Redux: Batman Returns.

Redux #316: Batman Returns.

Cast: 

Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Danny DeVito (Oswald Cobblepot / The Penguin), Michelle Pfeiffer (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Christopher Walken (Max Shreck), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (Commissioner James Gordon), Michael Murphy (The Mayor), Vincent Schiavelli (The Organ Grinder), Andrew Bryniarski (Charles "Chip" Shreck), Cristi Conaway (The Ice Princess), Rick Zumwalt (The Tattooed Strongman), Anna Katarina (The Poodle Lady), Paul Reubens (Tucker Cobblepot), and Diane Salinger (Esther Cobblepot) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride)

Review: 

"I like Batman Returns better than the first one. There was this big backlash that it was too dark, but I found this movie much less dark."

Tim Burton did not originally intend to return for the sequel, if you can believe it. But he elected to return when Warner Bros. granted him more creative control along with the shuffling of Jon Peters and Peter Guber to executive producers (the same fate as the people they basically screwed over in Benjamin Melniker and Michael E. Uslan) while Burton became a co-producer. Beforehand, Sam Hamm was tasked to write the script once again, with his apparent first script having the villains of The Penguin and Catwoman looking for buried treasure involving a secret group of wealthy Gotham citizens, which apparently featured a climax reveal where the society was really behind the death of Batman's parents (one part does ring familiar in the Penguin trying to frame Batman). At the request of Burton, he was later replaced by Daniel Waters (writer of the dubious cult favorite Heathers in 1989). It should be noted that Waters helped create the character played by Walken, as opposed to possible ideas by Hamm to include the character of Two-Face. Perhaps it is strange irony that the idea of the Penguin running for Mayor actually had been seen before in the Adam West interpretation of Batman ("Hizzoner the Penguin"/"Dizzoner the Penguin", for those at home).Wesley Strick was tasked to flesh out the script during principal photography, specifically with devising a "master plan" for the climax (Warner Bros. apparently tried to go with either freezing or warming Gotham), which doesn't seem too far removed from the prodigal son angle seen through the film; I should note however that the character of Max Shreck was actually meant to be the younger brother of the Penguin before Strick excised it from the script (which also saw the character of Robin go by the wayside). However, the practices of the Writers Guild of America in dealing with scripts and principal photography meant that Strick didn't get credit as a writer. The design might have been under a different designer (Bo Welch) this time around, but it does continue to remind one of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), which does manage to make one enchanted by what one could do in a time of sound stages and miniatures (the movie does used CG effects with a Batmobile shield and remote Batarang, of course). This is also true for the army commanded by the Penguin, which sees real penguins alongside actors in suits, puppets, and animation. Casting is sometimes a stroke of chance. Apparently, the first choice for the character played by Walken was David Bowie. He rejected it to do a part in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992) while Burton had to be convinced to cast Walken because he was apparently scared of him. Pfeiffer got her role because Annette Bening became pregnant, and DeVito was one of dozens of people considered for his role when Dustin Hoffman turned it down.

You know, it is a funny thing to consider the legacy of the movie after 30 years since its release on June 19, 1992. It wasn't as big of a success as the original 1989 film, with one major thing about it being the fact that it was apparently too dark. To me, I think this is a ridiculous assessment, as if one couldn't accept the idea of a Tim Burton movie that sees him not shackled by producers or studios who are starting to think about making products that could be riper for toys. I for one welcome movies that feature folks with dark saliva or brief shots of someone putting a bird in their mouth. Besides, it wasn't like Batman didn't lead anybody to their downfall in the 1989 movie, so trying to go with that argument is even worse. In fact, I will state with no doubt in my mind that this movie is superior to the 1989 movie, because it elevates the eerie atmosphere of cynicism and style with even further burrowing into the psyche of people struck with forms of duality that make a capable dark fairy tale. Granted, the overall story is probably not as cohesive as it could be, but it most definitely has better sticking points than what was seen in the 1989 movie when it comes to duality that isn't just a show for one villain and not much else. Keaton continues his timing from the first portrayal that seems him deal with more threats of people who look to match him in looney double sides that will either see him try to not show his scars to one while the other just thinks he is jealous that he's a genuine freak that doesn't have to wear a mask. He doesn't say too much here, since he felt that that the suit would do most of the talking (requesting as such in trimming lines from the script). Burgess Meredith did do a fine job in the 1960s interpretation of the Penguin that I can still hear in my mind when it comes to dubious gentlemen of eloquence. Burton, seemingly inspired by Lon Chaney and his performances such as The Phantom of the Opera, has decided to go with a portrayal of the Penguin with trauma and deformed lunatic for DeVito to play. Some might not care much for the creeping oddball in a movie that starts a bleak streak with showing a child being left to die. But I actually appreciate his antisocial interpretation of someone with the mindset of a sewer that makes a properly decadent villain. Several people played the Catwoman in the 1960s, most notably with Julie Newmar. Pfeiffer makes a quality portrayal in her own double-edged sword that grows in confidence with wicked fierceness that does make a quality pairing with Keaton in captivating torment. The scene where she arises from death to smash her place while spray painting things black is probably the best highlight, although seeing her descent of revenge meet its logical conclusion works as well. Undeniably, Walken is the ideal choice to stand well amongst costumed freaks because of his useful timing when it comes to essentially playing a robber baron, having a decadence of craven ooze that seems reminiscent of Vincent Price in all the right ways. Gough and Hingle do what they need to do while Schiavelli makes an interesting side face of terror. The movie does have some of the offbeat plot motivations from before that make it another example of style and substance clashing together. I'm fine with the general story, all things considered.

It is interesting to see the differing paths that came out in the next couple of years. Warner Bros. decided to make another Batman movie without Burton as director, with him being utilized as a producer for what became Batman Forever (1995) because they clearly desired making more money rather than see what Burton might have had in mind or keep a darker sensibility. The portrayal of Catwoman attracted attention enough to make plans for a spinoff with Pfeiffer that had a script from Waters (which apparently involved her turning up in a resort run by superheroes that poked fun at the mythos) and ideas in mind to have Burton to direct; a script was turned in to Warner Bros the same day that Forever came out, but the movie would languish in development hell until one finally saw Catwoman on screen again in 2004, albeit with Halle Berry. In 2021, a comic book series called Batman '89 was released by DC Comics that served as a continuation of the two movies with Sam Hamm as the main writer. I appreciate the guiding vision laid out by Burton in dark sensibility with shades of the grotesque that is in my mind the best Batman movie of the series released by Warner Bros in the 20th century. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

mother!

Review #1580: mother!

cast: 
Jennifer Lawrence (mother), Javier Bardem (Him), Ed Harris (man), Michelle Pfeiffer (woman), Domhnall Gleeson (oldest son), Brian Gleeson (younger brother), Kristen Wiig (herald), Jovan Adepo (cupbearer), Stephen McHattie (zealot), Amanda Warren (healer), Laurence Leboeuf (maiden), and Emily Hampshire (fool) Written and Directed by Darren Aronofsky (#1112 - Pi)

review: 
“The idea with all my films is to entertain, to give audiences a journey they haven’t had before. But I want to do it with a subject that makes me passionate. What’s the point if you’re not doing that?”

Sometimes you can just track an interesting path of a director in their first film and see how it goes to the latest one - enter Darren Aronofsky. The New York native had an interest in the outdoors and show business as a youth, and it continued with his studies at Harvard University, where he studied social anthropology and filmmaking. Inspired by directors such as Jim Jarmusch and Spike Lee, he made his first movie with the senior thesis Supermarket Sweep (1991). His first feature film came with the release of Pi (1998), an ultra-cheap dark classic thriller. His next film in Requiem for a Dream (2000) was just as well received while noted for its intensity. The Fountain (2006) was not easily received (although it has a following), but The Wrestler (2008) and Black Swan (2010) both received considerable notice (particularly for its lead stars in each film) while Noah (2014) was his biggest film in budget/success.

Angry about the world with its environmental state and as a whole enough to strike inspiration, Aronofsky reportedly wrote the script to the film in five days, and inspirations have been argued that range from Rosemary's Baby (1968) to The Exterminating Angel (1962). The easiest word to describe this film would be "esoteric", really. Get it? A film about mother (Earth)? Drawing a story based on the Bible (there is one character name capitalized, after all)? And it is still a cloying, divisive, ridiculous mess? The real surprise is in how much you want to know before seeing it - the answer would be none, because hearing an endless supply of "you just don't get it!" vs. "I don't get it, because X" would likely cause a great headache for all involved. It certainly won't help anyone wanting a film pegged under one genre, since "psychological horror" doesn't really seem to cut it. I mean, hey a husband-and-wife living in a country house wrapped with writer's block and intimacy problems suddenly have a couple of strangers turn up sounds fine. Is it blasphemy? Is it pretentious? Is it something else? It can fall under either or all of these three categories, depending on the patience and the point of view of the person watching it. To me, I thought it was incredibly silly, a monumentally weird movie that seems more like therapy for Aronofsky than anything else. It might as well have taken place on the stage (with...some modification to its gruesome scene at the end) with how it plays to the rafters of allegory, allegory, and allegory. Lawrence (having become an actress as a teenager and one with prominence years later) does fine with what she is given, balancing that fine line between emotional vulnerability and being stuck like a statue to ham-fisted metaphor. No one is really confused in their acting, although Bardem sure comes close here. Truthfully, one would hope to see more of Harris and Pfeiffer, each being equally amusing in pushy fervor that begs for more time to spend with loopy interlopers. 

Is it a challenging movie different from the usual fare released in mainstream theaters? Sure, but so was Zardoz (1974), and all one remembers from that film is Sean Connery in a nappy. Why stop there with the reference to that film? After all, both films try to meander through a certain type of philosophy from its director while subjecting their lead to some sort of memorable outfit/character (which in the case of Lawrence is a bunch of heavy stuff amidst statuesque acting all around) that involve some sort of supreme being (one being a rock and the other being...take a guess) while taking a hard swerve for its climax with some sort of revelation (in this case, a literal mad-house). Whether one believes in God or not, it is sure to be a strange one to evaluate, although truthfully I wish I could show this to a religious friend of mine, if only to see if they would get mad at it for my amusement. In that sense, it is equally appropriate to give this film the same rating as I did years prior to that film, because neither are particularly great pieces of work, but they sure are memorable in all of their ridiculousness. I applaud Aronofsky for continuing his vision of filmmaking with passion, and the commitment to have his actors participate in some weird pretentiousness, despite the overriding result of said camp. It will prove a welcome curiosity for those that favor Aronofsky and his films for what they attempt to do in story, while proving an irritant for those not in line with its ultimate goals.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Fabulous Baker Boys.

Review #1493: The Fabulous Baker Boys.

Cast: 
Jeff Bridges (Jack Baker), Michelle Pfeiffer (Susie Diamond), Beau Bridges (Frank Baker), Ellie Raab (Nina), Xander Berkeley (Lloyd), Jennifer Tilly (Blanche "Monica" Moran), Dakin Matthews (Charlie), and Ken Lerner (Ray) Written and Directed by Steve Kloves.

Review: 
"Jeff, for me, is like the old time actors who you never know are acting; he's seamless - you just never see him working at it."
"It's my profound fear of embarrassment that's kept me going. That's the key to my success."

There's nothing in show business like films about show business, whether with gimmicks or familiar stories. How could I resist this as some sort of last representation of the 1980s? Really it is the pairing of the two Bridges actors that really got me interested more than anything, since each are quite interesting to see in films from time to time, and this serves as their first and so far only film together. Each had made plenty of appearances in films and television since each were children (they also happened to have served in the United States Coast Guard Reserve like their father Lloyd) that scored triumphs in the early twenties with films such as The Landlord (1970) and The Last Picture Show (1971). Of course the other prevailing reason to view the film is Pfeiffer, who had risen to prominence in the 1980s with films such as Grease 2 (1982), Scarface (1983), and Married to the Mob (1988); she had come across the role after others such as Madonna had rejected it, and she would do her own singing for the film. These actors came together for a film that would be helmed by a first-time director in Kloves, who had written just one previous film in Racing with the Moon (1984).

It certainly proves a dazzling spin on the familiar lounge act, one with a splendid trio and a well-captured atmosphere that I would say makes it an under looked classic. There is just something about this film that inspires plenty of soulful energy and charming nature that makes interesting characters come out with interest that overcomes what could've just been a casual gimmick and makes a diverting look upon talent and the nature of being with others. For the initial first few minutes of the film, it first starts as looking upon the differences about the approach to the act, whether that means the same old banter one could hear in the familiar lounge performers or even something as simple as covering up a bald spot with spray - they may be has-beens, but they are our has-beens to watch, and we are curious about them and their approach to the inevitability of a graying act with graying faces watching. And then of course there comes someone brimming with confidence and appeal that comes right in the middle of all that. Let us start with Pfeiffer, who is brimming with intuition and passion from the very moment we see her on screen, sizzling in competence and style that seems reminiscent of older-style lounge singers and idols with a good talent for singing while also having an understated yet interesting chemistry when paired with J. Bridges. This is apparent with the "Makin' Whoopee" number, bringing down the house on top of that piano with energy and curiosity. J. Bridges has a sort of aloof charm to his performance, weary in his effortlessness that makes for enjoyable drama that the cynical romantic can appreciate. B. Bridges is the other side of the act, showy in desperation (right down to a few moments of groveling) but still amiable enough to watch him try to corral these two acts before it reaches exhaustion. While the scene with them arguing over a botched telethon is a stark highlight, the best one might be their next scene after that, where they reminisce a bit before going into "You're Sixteen", the one time they sing with each other (their piano-work was dubbed by Dave Grusin and John F. Hammond, with the former also doing the acclaimed music score) that is warm and bittersweet. On the whole, the film rises above what could have been a predictable romantic musical comedy-drama through sheer will of its main trio in making capable moments come alive that deal with the grind of show business and human nature that comes with it and trying to find people to go with it, and the film has its certainties and un-certainties to that end. It is a tender gem that deserves further appreciation, a tender and entertaining effort that hits most of its notes with class and style for its era.

Next Time: The eighth edition of Tribute to the Decades, with a surprise for the first film and then the announcement of the films of the 1990s to be covered.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Scarface (1983)

Review #1471: Scarface.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Tony Montana), Steven Bauer (Manny Ray), Michelle Pfeiffer (Elvira), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Gina), Robert Loggia (Frank Lopez), Miriam Colon (Mama Montana), F. Murray Abraham (Omar), Paul Shenar (Alejandro Sosa), Harris Yulin (Bernstein), and Angel Salazar (Chi Chi) Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible and #1230 - Carrie)

Review:
"I have a reputation as an action director because I know how to kill, how to shoot people, how to spill blood."

For such a popular film of its era, there are two things that stick out really particularly well about it to note. The first is the fact that the inspiration for the film came from the desire of Al Pacino to want to do a remake of the original Scarface (1932), which Pacino loved as a "model for all gangster pictures." He approached his manager and producer Martin Bregman to do a film and had asked Oliver Stone (who had just won an Academy Award for his screenplay in Midnight Express in 1978) to do the screenplay, although he initially rejected doing it (noting his dislike of the original). An eventual shift from doing a period piece to one set in the present day led to Sidney Lumet being brought in as director. It was he would suggested that it would be set in Miami, with the region having seen a mass emigration of Cubans just three years prior (referred to as the Mariel boatlift). Stone found this premise intriguing enough to sign on to write the film, although Lumet would soon bow out due to creative differences. The director brought in to take on the film was Brian De Palma, a director associated as a figure of the New Hollywood movement of the previous decade that had gone from being inspired to do films in college to doing his own modest works in the late 1960s to his first prime hit in Carrie (1976). Influenced by directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, De Palma is known for his highly stylized films that typically fall within the suspense and crime genres.

What's the second fact you might ask? This was actually not well-liked upon original release. It proved a lightning rod for critics of those who found it excessive in violence and language (you don't say?) or too stereotypical (it isn't like there was a disclaimer at the end about the "dedication, vitality, and enterprise" of Cuban Americans - oops, never mind), and there was a considerable fight over the rating (which was deemed to be X by the MPAA before eventually being rated R). To that I say: what the hell did you expect, a walk in the park with gangsters who deal in cocaine? Loud, provocative, and unrelenting in what it wants to be in content, it deserves its reputation of respect as a film for that era of weird excess with no problem as an imperfect show for its makers. It is a film that intimidates you with excess to the limit because it knows exactly what it is doing about its tale of the dark side of the American Dream that attracted a great deal of people that liked what they saw play out on screen (such as with hip hop and countless references and imitations of quotes from the film). It shouldn't prove surprising that I found the film pretty well done as a film of excess that looks upon the abyss of what it means to rise to the top and the pitfalls that come in trying to stay there. De Palma makes the best of his cast and scope of 170 minutes in delivering entertainment that shocks its viewer with a tremendous burst of energy. Pacino shines with energy, raw and focused in his pursuits and appetites like a lion that make a captivating watch, with plenty of scenes one could highlight, such as the dinner sequence about "saying goodnight to the bad guy" or the tense would-be assassination scene, or the climax (involving that often repeated line involving a "little friend") and so on. Bauer follows along with just as well as a figure along for the ride of mayhem with charm, while Pfeiffer (in a breakthrough part) proves just as alluring in curiosity in her presence. The rest prove just as well in presence, such as a dedicated Mastrantonio and Colon or a smarmy Loggia and refined sleaze in Shenar. Regardless of how much one knows about the film or its lines, one will find themselves in for quite a ride with this film, a stroke of excess and sleaze to make a interesting crime film for its age that lands most of its punches and earns its reputation with stature.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Wolf (1994).

Review #1157: Wolf.

Cast: 
Jack Nicholson (Will Randall), Michelle Pfeiffer (Laura Alden), James Spader (Stewart Swinton), Kate Nelligan (Charlotte Skylar Randall), Richard Jenkins (Detective Sgt. Carl Bridger), Christopher Plummer (Raymond Alden), Eileen Atkins (Mary), David Hyde Pierce (Roy MacAllister), Om Puri (Dr. Vijav Alezais), and Ron Rifkin (Doctor Ralph) Directed by Mike Nichols (#175 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, #550 - The Graduate, and #637 - The Birdcage)

Review: 
I suppose there must have been a desire to make a new kind of werewolf film for the 1990s, particularly since this film doesn't even use the word "werewolf", as if that was somehow taboo or something. It's also clear that they really wanted to be taken seriously, since this is a romantic horror film. On the whole, the film is decent, but it doesn't really live up to the potential it could've reached, although I certainly do find some enjoyment from it, whether when trying to be a metaphor or for unintentional amusement. Perhaps this is a movie that needed more beastly nature, since the real horror that jumps out involves office politics at a publishing house. The screenplay was done by author Jim Harrison and Wesley Strick, although there were un-credited re-writes done by Elaine May. Harrison was not a particular fan of the final result of the film made by Nichols, explaining "I wanted Dionysian, but he wanted Apollonian. He took my wolf and made it into a Chihuahua. I cracked up for 10 minutes and then went out into the country and stood in front of a wolf den and apologized while my dog hid under the truck." This is a strange film to spend 125 minutes with, and it does sometimes feel a bit too long.

The acting does help carry the movie well enough. Nicholson is entertaining, being watchable as ever without overdoing anything, whether when prancing around with mutton-chops or when having more energy to him after being bit. After all, this is a movie that gives him a bunch of abilities to show off as a wolf, such as being able to read without his glasses, being able to be more active in romance with his wife, jumping in the air, or having animals hate him. Pfeiffer, in a role that occasionally delves into cliches, manages to come out as someone interesting to follow along with, having a few moments with Nicholson that makes this romance seem semi-workable. Spader is excellent at playing such a smarmy character like this one, making the art of flattery and treachery that works oozy wonders each time he's on screen. Nelligan is okay, but the real highlight in the supporting cast is Plummer, who plays his domineering rich guy role with an understated touch. The special makeup effects are done by Rick Baker, who you may recognize from his work on other films, most notably An American Werewolf in London (1981) and Coming to America (1988). His effects here are pretty good, although they certainly feel restrained in contrast to the bits involving the romance or the office scenes, although at least they are given time to shine in the climax. Honestly, the movie is more fun when it doesn't feel so restrained between either being a metaphor or being actual horror/romance. One of my favorite bits of amusement comes when Nicholson's character decides to "mark his territory" at the bathroom when he's firing Spader's character, as if this was supposed to be taken seriously. Other other fun bit comes when Nicholson's character finds out that he has been cheated on by his wife through his super-scent, so he goes up to the house where his wife and the other guy are located, and he bites the other dude on the hand before going up the stairs, taking one look at his wife, and then leaves. The climax is a bit of a ridiculous one, and it isn't as effective as it probably should've been. Maybe it's the fact that there really isn't that much buildup for its showdown between its two wolves (complete with the use of slow motion), or maybe it's the fact that the film keeps shuffling between what it really wants. This is especially apparent in the scene after involving a shot of eyes mixed in with a shot of a wolf - and that's it. If you think the film will resemble something like The Wolf Man (1941), you will likely be disappointed, but I did manage to find some strange enjoyment out of how weird and energetic it is, even if it manages to muddled in ridiculousness at times. It isn't a highlight in the horror or romance genres, but it works just enough for me to win out as entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Review #1108: Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Cast: 
Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Evangeline Lilly (Hope van Dyne / Wasp), Michael Peña (Luis), Walton Goggins (Sonny Burch), Hannah John-Kamen (Ava Starr / Ghost), Michelle Pfeiffer (Janet van Dyne), Laurence Fishburne (Bill Foster), Michael Douglas (Hank Pym), Bobby Cannavale (Jim Paxton), Judy Greer (Maggie), Tip "T.I." Harris (Dave), David Dastmalchian (Kurt), Abby Ryder Fortson (Cassie), and Randall Park (Jimmy Woo) Directed by Peyton Reed (#728 - Ant-Man and #789 - The Break-Up)

Review: 
Three years ago, Ant-Man came onto the screen with a bit of production struggle but also a dynamic cast, with the final result being something that I described as one that "has fun with itself and its premise", which seems easy to still say today. With the sequel, the fear of staleness in terms of its charm and action is avoided, with a good majority of the credit being attributable to the cast, particularly Rudd and Lilly. Rudd (who is listed as one of the five co-writers of the film)does a fine job once again, having a degree of humility and amusement that is always watchable on-screen, whether when dealing with aspects of family or the main plot as a whole, and his moments with Forston are pretty neat. Lilly does fine with making her character an engaging one to see through that brims with confidence and energy (signified during her action sequences) that balances well with Rudd. If you enjoyed the trio of Peña-Canavale-T.I from the previous film, you will get a few laughs from them, particularly from Peña, and they help keep the flow of the movie go fine at times, even if they aren't as the forefront of the movie like with before. Goggins is fine, even if his adversary role is a bit standard for some tastes. John-Kamen does fine with her adversary role in showing a degree of menace but also a degree of vulnerability, and it is refreshing in some way to have one of these Marvel movies to not have a villain and their arc play out in the routine way like other films, and she is just as interesting to watch as the villain (and his arc) from the earlier one, with Fishburne being an acceptable accomplice in her sequences. Her sequences involving her power and the action scenes are also fairly well-done. Douglas is also interesting to see again, and Pfeiffer proves refreshing in her brief time on screen. The effects are to the standard that you would likely expect from these comic book films, with the highlight being the Quantum Realm sequences, and the parts involving size also prove acceptable. The plot moves itself at a fine pace, juggling itself handily without becoming too routine or having the stakes present themselves to be too low (or improbably high). It's a riveting experience that never wears out its welcome even at 118 minutes. On the whole, this is a fairly nice crowd-pleaser kind of film that improves itself from the original in small but crucial ways that will satisfy audiences looking for some neat fun.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Witches of Eastwick.

Review #493: The Witches of Eastwick.

Cast
Jack Nicholson (Daryl Van Horne), Cher (Alexandra Medford), Susan Sarandon (Jane Spofford), Michelle Pfeiffer (Sukie Ridgemont), Veronica Cartwright (Felicia Alden), and Richard Jenkins (Clyde Alden) Directed by George Miller (#380 - Mad Max and #392 - Happy Feet)

Review
I woke up in the morning, realizing it was my birthday today, and in light of that, I decided to not only begin the new month with watching a movie, but a movie I've wanted to watch for a long while, and since I had time on my hands and couldn't think of a movie that actually dealt with birthdays, I watched this. The film itself is mostly enjoyable, and Jack Nicholson (as usual) steals the show. He seems to be born to play this role, he has a good deal of manic energy and scenes to use them in. Cher does an good job, pairing well with Nicholson. Sarandon and Pfeiffer are good, the trio seem to mesh well together. The rest of the cast are alright, and the story is balanced. The climax of the film has been criticized for being overdone or ridiculous in the past, but I don't really hate the climax that much, maybe it's because it just feels right, and I wouldn't know how the climax could be improved on anyway. The film has its ups and downs of lunacy, but it is enjoyable nonetheless. Happy birthday to me. Countdown to 500 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.