with real events, which is just as true with the novel and its combination of fictional characters into what is meant to be a non-fiction narrative). It clocks in at just a few seconds under two hours, for which the first half proves more favorable than the latter half (what better way to combine baseball cliches than courtroom cliches), seeming to have a few amusing moments with its cast. As such, the highlights include Cusack, Strathairn, Sweeney, and Rooker, with each actor of the conspiracy sticking out, such as Cusack and his bright disposition (even when faced with a bunch of crooked teammates), or the calmness of the others in their belief of that allure one calls more money. Minor highlights include James and Mahoney, making crucial points count just fine. How much guff can one give about accuracy about adapting the scandal to film with source material that took its own liberties with the facts (the Internet sure does help occasionally when it comes to finding tidbits of information, such as Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), who recently had made an article detailing numerous myths about the scandal, such as the White Sox actually having a high payroll (for 1919), or the gamblers being approached by the players (as opposed to the other way around), or the grand jury testimony being stolen (which they simply re-created later on anyway, which didn't have a big effect on the trial). If you really wanted to go further, the Internet is your friend for finding things to pick at (for better or worse). For me, it does tend to rankle me, in part because a film should know a little better about getting more than basic concepts right, especially stuff like Christy Mathewson (famed baseball legend) being the one that helped out the journalist investigation as opposed to Lardner (played by Sayles himself). In the end, I find that the film does best when letting the players speak for themselves along with its baseball action, with its foundation having quite a few cracks that can make this a hit-or-miss kind of movie. For me, it is a fair single, worth a look if one is curious enough for an old-timey but fair-minded day at an old ballpark.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.