White Lightning.

Review #2550: White Lightning.

Cast: 

Burt Reynolds (Bobby "Gator" McKlusky), Jennifer Billingsley (Lou), Ned Beatty (Sheriff J. C. Connors), Bo Hopkins (Roy "Rebel Roy" Boone), Matt Clark ("Dude" Watson), Louise Latham (Martha Culpepper), Diane Ladd (Maggie), R. G. Armstrong ("Big Bear"), Conlan Carter (Deputy), Dabbs Greer (Pa McKlusky), Lincoln Demyan (Warden Sims), and John Steadman ("Skeeter") Directed by Joseph Sargent (#557 - Jaws: The Revenge)

Review: 

I imagine that no summer really starts unless you pick a movie with either good ol' boys or a star you are fond of. Burt Reynolds* had slummed around in television for several years (which included lead roles on Gunsmoke and Dan August) and a few movies of varying quality (100 Rifles [1969], Sam Whiskey [1969]), but it was his talk-show appearances that really got him noted attention before, well, Deliverance [1972] rocketed him into a name for film. Gradually, the films would rise in stature as a leading guy, with 1973 seeing him star in Shamus, The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing, and this movie, which he had worked with the producers previously with Sam Whiskey [1969] (incidentally, that film and Lightning had the same writer with William W. Norton). And yes, this is the movie that Steven Spielberg almost directed. As noted in a 2001 interview, he spent over two months on the film, scouted locations and was on the cusp of doing casting but he came to the realization that he "didn't want to start my career as a hard-hat, journeyman director", instead wanting something a bit more personal. He instead made a play for doing The Sugarland Express, which he ultimately made in 1974. It instead fell to Joseph Sargent (more of a regular TV director than a film director). It might have been his most noted film of the 1970s if it wasn't for his subsequent direction of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974). In 1976, Reynolds returned for Gator, which retained Norton as writer but with a twist: Reynolds as director (Norton was a character unto himself: he later became a would-be gun runner to the Irish National Liberation Army in the 1980s and shot an intruder in his home).

It's a match made in heaven for those who love a Southern tale of 101 minutes filled with a few car chases and a relatively game Reynolds in the reeds of a decent cast that holds it together for a pretty sobering time. Because, yea, it's a movie about getting one over the law, but don't forget that it starts with two guys getting shot on a boat (which is actually captured pretty well for a movie that basically makes one feel the sweat every now and then). It's a bout of obsession and hokum in trying to dodge both the sheriffs and those who don't like the idea of someone working as an informant (in this case the Department of the Treasury), and it is fun even if it meanders along for what could've really been a devious time, but hey, it is a good hellraiser movie. Before you got the Smokey and the Bandit rendition* of Reynolds, you get the inner workings of someone who was homing in gritty charm without straining in credibility of being a man of single-minded determination that is compelling and fun to see him crack through the conman stuff (it isn't easy playing friend and in one case, seducer). Beatty doesn't get as much time as you might think around Reynolds, but he makes for a quality adversary in the vein of a sundown town chief that clearly believes they are the knight of a community and that nobody deserves to be in their way: it's the kind of jagged confidence that is worth respecting from someone like him. The rest of the cast is fairly decent, rounding out the edges of small-town folks who play the line of swindler and swindled to varying effect. It's the kind of movie where the stunts of folks such as Hal Needham (a long-time friend of Reynolds, he first met him during production of Riverboat years prior) shine best, mostly with one particular car stunt in the film: the jump onto a moving barge. It isn't a great movie by any means, but it always end up doing something curious every now and then to make it worth a look, particularly on a warm summer day looking for familiar faces. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*I probably give Reynolds a bit of leeway when it comes to what I want to see from him. Hell, City Heat and Striptease have been on the shortlist for months!

*Lest we forget the hair, which was still natural around Deliverance: Burt Reynolds On Toupees, Trump, and Why He’d Never Work with Paul Tho | GQ. Also, if you look hard enough, you'll see Diane Ladd (spelled "Diane Lad" in the credits) and her daughter, Laura Dern, in this film.

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.

Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Review #1915: Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Cast: 

Linda Blair (Regan MacNeil), Richard Burton (Father Philip Lamont), Louise Fletcher (Dr. Gene Tuskin), Max von Sydow (Father Lankester Merrin), Kitty Winn (Sharon Spencer), Paul Henreid (The Cardinal), James Earl Jones (Kokumo), Joey Green (Young Kokumo), Ned Beatty (Edwards), Karen Knapp (The Voice of Pazuzu), and Dana Plato (Sandra Phalor) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz, #975 - Deliverance, and #1210 - Excalibur)

Review: 

"The sin I committed was not giving the audience what it wanted in terms of horror ... There's this wild beast out there which is the audience. I created this arena and I just didn't throw enough Christians into it."

I was waiting for this day to happen, if you can believe it. I knew damn well what I was getting into when it came to the sequel to The Exorcist, which I remember being a fine film, if not exactly one I went back to again and again. Maybe it was one of those times where I stick more to my comfort horror picks than anything, but yes, the things that stuck with me was the voice of the demon (maybe the devil) by Mercedes McCambridge or maybe the lead performance by Ellen Burstyn. It was good, but the fact that it was nominated for multiple Academy Awards makes its reputation perhaps a bit too lofty when compared to other features of its time. Of course, others will remember William Friedkin and his direction of material that had been written by William Peter Blatty based on his 1971 novel of the same name, and it should be noted that neither had spoken about it being a horror film, instead viewing it as a movie about the mystery of faith. Uh, okay. However, you do not get to see none of them in the sequel, since Blatty and Friedkin clearly had better things to do (such as suing each other and Warner Bros because of disputes over profits and credits) and the only actors to return from the original was Blair, Winn, and von Sydow (who is given more mention than Jason Miller, whom the film practically ignores). Somehow, it should only make sense that a director that didn't even like the first film was recruited to do the sequel, and the studio actually thought they could aim for a PG rating rather than an R, if only because they didn't want to be as controversial as the original was when it came to being rated an R (because some people thought it merited an X, proving that taste is selective).. No seriously, Boorman though that he could make a "kind of riposte to the ugliness and darkness of The Exorcist" - you know, the guy who turned down The Exorcist for Zardoz. William Goodhart was tasked with writing the script, one that was aimed for the metaphysical, but this script ended up with rewrites from Rospo Pallenberg and Boorman, albeit with no credit to them (Blair has stated that Pallenberg directed a good chunk of the film, probably because of Boorman suffering from Valley fever for a number of weeks). The final product came about after attempts were made to tinker with it due to bad preview screenings, which didn't really help matters. You know how bad the reviews were? Apparently, when studio executives went to see the film, the audience members got so mad at what they were watching that they chased down the executives down a street. The film was successful on its $14 million budget, but the reputation was so horrendous that a third Exorcist movie wouldn't happen until 1990, directed by Blatty. While the fact that the film turns 45 years old this year seems like a good reason to cover it, the fact that there is a new Exorcist film out for release in 2023 seems like another good reason to get back into the spirit, regardless of who is directing it, I guess.

You know, I wanted to give things a chance, if only because I am reminded that Martin Scorsese stated that the film got a bit of a bum rap upon release, noting its interesting question about the great goodness drawing all evil and all of that stuff that I'm sure would make a nice essay to get drunk with. Sure, a movie trying to frame the first film with "look, what really happened that night?" is a bit shaky, but there is potential. Then the synchronizer and its strobe light come into the picture, which starts the giggling process, complete with see-through glass for the "institution" and a silly sound for the device to boot. Somehow, seeing Richard Burton watch as Louise Fletcher puts on that ridiculous contraption alongside poor Linda Blair makes it apparent just how ridiculous making a sequel can be. It makes me wonder if Blair's appearance in the Exorcist parody Repossessed (1990) would be any less embarrassing, honestly. The fact that Burton (cast because Jon Voight dropped out) drank heavily as the film production wore on makes this only more offbeat. Remember this: Burton did the film as a "paycheck movie" so he could do better things like Equus (1977), a movie about a teen being treated for blinding horses in a stable. Hell, Blair has stated that she doesn't know what the film is actually about, does that tell you all you need to know about this movie? You have a scene that goes on for a bit about Pazuzu and Africa before it ends with a shot of James Earl Jones growling that does a cut to a shot of a leopard. The barrage of locusts doesn't help matters out, either. Honestly, it isn't the lack of gore or exploitation angle that makes things so baffling, it is the fact that it is so bland as a horror movie to the point of coma. In other words: the audience may be a bit weird in what they think they want, but when they know what kind of bullshit won't fly with them, they will tell you very clearly. One feels like they are watching two different movies smashed up into one, as if they couldn't make up their mind as to who to lend their focus on beyond zigzagging everywhere with its alleged main trio of Blair, Burton, and Fletcher, with the latter either suffering the most because of a lack of things to do or benefitting from the lack of dumb shit to do besides maybe playing the "science" lead, which amounts to a bag of sand in screen presence. If Blair was put through plenty of tough things for the original, she gets to have the pleasure of being put through the wringer in a role that even a more quality actor would have been doomed to fail. She seems lost in a wholly different movie than the one that is actually happening, as if being in a movie about silly teenagers would actually be more up her alley than the gobbledygook present (she didn't put on the makeup for the demon as with the first film, by the way); she seems confused, and you would be too, which results in a sad performance that satisfies no one. Burton gets to wander through a paycheck movie with mild dignity that somehow seems too nice for trash like this, as if the movie needs someone to take this material less seriously. Okay, so you are probably wondering how the plot goes. Well, aside from a failed exorcism or so, you get to learn about psychic healers that Pazuzu likes to target while a heretic priest resists the urge of a succubus that looks like Linda Blair before the house from the original goes belly up in locusts. Oh, and there's a scientist that had these powers who now spends time trying to target locust swarms. Got all of that? In its attempts at trying to play with the story elements of the original, it demystifies the test of faith that made a solid first movie.

 

You know who I was most curious to see? Beatty and Jones, because each get to wait over an hour to show up. Yea, maybe the fact that there isn't much to say about them makes them seem better, unless Jones being in a locust suit and spitting some fruit onto a row of spikes counts as embarrassing. The only one who has any sense of dignity is von Sydow, and he is in it for flashback scenes of all things. That is this movie in a nutshell: things happen, and you just go with it to see how stupider it can get. The best possible director for this kind of movie may not have been someone like Boorman, honestly. It needed someone who was willing to work in the parameters of what the script entailed with their own sense of imagination, whether that involved keeping the script as it was or going even more gonzo. Maybe it should have been made as a straight-up exploitation copy of the original instead, because it probably would've looked as cheap as this film feels, which is astounding considering the multimillion-dollar budget on this film. It feels like an exploitation movie that thinks it is high class with no sense of awareness. If the original had the hint of elegance within its material, this movie is like a bastard fifth cousin that came from outer space. The Ennio Morricone score may be the only thing about the movie that makes any sort of sense. This is the kind of movie that will make people who though the original was the greatest horror thing since sliced bread hate the idea of sequels (and perhaps challenge the very nature of God itself) and make people who thought it was fine remind oneself the merits of the original. In short, the only thing scary about it is the idea a sequel worse than this exists. It is an incoherent mess from start to finish in the most amusing ways possible.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Literally anything will be better than this film. So it is time at last for Underworld (2003).

W.W. and the Dixie Dancekings.

Review #1689: W.W. and the Dixie Dancekings.

Cast: 

Burt Reynolds (W.W. Bright), Conny Van Dyke (Dixie), Jerry Reed (Wayne), Ned Beatty (Country Bull Jenkins), James Hampton (Junior), Don Williams (Leroy), Rick Hurst (Butterball), Mel Tillis (GOB), Furry Lewis (Uncle Furry), and Art Carney (Deacon John Wesley Gore) Directed by John G. Avildsen (#003 - Rocky and #895 - Rocky V)

Review: 

"...turned out wrong but it made a lot of money. It was supposed to be a special, warm and lovely little film. It was important that we not make fun of the people in Nashville as opposed to Nashville (1975). It wasn't that kind of movie. It was a bouquet to Nashville. But I got into a lot of fights with the director." - Burt Reynolds.

"The thing that the film taught me was that I could do something that I had no passion for, that my mechanics were such that I could make it work. There's some satisfaction to that." - John G. Avildsen

There aren't that many films out there where you could describe it as a stepping stone for better films for both its main star and director. Dick Richards was initially thought of in mind for director in 1972, but this did not come to pass (Reynolds would work with him fourteen years later with Heat), but a new director soon came about. This was the ninth feature film for John G. Avildsen, who had specialized in making low-budget movies with plenty of preparation involved that worked with production companies that ranged from the Cannon Group to Troma Entertainment, and it is Joe (1970) that stood out among his early work. The film that rocketed him all the way, however, was the film that followed this movie the next year, which was also a low-budget affair (starring an actor who auditioned for this film) that miraculously became one of the most iconic sports movies ever made in Rocky (1976). As for Reynolds...well, I am stretching this a bit, because he already was a star with stuff such as Deliverance (1972), White Lightning (1973), and The Longest Yard (1974) after a sea of low-budget affairs in television and film. But if one saw this film and Smokey and the Bandit (1977) back-to-back, one might get the impression one was a stepping stone for the other (incidentally, the director for that film in Hal Needham was the stunt coordinator for this feature). Granted, the focus is a smooth-talking conman who likes to specialize in robbing a specific gas station brand (while giving some of the loot to the poor sucker who finds themselves looking at his weapon) but finds himself in need of a good alibi that finds one with a travelling country music band while driving a (modified) Oldsmobile Rocket 88...really the one thing that seems more noticeable between the lovable showoffs in each film is a more interesting presence for both the feminine lead and the authority foil (of course there is also more of Jerry Reed in one of them, so there's also that). As one would like to note, Avildsen and Reynolds (who helped pick the director because of a good word from Jack Lemmon, who won an Academy Award with Avildsen's previous film, Save the Tiger) did not get along with each other during production, as Reynolds described him later as a "picky, arrogant little man", while Avildsen called the movie "one of the most unhappy experiences of my movie career", bemoaning that he did not have the knack of getting what he wanted and satisfying Reynolds; Avildsen was concerned about getting work done in carefully rehearsed details but Reynolds liked to have fun with his entourage of good ol' boys while favoring a loose style of filmmaking (i.e. not a complicated storyboard of sketched out scenes, as argued by Reynolds in his autobiography). The result is a curious venture of comedy that might be thought of as a loose mixed bag, but at least both seemed to have found something to like the film.

Apparently the script by Thomas Rickman would be tinkered extensively for production. He displayed his disgust by asking to write the novelization for the film (one might joke, but I remember reading a novelization of Fantastic Four as a kid), and the only reason one might even know this is because Quentin Tarantino was inspired by what he saw in the novel as compared to the film (which "literally offended" him) to start writing his own screenplays. Welp, differences can always be apparent when it comes to taste, because I found this to be a pretty decent movie. It isn't a great one for either its star or director, but being a stepping stone for better pastures is not a terrible thing when one has enough fun seeing it all play out. It's a silly light movie, filled with bits of Nashville in the singing department with a decent execution of comedy that is buoyed mostly because of the presence of Reynolds (who had a share of hits and misses with films that relied mostly on him, as evidenced by films like the Bandit series). He has the easygoing charm one could see on the stuff that made him a household name (whether that was films or the talk show circuit), which helps a bit that starts with the casual robberies that take hold from time to time. Van Dyke is okay, but she seems more interesting within the music group than with any small attempts at chemistry with Reynolds. The film features the acting debut of Jerry Reed, an Atlanta native that reportedly aspired to be a star in Nashville as a child, and the end result was a lengthy career in country music and it only makes sense to see a country star dabble into the world of acting; Reed would appear in a handful of films with his friend Reynolds (who he directed the following year with Gator). Reynolds may have all the elusive charm, but Reed helps to compliment him the best in actual chemistry, even when they have a brief fight scene. Others who were involved in music included Van Dyke alongside Williams, Lewis and Tillis, although Hampton probably sticks out a bit among the music players in the peanut gallery. Beatty was in his sixth film role (he also starred in Nashville the same year as this film), and one gets to see him for about two to three scenes, but I appreciate his candor when it comes to playing the trick between a legendary singer and the image besides the singing, and it is easy to see why Beatty had such an interesting career in character acting. And then of course there is Carney, making small appearances as the devout authority foil...honestly, he either should have had more time with Reynolds or should have just been cut from the film, because his stone-faced attempts at...something are very okay at best (while I have been all about stepping stones in this review, this was actually the first film role for Carney after winning an Academy Award for Harry and Tonto).

As a whole, what we have is a film befuddled in someway by what it wants to tell in a tale of adventure and romance that likely needed a bit more spark when it comes to being more than a Southern road movie. If one has a liking for Reynolds or the other good ol' folks, however, you will find yourself just fine with what happens here, even if it isn't exactly remembered as one of the best for either Avildsen or Reynolds. It's an average affair with a few chuckles and a little bit of light action that works in some way for whomever happens to encounter it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Rango.

Review #1557: Rango.

Cast: 
Johnny Depp (Rango), Isla Fisher (Beans), Abigail Breslin (Priscilla), Ned Beatty (Tortoise John), Alfred Molina (Roadkill), Bill Nighy (Rattlesnake Jake), Harry Dean Stanton (Balthazar), Ray Winstone (Bad Bill), Timothy Olyphant (The Spirit of the West), Stephen Root (Doc / Mr. Merrimack), Maile Flanagan (Lucky), Alanna Ubach (Boo Cletus / Fresca / Miss Daisy), Ian Abercrombie (Ambrose), Gil Birmingham (Wounded Bird), and James Ward Byrkit (Waffles) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring)

Review: 
“I always wanted to do an animated movie. I find it to be incredibly liberating as a way of telling a story. It lends itself to more surreal concepts because you’re limited by expectations of total reality and I just think you can have a conversation with a peanut butter sandwich or Miyazaki turns the parents into pigs. You’re limited from the conventions of live action.”

There can be quite a dual nature to the art of finding a way into filmmaking, which is equally appropriate for Gore Verbinski. His first profession was in music, participating in a variety of rock band in Los Angeles as a guitarist. He sold his guitar for a film camera and found himself taking direction for music videos and eventually commercials (you may or may not recognize one of his ads involving frogs for Budweiser). He made his directorial debut with Mouse Hunt (1997) and has continued on with a variety of genres and general use of visual effects, whether that involves horror with The Ring (2002) and A Cure for Wellness (2016) or adventure epic with the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films (2003, 2006, 2007). There are a variety of films that this film took some inspiration from, ranging from films from Chinatown (1974) to El Topo (1970) to The Shakiest Gun in the West (1968). This was the first animation effort from Industrial Light & Magic, who you will have recognized from several films over the years (such as the Pirates of the Caribbean films), with Hal Hickel as animation director. The interesting thing is that Verbinski wanted to capture something "kinetic" with the performances, which involved having the actors perform with costumes and sets to have them feel like they are part of the Wild West, with the audio being lifted for the film, which he aspired to do as a "small" film when compared to his previous features.

A group of Westerns in the era after its golden age of the past try in some way to borrow some of the characteristics from before with their own spin on what the frontier of the Old West means. In this sense, we have a film of identity that draws upon quite a few Westerns in some sensibility that generally works itself out handily in entertainment with some finely-tuned animation and a cast worth following along with in this tale of critters in the desert. It has a strange touch that will appeal fairly equally for adults and children (more so older than younger) without becoming tacked and tacky in execution and charm. Depp is precisely the voice one could want for such an intriguing title character - amusing, wonderful and quite adept at following along in growing confidence as the unlikely sly lizard of the moment that gives a good push without seeming like an eccentric bit for the sake of it. Fisher follows along with capable drive and a zippy rapport with Depp for some moments, while Breslin adds some familiar curiosity in parts. Beatty proves quite enjoyable with a familiar kind of schemer with a folksy voice suited for what is needed to hear on screen. Others prove just as useful, such as Molina or Nighy, while Stanton and Olyphant bring a worthwhile chuckle. On the whole, it generally works out with its humor without seeming too much for whatever particular audience it aims for, finding its stride in a search for identity with interesting animation and a game cast to make a 107 minute adventure that I can recommend without hesitation for some fun.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Deliverance.

Review #975: Deliverance.

Cast: 
Jon Voight (Ed Gentry), Burt Reynolds (Lewis Medlock), Ned Beatty (Bobby Trippe), Ronny Cox (Drew Ballinger), Ed Ramey (the Old Man), Billy Redden (Lonnie, AKA the Banjo Boy), Bill McKinney (Mountain Man), Herbert 'Cowboy' Coward (Toothless Man), James Dickey (Sheriff Bullard), and Macon McCalman (Deputy Sheriff Arthur Queen) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz)

Review: 
It's interesting that the film (released 45 years ago this month) was adapted onto the screen by the writer of the novel himself, James Dickey, who also has a minor role in the film as well. Notably, the stunts were done by the actors themselves, with insurance not being given in order to cut costs. It is evident early on how rough the film looks and feels, and there is a haunting sort of tone to the environment and atmosphere of the movie, right down to the river. The use of Dueling Banjos (arranged and recorded by Eric Weissberg and Steve Mandel though without the permission of the original writer, Arthur "Guitar Boogie" Smith) in the beginning of the film is incredibly fitting. This is a brutal film that manages to be consistent in its pace once it gets the ball rolling by the first hour, with its run-time of 110 minutes being an acceptable length.

The core four cast (Voight, Reynolds, Beatty, and Cox) do a fine job in how well they play off each other, particularly during the beginning parts and the scenes in the rapids; there is never a moment where their actions feel fake or unnatural, with their fear seeming quite real, with the most famous scene involving the group and the people they find in the mountains. Coward and McKinney are fine villains; stereotype or not, they definitely evoke a good sense of realistic fear. The rest of the cast doesn't have much time on screen, but they certainly do leave an impression, such as Redden and his banjo performance along with Dickey and his appearance near the end. The ending of the film is poignant in how it goes in line with the rest of the film in terms of its shock and awe, with the final shot of the film reflecting that. For some, the film likely detracts from its theme with the amount of violence it has, but I found that the movie was fairly focused enough with its characters and sense of timing that it falls as a classic.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Nashville.

Review #900: Nashville.

Cast:
David Arkin (Norman), Barbara Baxley (Lady Pearl), Ned Beatty (Delbert Reese), Karen Black (Connie White), Ronee Blakley (Barbara Jean), Timothy Brown (Tommy Brown), Keith Carradine (Tom Frank), Geraldine Chaplin (Opal), Robert DoQui (Wade), Shelley Duvall (L. A. Joan), Allen Garfield (Barnett), Henry Gibson (Haven Hamilton), Scott Glenn (Pfc. Glenn Kelly), Jeff Goldblum (Tricycle Man), Barbara Harris (Albuquerque), David Hayward (Kenny Frasier), Michael Murphy (John Triplette), Allan F. Nicholls (Bill), Dave Peel (Bud Hamilton), Cristina Raines (Mary), Bert Remsen (Star), Lily Tomlin (Linnea Reese), Gwen Welles (Sueleen Gay), Keenan Wynn (Mr. Green), and Thomas Hal Phillips (Hal Phillip Walker) Directed by Robert Altman

Review:
Nashville is quite an experience, that much is for sure. It takes place over the course of five days, and yet it still manages to have one of the biggest assemblages of cast that work together to make for such an interesting movie of expression. There is no real main character, nor is there ever a moment where the film loses balance over what it wants to be: a film with people as diverse in nature and as interesting as the city it sets itself in. Even some of the settings (such as the Grand Ole Opry and the Parthenon in Nashville that is used for the climax) seem to reach out as their own character, with their own kind of blemishes just like these characters. For me, my favorites in the film were not so much because of likable they were, but because of how interesting they managed to be, with Beatty, Blakley, Chaplin, Gibson, and Tomlin being the big standouts who really have their own noticeable traits and flaws that one can see in themselves or others. The scene where Tomlin and Beatty are with their (deaf) children is especially telling in making these characters significant with a good degree of subtlety. The characters don't veer too much into cliches in part because they seem so real and seem so authentic to the vision of the film.

Even minor characters (like Welles or Black) are ones that we can still relate to, even if they aren't as high up on the success trail. Goldblum (in a voiceless but constant role) is also pretty memorable, in part because of the tricycle he rides throughout the film. DoQui and Welles certainly make a good pair together in the time they share together on screen. Phillips (and the dialogue that his voice is heard from for a good part of the film) is good in conveying the reach of his character without having to show him. There are so many scenes with their own range of emotion and feeling, where even a scene where Chaplin is talking poetic about buses in a junkyard is great. The film has a great deal of quality music (all done live, and by the actors themselves), all of the songs working intricately with the scene it goes with, such as with "I'm Easy"a key standout, sung by Keith Carradine, who carries the song with the right sense of tension and emotion (fun fact: this song won the Oscar for Best Original Song that year). The film doesn't try to resolve the plot threads in a concise manner, letting it up to the viewer to see where the path of these characters go from there, especially with a climax that is great in its surprise and its final beat with the last song ("It Don't Worry Me"). Nashville is a movie that does not try to bait and switch the realities of the time it was made in, and its impact can still be felt and related to over four decades after its release.

I hope you enjoyed this review, the 900th review done since this show began 2,234 days (over six years) ago. It is obvious (to me anyway) that Movie Night has progressed significantly in terms of quality and the kind of film that gets a shot at being covered. Though the show has gone on its own kind of pace, I hope that Movie Night continues to evolve in a positive way and that you all continue to enjoy this, even if in a small way. This is still a good hobby of mine, but it is also an excellent hobby to do every so often. Thank you all.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Superman II.

Review #785: Superman II.

Cast
Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent / Superman), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Terence Stamp (General Zod), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Sarah Douglas (Ursa), Jack O'Halloran (Non), Ned Beatty (Otis), Valerie Perrine (Eve Teschmacher), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Susannah York (Lara), Clifton James (Sheriff), and E.G. Marshall (The President) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night and #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum)

Review
If you're interested in the review, skip this paragraph, as it does not pertain to the review, merely serving as a little bit of background...

If you remember my review from two years ago of the original Superman movie (#547), I had said that it was a fine epic that succeeded in nearly every way possible, with the most important being that it was entertaining. Naturally, the movie was a success, and Superman II (which had been filmed simultaneously with the first film) would soon follow...but not with Richard Donner, who was "replaced" from the film by the Salkinds producers a few months after the first film's release. Richard Lester was tasked to finish the film. The dispute over what footage of the movie is Donner's and so on continued for years, with a "Richard Donner Cut" made in 2006 that tried to restore (as much as possible) footage that Donner had shot, though he was not involved with that cut.

With all that in mind, Superman II still manages to be a decent sequel. While it isn't up to the same craft as the first film, Superman II is as least entertaining enough to work. The movie has elements of humor that veer into slapstick (no doubt added by Lester), which admittedly gets in the way of enjoying my favorite part of the movie: The climatic fight with Superman and Zod, Ursa & Non. While it is a good fight that takes up the last 30 (or so) minutes of the movie, it is marred by random aspects. One example is Superman throwing his emblem shield at Non, which mystifies me on the level of practicality. Reeve and Kidder do have good chemistry together once again, and the romance is at least watchable, even despite the fact that Superman can just erase memories with a kiss (if he chooses to, I suppose), which makes for a peculiar (if not extremely inevitable) reset. The movie takes time to get going in the sense that it is more fun with Zod and the others around. The effects, while a bit peculiar at times, fit the movie well enough. Stamp certainly makes for a standout villain in the sense that there finally is a villain who can match to the physical strength of Superman, alongside the fact that Stamp is entertaining to watch, especially when asking someone to kneel. I wish that the idea of Superman taking his powers away in favor of being with Lois could have been more than just a five minute blip that just passes through and is nearly forgotten, right up to the end, anyway. I do find it interesting that at the end of the movie, Superman beats up a trucker (the one who had beaten him up while he was temporarily human), because...I guess Superman really felt that he needed to get some sort of retribution. Superman II is a sequel that has its bogging flaws, but it shines just enough with charm and a little bit of magic to work.

As for the sequel...next time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Superman (1978).

Review #547: Superman.

Cast
Marlon Brando (Jor-El), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent/Superman), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Ned Beatty (Otis), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Glenn Ford (Jonathan Kent), Valerie Perrine (Eve Teschmacher), Phyllis Thaxter (Martha Kent), Trevor Howard (First Elder), Maria Schell (Vond-Ah), and Terence Stamp (General Zod) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, and #356 - Lethal Weapon 2)

Review
Of all the comic book movies I've done on this...show, I suppose, the one glaring omission has been the Superman franchise. Superman was the first major superhero feature movie made (Side note here: There had been three serials made before this movie, such as Superman (1948), Atom Man vs. Superman (1950), and Superman and the Mole Men (1951), along with animated shorts made by Fleischer Studios, a radio and television series), and the movie's success would lead to more superhero films. But anyway, how is the film itself? Let's start with the actors. Brando does well for the small amount of time he has, and his speech to his newborn son is effective, but also powerful. Hackman is a decent villain, he does pair well with Beatty, who isn't half bad in a supporting role. Christopher Reeve is just perfect in both roles, managing to act well enough to make these two personalities stand out effectively. Kidder is good, she pairs off well with Reeve, and the scene where Superman takes Lane on a flight is a really good scene that only shows the emotion the movie has. The movie has excellent effects and manages to tell a good story with only a few bumps along the way. The ending either makes Superman's character fully defined...or a cop out that is actually more confusing in how it works then infuriating. I think it's more of both, it defines that Clark/Superman is here for a reason, a point mentioned by Kent's adoptive father, in contrast to Jor-El's warning about changing history. Superman finds his destiny, and it does make sense, though the time traveling part boggles my mind. Endings aside, the movie is a fine epic that succeeds in nearly everyway possible.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Toy Story 3.

Review #382: Toy Story 3.

Cast
Tom Hanks (Woody), Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusack (Jessie), Ned Beatty (Lotso), John Morris (Andy), Don Rickles (Mr. Potato Head), Blake Clark (Slinky Dog), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Hamm), Estelle Harris (Mrs. Potato Head), Michael Keaton (Ken), Jodi Benson (Barbie), Emily Hahn (Bonnie), Jeff Pidgeon (Little Green Men), Timothy Dalton (Mr. Pricklepants), Kristen Schaal (Trixie), Jeff Garlin (Buttercup), Bonnie Hunt (Dolly), Whoopi Goldberg (Stretch), and Bud Luckey (Chuckles) Directed by Lee Unkrich (#074 - Monsters, Inc and #155 - Finding Nemo)

Review
The first two Toy Stories by now are probably films that this generation has for nostalgia. The first was released in 1995, the 2nd in 1999, and this one was released in 2010. In that case, it's like a cycle, from the beginning to the...end? After watching this, I wonder if it is the end for these characters and their stories. Whatever the case, if it is meant to be, they went out with a proper bang. Hanks and Allen do a good job, pairing off each other well as does some of the others. The animation is good, having new settings that do look pretty good. But the thing that holds the film together is Ned Beatty as Lotso. For a character to turn in motivation from when you first see him to later in the film, it's a pretty stunning transformation. The film has some dark themes, but they aren't too dark for anyone not to enjoy, and it makes sense, given the progression of the series. The ending has some weirdness to it, but that does not overshadow a film that is pretty good, really good.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Network.

Review #036: Network.

Cast
Faye Dunaway (Diana Christensen), William Holden (Max Schumacher), Peter Finch (Howard Beale), Robert Duvall (Frank Hackett), Wesley Addy (Nelson Chaney), Ned Beatty (Arthur Jensen), Beatrice Straight (Louise Schumacher) Jordan Charney (Harry Hunter), William Prince (Edward Ruddy), Lane Smith (Robert McDonough), Marlene Warfield (Laureen Hobbs), and Conchata Ferrell (Barbara Schlesinger) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men)

Review
Review to be updated at a later point in time - hopefully by the end of 2018 or 2019. 

This film is excellent. Its a fun film that parodies the news and what happens if we let sensationalism win...which in retrospect we may already have let happen to us. The acting especially by Finch is good. He is a riot, as he makes you giggle and more (a shame that this was his last role). This isn't just a movie about Finch, this is a satire that reflects the time it was made while having an angry but collected tone that works. The movie won four Academy Awards, winning for Best Actor (Finch), Actress (Dunaway), Supporting Actress (Straight, who is in the movie for five minutes), and Original Screenplay (Chayefsky) while being nominated for five more. The film flows alright, as the direction by Lumet is (as with the previous film reviewed here) good. This is a fine film that hasn't aged badly.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.