Fight Club.

Review #1284: Fight Club.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Tyler Durden), Edward Norton (The Narrator), Helena Bonham Carter (Marla Singer), Meat Loaf (Robert Paulson), Jared Leto (Angel Face), Zach Grenier (Richard Chesler), and Thom Gossom Jr. (Detective Stern) Directed by David Fincher (#586 - Alien 3 and #705 - The Social Network)

Review: 
Two decades after its release, what can one say about a film like this? The polarizing adaptation of novel of the same name from Chuck Palahniuk certainly has quite a following in the time following a mild run in its initial box office run. One wonders what sort of expectation is to be expected for something like this, a dark satire that happens to have a few fights and a compact cast that make for a fine movie. Sometimes you do need a film that will make you squirm a bit, and this film sure does fine with making some useful points through a run of 139 minutes that runs the gamut without hesitation, never seeming to stumble in trying to deliver a quirky story that hits more often than not. One can appreciate the effort made to deliver something that resembles The Graduate and Rebel Without a Cause, with a conflict involving a generation of all-singing, all-dancing stuff of the world and themselves, where beating people to oblivion seems like a good release. That, or causing mayhem, but that's neither here or there.

Undeniably, the highlight of the film is its main trio of castmates, who are interesting to watch. Norton plays his part with sardonic relish, where his narration carries the story quite well, making for some satirical bite that makes him quite involving to be around, an everyman who happens to visit support groups just to feel something and go to sleep (better than crying or substances, I suppose). It's not hard to recognize something from this character in oneself or others (such as buying things to fill something within themselves is one example I could posit). Pitt is enjoyable, wild as a stick of dynamite that is relentlessly entertaining each time he shows up on screen, filled with marked charisma that does tend to blend well in roughness with Norton, as if it was a coin that always seems ready to land on its side more than anything (which is less of a metaphor than the fighting is, I admit). Carter does fine with the crude side of this triad; she doesn't have as much time on screen as the other two, but she proves worthwhile with dark charm that is somewhat amusing. I'll give credit to anyone who takes a role where you need to wear a bulky harness, especially if one is singer-turned-actor Meat Loaf, who does garner a laugh or two without seeming like a distraction (one of course could insert a reference about other harness performances here, obviously). It sure is striking to see Leto for the brief moments he is on screen in the film's second half. The visual look sure works itself out well, with plenty of unflinching violence alongside other moments. The film was written by Jim Uhls, with several un-credited contributors, including director Fincher and and the movie's co-stars Pitt and Norton. Palahniuk approved of the final product, which he felt kept intact most of the "convoluted plot" of the novel (for which the climax is significantly different) while liking the main three actors when it came to stepping into these characters alongside Fincher's directorial efforts. I can't disagree with that assessment, since the film is well-done in entertainment value while making a concentrated effort to have some sort of meaning beyond fighting or mayhem, where responsibility is the key path instead of some sort of self-serving freedom or something more toxic in its brand. The film is not a perfect one by any means, but I do find it to be an interesting one, holding itself quite well for its start while making its conclusions one to to think about after it ends over a round of discussion with others.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Ready Player One.

Review #1068: Ready Player One.

Cast: 
Tye Sheridan (Wade Watts / Parzival), Olivia Cooke ( Samantha Cook / Art3mis), Ben Mendelsohn (Nolan Sorrento), Lena Waithe (Helen Harris / Aech), T.J. Miller (i-R0k), Simon Pegg (Ogden Morrow), Mark Rylance (James Halliday / Anorak), Philip Zhao (Akihide Karatsu / Sho), Win Morisaki (Toshiro Yoshiaki / Daito), and Hannah John-Kamen (F'Nale Zandor) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, and #958 - Always)

Review: 
Hello fellow readers. I did not intend for this review to go a bit over 800 words, so forgive the increase in length for once. I hope you enjoy this review.

What can be said of a movie that basks itself in nostalgia and pop culture so deliberately? Can one really criticize said movie for pandering, particularly a blockbuster like this? The film is adapted from the novel of the same name by Ernest Cline, who contributed to the screenplay for the movie alongside Zak Penn. It may serve overwhelming (or obnoxious) for some, but I can't really blame someone for getting some sort of enjoyment out of a popcorn movie, much like I can't really blame someone for liking a Transformers movie or even something terrible like The Room (#185). I will state that this is a better film than either of those examples, but being a thrill ride can't excuse the movie entirely. There is a considerable amount of thrills and action that can shine through most of its shortcomings. One particular shortcoming proves to be its narrative, a collection of cliches and contrivances that comes to the surprise of no one, whether involving its main character or even his chemistry with "Art3mis", and so on. To get angry at the movie for being exactly what it seems like seems fruitless to me.

With its approach to the OASIS, I found that there were times that felt mesmerizing, but there were also moments that felt ridiculous and nearly amusing to see, and having some of the references get explained didn't exactly help. I did find parts of the film that were pretty fun, such as the dance sequence and one particular sequence involving a homage to a certain horror film that is fairly clever, along with a few other references, such as one to The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (#776). The film certainly has a fine look to it, and the CGI doesn't come off as too particularly distracting, for what it's worth. I never myself hating the film, but I also found myself laughing at parts I probably shouldn't have, such as some of the moments in the OASIS or the ending in particular. The climax isn't too bad, for an action film I suppose. If you find VR headsets cool, I'm sure you'll enjoy it in the film; if you find it to be a bit ridiculous, you might get a laugh, like I kind of did when seeing a scene in which people were using and acting out with the headsets in public. I was surprised to see that the film runs at 140 minutes long, so take your pick on if that is time worth using.

Although it can be said that the characters aren't too particularly developed, I will state that the acting is at the very least fine enough to carry the movie. I find that Sheridan does an okay job, in part because he has a role that doesn't really have much in terms of motivation besides a basic hero type (this can be signified by the speech given during the climax), but he isn't painfully annoying. Cooke does the best with what she is given for a role that also isn't too particularly developed, but she is slightly interesting to watch. I can't really say the chemistry between the two of them is particularly good, mostly going through the motions as if clicking boxes on the checklist. Mendelsohn does a fine job in making a character as generically evil as "corporate businessman" can be and turning it into something that is at the very least entertaining. There's is just something about him and the way that he interacts this environment, reminding me of Paul Gleason, particularly his role in The Breakfast Club (#046). Waike proves to be fairly endearing, providing a few laughs that help the film gain a bit of levity. Miller is also pretty amusing in his henchman role, for the most part. Pegg is fine for the time he is on screen. Rylance proves to be worthy to play this strange character that reminds me of Willy Wonka, albeit with random riddles. The other members of the cast don't have much time on screen, but they serve their parts well.

The film is never particularly moving, but it is at the very least a ride that won't make you too sick to your stomach. I can't give this movie much of an endorsement, but I also won't stand in the way of people who want to enjoy some sort of escapism. It isn't as good as some (or most) of the things that it references, but it is at the very least someone's version of a good time. Will it be some sort of cinema touchstone for pop culture or science fiction? I would say no, but I will conclude that it will just be a movie that comes and goes without leaving something obnoxious behind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Demon Seed.

Review #996: Demon Seed.

Cast: 
Julie Christie (Susan Harris), Fritz Weaver (Alex Harris), Gerrit Graham (Walter Gabler), Berry Kroeger (Petrosian), Lisa Lu (Soon Yen), Larry J. Blake (Cameron), John O'Leary (Royce), and Robert Vaughn (Proteus IV) Directed by Donald Cammell.

Review: 
What better way to (belatedly) start off October but with a horror film? I honestly had planned for the review to occur later in the month, but I decided that there needed to be some kind of start, especially with the countdown. Anyways....

This was adapted from the 1973 novel of the same name by Dean Koontz (which he would later rewrite and republish 24 years later), and I certainly have to give credit to the strange and unique premise: an artificially intelligent computer imprisons a woman in order to try to make a child. The computer (which can control the lighting, temperature control, security, etc) is certainly an interesting character to watch, especially with Robert Vaughn (who was not credited for the role) doing the voice for him; there is just something about the way he speaks that is quite chilling and effective. Christie proves to be a pretty capable lead, being quite vulnerable along with watchable as well. The rest of the cast do a capable job in their roles, not being dumbed down (too much, at least) or made to be fodder. It proves to be an interesting blend of science fiction and horror, though it is hard to say that it is really a classic. It definitely is watchable, and the performances are certainly workable, but I can't really say that the film as a whole works enough to be great. It certainly doesn't plod much at a run-time of 94 minutes, earning most of its minutes while also a fairly shocking ending that serves as either the capstone of a film worth watching or a film as ridiculous as it gets with science fiction (and horror as well). It has fairly interesting imagery (for the most part) and an a fairly useful soundtrack by Jerry Fielding as well. Regardless of creepy (or offbeat) one finds the film, it manages to have enough compelling moments to deserve at least one watch.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Three Musketeers (1973).

Review #972: The Three Musketeers.

Cast: 
Michael York (d'Artagnan), Oliver Reed (Athos), Frank Finlay (Porthos / O'Reilly), Richard Chamberlain (Aramis), Jean-Pierre Cassel (King Louis XIII of France), Geraldine Chaplin (Anne of Austria), Charlton Heston (Cardinal Richelieu), Faye Dunaway (Milady de Winter), Christopher Lee (The Count De Rochefort), Simon Ward (the Duke of Buckingham), Raquel Welch (Constance Bonacieux), Spike Milligan (M. Bonacieux), Roy Kinnear (Planchet), and Nicole Calfan (Kitty) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, #785 - Superman II, and #786 - Superman III)

Review: 
Based off the novel of the same name by Alexandre Dumas, the story has been adapted to film numerous times over the past century, but this one is often hailed as one of the better versions of the tale, and it's easy to see why. Everything from the cast to the action scenes is studded with great spectacle and entertainment. The fighting sequences (arranged by William Hobbs) are quite riveting, having an energy and execution to them that is incredible to see throughout the movie, made in a time without the possibility of using computer effects nor shortcuts; the cinematography by David Watkin is also fairly decent. York is engaging to watch on screen, being quite personable and fitting for the film. As you would probably expect from Lester's prior filmography, there is an injection of some comic humor within the film that doesn't manage to distract from the other parts of the film. There is a fine look to the film (filmed in Spain and France) that certainly helps give the film some atmosphere. The trio of Reed, Finlay and Chamberlain are fairly fine together, certainly going well together when dealing with the action scenes. Cassel and Chaplin are fine, but Heston (along with Lee) are interesting adversaries that certainly lend themselves to some fine moments, such as when York and Kinnear encounter Lee's character near the climax, having a fight scene without much light. Dunaway and Welch are fairly memorable, and they serve the climax pretty well with a scene for their own fight, and Milligan and Kinnear are fine comic relief. The best part of the film is seeing the action scenes play out with all of these characters, without giving too much thought to the story (which in itself is fine), instead its the way the film operates that makes for an exciting time. Of interest is that the original plan was to make a long epic that would run around three hours, but it was decided to separate it into two films (without telling the cast), with a trailer for the next film (The Four Muskateers) playing at the end of this film. This inspired the Screen Actor's Guild to make a stipulation that future contracts say how many films are being made. In any case, this is a fine adventure that sets out for enjoyment and succeeds with ease.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Planet of the Apes (2001).

Review #969: Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 
Mark Wahlberg (Captain Leo Davidson), Tim Roth (General Thade), Helena Bonham Carter (Ari), Michael Clarke Duncan (Attar), Paul Giamatti (Limbo), Estella Warren (Daena), Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (General Krull), David Warner (Senator Sandar), Kris Kristofferson (Karubi), and Erick Avari (Tival) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, and #316 - Batman Returns)

Review: 
On the cusp of a new film from the Planet of the Apes franchise (of which I've covered three of them: #347 - Planet of the Apes (1968), #615 - Rise of the Planet of the Apes, #662 - Beneath the Planet of the Apes) , I figured that it made sense to cover the 2001 film of the same name that was a remake and an attempt to start the franchise up again; I remember my dad watching this on DVD one quite a bit when I was growing up, and the only part I remember vividly was the ending, so perhaps that colors my thoughts on the movie (although it is the probably the only part of the film anyone remembers). Not only does it try to be based of the 1968 film, it also is based off the novel La Planète des Singes (known in English as Planet of the Apes) by Pierre Boulle. So how does this "reimaging" do?

How is it a movie with a good deal of production value like this manage to feel so shallow? What is it about this movie that springs an energy of mild but not quite there sense of entertainment? How is this not as good as the original? Unlike the ending, these are questions that the movie can provide answers for. The easiest way to say why the movie isn't particularly exciting is the fact that the story and some of the acting seem hollowed out and not as appealing as in the original 1968 film. Wahlberg doesn't do a terrible performance, but he also never really springs much enthusiasm as a lead hero; even a scene where he laments the loss of a crew looking for him doesn't have much emotion to it. It's not that he is inherently unlikable, it's just that he also isn't inherently one to really root for. Not to compare it with the original too much, but Heston's character was someone the audience could go for and want to see succeed, and he actually viewed the environment he landed in with a better sense of shock, as opposed to Wahlberg's space jockey attitude. Technically he has two love interests in the film, though neither have particularly good chemistry with him and it predictably goes nowhere. Roth steals the show with his militaristic, scenery chewing performance that gives the film a bit of life, even if his fate is somewhat of a letdown. Bonham Carter is fairly decent, but she doesn't really give too much depth or life to the character that one probably would've wanted from the role. Clarke Duncan and Hiroyuki Tagawa are fairly decent standouts as well; Warren doesn't really have too much expression nor impact, and Giamatti does fine in a smarmy role that probably had more screen-time than it probably should've had. Charlton Heston has an uncredited cameo appearance, having a somewhat pivotal role that is interesting in the one scene he appears in. The prosthetic makeup by Rick Baker is commendable and quite an upgrade from the original, with this likely being the only shining achievement in the movie. The plot is a bit muddled, and with no real character to go for and care about, there isn't much to want to watch happen. It's watchable as an action flick, but not so much as a science fiction movie. Burton does direct the movie fine enough, with the movie looking pretty decent, but the way that the movie operates with its characters sinks its hopes.

And of course there's the ending. To some, the ending could be viewed as a reasonable way to end the movie and leave the possibility of doing a sequel (as Burton has stated), or it could be viewed as one that doesn't make much sense. It's interesting, considering the ending falls in line with the novel that it is based off of. For me, it was weird watching the movie in full and then getting to the ending and finding myself giggling at it. Who knows how Thade beat Leo to Earth? Who can care to speculate about what the ending is supposed to mean? After all, this is a movie that never really kicks into full gear, with the ending that is like the movie: mild, without much substance. It's not awful, but it also doesn't feel entirely necessary either.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Fletch.

Review #967: Fletch.

Cast:
Chevy Chase (Irwin M. "Fletch" Fletcher), Joe Don Baker (Chief Jerry Karlin), Dana Wheeler-Nicholson (Gail Stanwyk), Richard Libertini (Frank Walker), Geena Davis (Larry), Larry "Flash" Jenkins (Gummy), Tim Matheson (Alan Stanwyk), M. Emmet Walsh (Dr. Joseph Dolan), George Wendt (Fat Sam), Kenneth Mars (Stanton Boyd), George Wyner (Marvin Gillet), and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Himself) Directed by Michael Ritchie (#616 - The Bad News Bears)

Review:
Based off the novel of the same name by Gregory Mcdonald, Fletch is certainly one of those films that seems deserving of a cult following, owing in part to a variety of factors, the first starting with Chase himself. What is it about his performance that works so well? Perhaps it's because he actually seems perfectly as ease with the role that he's playing, where he doesn't look like he's just doing a job, with the ad-libbing being quite effective while not becoming ridiculously tedious. One of my favorite scenes is the scene where he is confronted by Baker's character and he gets pushed into a wall with framed pictures, noting one of them has a picture with Tommy Lasorda, who he notes he hates while punching the photo (I don't blame him, honestly). There are quite a few other good scenes involving wigs and disguises, and they are also pretty quirky along with amusing. Some could find Chase's schtick a bit tiresome, but I found it to go well with a movie that never aspires to be too conventional nor too ridiculous in its approach, with the quick wit feeling just right for the role. It's no wonder that he has said this is his all-time favorite personal role, because there's just something easy and natural about Fletch that works neatly, with that deadpan manner being quite entertaining for me. The rest of the cast is also quite enjoyable, always managing to hit the right chords of amusement and entertainment; Baker and Matheson are fairly decent adversaries, Chase has some decent chemistry with Wheeler-Nicholson, while Libertini and Davis are both fine standouts in the newsroom scenes. This is a fairly crafted thriller, managing to have the right kind of action and mystery that makes for some good quality entertainment that deserves the following it has.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

A Little Romance.

Review #962: A Little Romance.

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Year of Living Dangerously.

Review #960: The Year of Living Dangerously.

Cast: 
Mel Gibson (Guy Hamilton), Sigourney Weaver (Jill Bryant), Bill Kerr (Colonel Henderson), Michael Murphy (Pete Curtis), Linda Hunt (Billy Kwan), Noel Ferrier (Wally O'Sullivan), Bembol Roco (Kumar), and Paul Sonkkila (Kevin Condon) Directed by Peter Weir.

Review: 
It's interesting that a movie involving a love story caught in the middle of a revolution manages to make itself seem more more upon a closer look. This is a movie that is rich in atmosphere and mood that is is fairly engaging while having a good deal of tension and passion. Hunt pulls off a tremendous performance that is essentially the heart of the movie, giving the movie a degree of humanity and care; she pulls off such a great unforgettable performance that always seems sincere with a sense of mystery and charm, particularly by the film's climax; she was the first person to win an Oscar for playing a character of the opposite sex, winning for Best Supporting Actress that year. The film is not without its romance, and Gibson and Weaver do a fine job in expressing that passion that goes along fairly with the film and its pace, with the two doing relatively fine jobs on their own scenes. If you like seeing the two, then this is your only chance to watch both of them (along with Hunt) in the same film. The rest of the cast also do fine jobs, doing well to contribute to the movie's tense nature, with Murphy standing out with his greed. The film is set in Indonesia, though it was shot in both Australia and the Philippines, with four languages spoken through the film: English, Tagalog, Filipino, and Indonesian. It is often labeled as the first co-production of Australia and a Hollywood studio (MGM), with the latter providing the money needed to fund the movie's production. By the time the movie gets to its end, it already has felt like an experience worth having, having rounds of emotion that work out well. In any case, this is an excellent film that manages to enthrall you with a fine touch of atmosphere, mood, and excellent performances to drive this movie to success.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Big Sleep (1946).

Review #951: The Big Sleep.

Cast:
Humphrey Bogart (Philip Marlowe), Lauren Bacall (Vivian Sternwood Rutledge), John Ridgely (Eddie Mars), Martha Vickers (Carmen Sternwood), Dorothy Malone (Acme Bookstore proprietress), Peggy Knudsen (Mona Mars), Regis Toomey (Chief Inspector Bernie Ohls), Charles Waldron (General Sternwood), Charles D. Brown (Norris), Bob Steele (Lash Canino), Elisha Cook, Jr. (Harry Jones), Louis Jean Heydt (Joe Brody), and Sonia Darrin (Agnes Lowzier) Directed by Howard Hawks.

Review:
This is the first film I've watched that was directed by Howard Hawks (he had done uncredited rewrites to The Thing from Another World (#519), and it is debatable on whether he had directed the film), and he does a good job at making a classic film noir. This was based off the Raymond Chandler crime novel of the same name, with the screenplay written by William Faulkner, Leigh Brackett & Jules Furthman; as such, the lines are snappy and effective at making for an incredibly capable thriller. The appeal of the movie is seeing the investigation is executed and not merely just seeing it be solved (Chandler himself was asked by the filmmakers who killed the chauffeur - he responded that he didn't know), with Bogart being quite adept at being the hard-boiled wisecracking detective without any real missteps. Bacall does a fine job in this dazzling role filled with spunk and charisma, and her chemistry with Bogart is undeniably entertaining to watch, in part because of how easy they flow together while on screen together, with the racehorse dialogue being quite suggestive along with energetic. Ridgely does a fine adversarial job; Vickers manages to make her loopy character stand out quite nicely. The rest of the cast are pretty convincing in their roles (such as Malone and Steele), serving finely when compared to the dynamic of Bogart-Bacall, which stands out almost as much as the mystery itself. The movie operates at its own pace, and while it may be a bit hard to follow at times the movie has an undeniable amount of fun entertainment to it all.

This movie was filmed prior to the end of World War II, but it was not released until after Warner Bros. released their backlog of war-related films. There are two versions of the movie. One cut (released only to troops in the South Pacific) lasts 114 minutes, while the released cut lasted 116 minutes. There are differences between the two versions, with scenes added in order to play up the Bogart-Bacall dynamic and portions were re-shot (one key scene cut involves Marlowe and a D.A in conversation); a consequence of this is that Pat Clark was unavailable for the re-shots, so Peggy Knudsen replaced her in the film. In any case, the earlier version apparently is more linear in plot but has less of Bogart-Bacall, so take that for what it's worth. It isn't a perfect movie, but it is at the very least a classic that should watched at least once for anyone who likes film noir, like I do.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Ivanhoe (1952).

Review #946: Ivanhoe.

Cast:
Robert Taylor (Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe), Elizabeth Taylor (Rebecca), Joan Fontaine (Rowena), George Sanders (Sir Brian De Bois-Guilbert), Emlyn Williams (Wamba), Robert Douglas (Sir Hugh De Bracy), Finlay Currie (Sir Cedric of Ivanhoe), Felix Aylmer (Isaac of York), Francis de Wolff (Front De Boeuf), Norman Wooland (King Richard), and Basil Sydney (Waldemar Fitzurse) Directed by Richard Thorpe (#327 - Jailhouse Rock)

Review:
Based off the historical novel of the same name by Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe manages to shine as a fine piece of entertainment, filled with Technicolor spectacle and costumes to go with it. I can't say it's as good as The Adventures of Robin Hood (#505), for example, but it is at least a pretty interesting piece of work. Robert Taylor is a capable lead, managing to give off a commanding presence pretty quickly. An interesting fact is that Taylor, along with Thorpe and producer Pandro S. Berman, would later make two more films together in the next few years (Knights of the Round Table and The Adventures of Quentin Durward), forming an unofficial trilogy. Elizabeth Taylor does a fine job in this sweet but also capable character. Fontaine doesn't have as much to do, but she gives off a competent feel. The three form an interesting love triangle that does prove somewhat compelling, alongside the main plot, anyway. Sanders is the main adversary, and he does an alright job in making him somewhat three dimensional, particularly around the end of the film. The Norman-Saxon plot is decent, though nothing too special. Miklós Rózsa does a fine job with the music score, being quite heroic and quite fitting for the movie. The jousting sequence is well executed, and the battles are also pretty well done in capturing excitement and pacing.  Within its 106 minute run-time is a movie that balances a fine line between action and structure that does not drag itself too often, and while it may succeed more in the former than the latter, it definitely is worth consideration, with its spirit of thrills outweighing the risks.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Martian.

Review #739: The Martian.

Cast
Matt Damon (Mark Watney), Jessica Chastain (Melissa Lewis), Kristen Wiig (Annie Montrose), Jeff Daniels (Teddy Sanders), Michael Peña (Rick Martinez), Kate Mara (Beth Johanssen), Sean Bean (Mitch Henderson), Sebastian Stan (Chris Beck), Aksel Hennie (Alex Vogel), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Vincent Kapoor), Donald Glover (Rich Purnell), Benedict Wong (Bruce Ng), and Mackenzie Davis (Mindy Park) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner and #530 - Alien)

Review
This is the 13th movie from the local movie theater, and what better way to cap the lucky number with a science-fiction movie? Quite well, I'd say. Talk about a fun movie. Without getting much in the way, I recommend seeing it. Why? Because it's a tremendous way to spend two hours in an adventure that manages to be more than the sum of its parts, while also managing to treat its audience with respect. The movie (based off the novel of the same name by Andy Weir) is not about the isolation of a man trapped in a planet all on his own as one would guess, but about how he adapts with his personality also playing a factor. Damon can be funny, but his main performance is excellent because you believe that this man is trying and doing everything to stay alive. The movie never wavers, balancing the scenes on Earth and the scenes with Damon on Mars nicely. The rest of the cast is also excellent, managing to be convincing while also likable. Chastain makes an effort to resemble a Commander, acting with grace and authority that never comes off as fake sounding. Her crew are also pretty good, especially in the last half, where it really is fun to see them all come up with a plan. Daniels, Wiig & Ejiofor also do a good job, having some quick chemistry. Lastly, Glover (though not in the movie much) is memorable and a good kind of quirky that adds a little more charm to the movie, while also being helpful, so that's another plus. It's certainly an interesting movie to listen with regards to science, and it's always nice to remind me about the Mars Pathfinder and make me want to know a little more about hexadecimals. The effects and sets are wonderful, never looking fake at all, as we instead are gazing at the beauty of it all. Mars is certainly an interesting planet to think (and watch) about, and that's why it matters when we discover something new, or about any planet, really. Yes, we live on Earth, but that doesn't mean we should shun ourselves of hearing about attempts to discover something new or learn new things, while keeping an open mind. Enjoy the movie, and enjoy every day on this planet.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Scrooge (1935).

Review #672: Scrooge.

Cast
Seymour Hicks (Ebenezer Scrooge), Donald Calthrop (Bob Cratchit), Robert Cochran (Fred), Mary Glynne (Belle), Garry Marsh (Belle's husband), Oscar Asche (Spirit of Christmas Present), Marie Ney (Spirit of Christmas Past), C.V. France (Spirit of Christmas Future), and Philip Frost (Tiny Tim) Directed by Henry Edwards.

Review
Yes, another adaptation of A Christmas Carol. But this time it's the 1935 film version, the first sound film based on the tale (after numerous stage versions and a silent film adaptation in 1913, which also had Hicks as Scrooge). This isn't my first foray into adaptations of the novel (#075 - Scrooged, #076 - Scrooge (1951), #079 - A Christmas Carol (1984), #498 - The Muppet Christmas Carol, and #503 - A Christmas Carol (1938), but somehow this has managed to be forgotten, probably lost in a sea of these adaptations that are on TV, as opposed to this film, though this film is in public domain, so there's that. What makes this film unique from the other versions? The ghosts aren't seen. They are merely shapes (except for the Spirit of Christmas Present), more non-real than the others. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to you. The atmosphere of the movie is at least well made, it certainly does feel festive with a touch of dark mood. Hicks is at least effective when it comes to portraying a miserable character such as Scrooge. Is it the best version? No, but it is fine enough for a film like this. The movie manages to tell its story effectively enough (77 minutes), cutting a few things but not anything too crucial. Overall, this is a movie that does a pretty good job at being entertaining and being a decent movie to watch come Christmastime (which seems to be coming closer), alongside the dozens of other picks. It was good to end November on a high note (and on a streak), and now comes December...and my birthday.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Jurassic Park.

Review #642: Jurassic Park.

Cast
Sam Neill (Dr. Alan Grant), Laura Dern (Dr. Ellie Sattler), Jeff Goldblum (Dr. Ian Malcolm), Richard Attenborough (John Hammond), Ariana Richards (Alexis Murphy), Joseph Mazzello (Tim Murphy), Bob Peck (Robert Muldoon), Martin Ferrero (Donald Gennaro), Wayne Knight (Dennis Nedry), and Samuel L. Jackson (Ray Arnold) Directed by Steven Spielburg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, and #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial)

Review
Jurassic Park is probably one of the most defining movies of the 1990s, and the special effects are the forefront of why this movie is what it is, which is awesome. The effects for the movie are so fantastic to look at, it has managed to not look dated after over 20 years, but it really comes down to the fact that the effects just look great. And yes, computer generated imagery can look good for a film, provided that it doesn't get abused and is used effectively, which this film does (of course it helps that they also used life sized animatronics). The film itself is also pretty good. While the effects may sometimes overshadow the story, it does actually have its moments of scares, making for a decent thriller. I especially like the kitchen scene near the end, it makes for a good way to end the movie, The characters are at least enjoyable, each having at least one memorable scene, especially Neill and Goldblum (Life does indeed find a way). For some reason, it is refreshing to see Wayne Knight (Hello, Newman) in this movie. I guess it's because he is probably the best person to portray a smarmy character and yet still be funny. The science behind the movie is probably questionable (So...flies can just suck blood from a dinosaur and then just happen to get stuck in amber and later just happen to be found preserved millions of years later? The exposition explaining this is actually nifty though.), but the movie manages to shine over it with some fun action and excellent special effects. Take the movie for what it is, and it is one pile of fun.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Wizard of Oz.

Review #589: Wizard of Oz.

Cast
Larry Semon (Scarecrow/Toymaker/Farmhand), Dorothy Dwan (Dorothy/Princess Dorothea), Bryant Washburn (Kynd), Oliver Hardy (Woodsman/Knight of the Garter/Farmhand), Josef Swickard (Prime Minister Kruel), Charles Murray (Wizard of Oz), Spencer Bell (Cowardly Lion/Rastus/Snowball), Frank Alexander (Uncle Henry/Prince of Whales), Otto Lederer (Ambassador Wikked), and Mary Carr (Aunt Em) Directed by Larry Semon.

Review
There was an earlier version of the Wizard of Oz? Yes, there was. Tons in fact. This isn't even the first one, there are other silent versions before this, all (loosely) adapted from the original novel by L. Frank Baum. This movie has the distinction of being written by (supposedly) L. Frank Baum, Jr and Larry Semon, who practically steals the show in this movie. And that's the problem considering this isn't the Scarecrow of Oz, it's the Wizard of Oz. Dorothy barely gets any screen time, especially in the last 40 minutes, when the movie is taken over fully by Semon, and occasionally Bell, who gets some moments, only for it to cut back to Semon, though I guess being the director means getting the opportunity to be in every scene. It wouldn't be as grating if the movie didn't pad itself by just not going anywhere, taking forever to begin the movie and taking forever to end the movie. It takes so long to get to Oz (again), and we're stuck watching slapstick over and over again. It's fun the first time, but it gets old really fast. The actors aren't bad, and if you look hard enough, you'll find Oliver Hardy, before he would gain fame as part of the duo Laurel and Hardy. The characters in this movie are bizarre in their actions, especially Hardy's character. The movie at least is colorful with the hues and the music is decent, but this is still a weird movie. You haven't lived life until you've seen a man flying through the air running away from lightening...and then he climbs into a house. Weird movies can be good, this is not. The setup for the movie by use of a toymaker narrator is either an odd way to setup the movie or just a lazy way. It could be both, given the nonsensical ending that leaves no proper conclusion. It's no wonder why this was a big failure (even bankrupting the studio), the movie is just not that good, and it suffers even more when compared to the more famous 1939 film, which knocks this right off the block. I'd recommend Return to Oz before I recommend this, at least the former is sensible. This is just a sad mess that can't comprehend itself.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939)

Review #583: The Hound of the Baskervilles.

Cast
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. John H. Watson), Richard Greene (Sir Henry Baskerville), Wendy Barrie (Beryl Stapleton), Lionel Atwill (Dr. James Mortimer), John Carradine (Barryman), Morton Lowry (John Stapleton), Eily Malyon (Mrs. Barryman), and Barlowe Borland (Frankland) Directed by Sidney Lanfield.

Review
I had previously reviewed an adaption of the classic novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (#272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles - 1959), which was excellent and such. So how does this film made 20 years beforehand fare? To be honest, I actually have read the novel (big shock, right?), and the movie manages to do a fine job in cramming the story into a small 78 minute window. The story flows well with the novel, not making drastic changes (The fate of the villain is left unknown, but leaving a little ambiguity as opposed to the novel doesn't hurt), and the landscapes look haunting and beautiful. The supporting cast is decent enough, but the main attraction is Basil Rathbone in his first movie as Sherlock Holmes, which he would play for 13 more films for seven more years alongside Nigel Bruce as Watson. Rathbone is certainly fun to watch deduce the crime, though it is debatable on whether if Bruce's somewhat bumbling performance is endearing enough to work or somewhat annoying. Whatever the case, the movie is simply excellent in its portrayal of the novel and manages to work on such a short time scale. Check this one out, then check out the 1959 film to see what all the fuss is about.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Be Cool.

Review #517: Be Cool.

Cast
John Travolta (Chili Palmer), Uma Thurman (Edie Athens), Vince Vaughn (Roger "Raji" Lowenthal), Cedric the Entertainer (Sin LaSalle), Harvey Keitel (Nick Carr), Christina Milian (Linda Moon), André Benjamin (Dabu), Dwayne Johnson (Elliot Wilhelm), Robert Pastorelli (Joseph "Joe Loop" Lupino), Paul Adelstein (Hyman Gordon), and Arielle Kebbel (Robin) Directed by F. Gary Gray.

Review
I was in my living room, when a sudden urge came into me (No, it was not to eat more chicken), and it led me to pick Be Cool to review. So, like a fool, I decided to watch it. Hours later, I think I'll regret watching this film. It is not a bad film, it is a disappointing film that seems to either try way too hard (Multitudes and multitudes subplots) or try too little (Such as some of the acting), all springing into a lifeless "comedy" that seems to care about its cameos more then its actual actors. Travolta does okay, but his cast seems to not have any life in them, it seems the only one who cares enough to make an (positive) impression is Dwayne Johnson, who has some charm and likability even with a bad afro. The rest of the cast either range from okay (Cedric the Entertainer, who always seems to be fun to watch, but he's the only one in this film that is okay) to not really memorable (Milian, who is plagued by all the subplots) to just plain awful (Vince Vaughn, a baffling, yet lame choice), and they never click. It seems the comedy is overridden by the subplots and characters, which are endless and mostly annoying, in that order. Get Shorty was a fun flick that used the actor to their best talent. Be Cool uses their star power instead, and the film suffers because of it. Comparing these film would be impossible as this review would be 50 lines long, but I will close this review out by wondering if this film's true title was Sell Out.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Christmas Carol (1938).

Review #503: A Christmas Carol.

Cast
Reginald Owen (Ebenezer Scrooge), Gene Lockhart (Bob Cratchit), Kathleen Lockhart (Mrs. Cratchit), Terry Kilburn (Tiny Tim Cratchit), Barry MacKay (Fred), Lynne Carver (Bess), Bunny Beatty (Martha Cratchit), June Lockhart (Belinda Cratchit), John O'Day (Peter Cratchit), Leo G. Carroll (Marley's Ghost), Lionel Braham (Spirit of Christmas Present), Ann Rutherford (Spirit of Christmas Past), and D'Arcy Corrigan (Spirit of Christmas Future) Directed by Edwin L. Marin.

Review

Once again, I'm reviewing A Christmas Carol film (#075 - Scrooged, #076 - Scrooge (1951), #079 - A Christmas Carol (1984), #498 - The Muppet Christmas Carol), with actors like Bill Murray in a mediocre comedy, Allister Sim in a fine telling of the story, George C. Scott rather effectively playing Scrooge, to Michael Caine with Muppets. So with all of the other Christmas Carol films around, how is this? It's an okay film, but it feels really cut down. It lasts only about 70 minutes, it omits the part about Scrooge's past romance and Want and Ignorance are sorely missing, most likely due to wanting a family film, as I'm sure many families will enjoy the scene where Scrooge sees his own grave, truly a happy scene. The actors are fine though, Lockhart is okay, certainly a bright and energetic figure. While Reginald Owen isn't necessarily great, he does bring a presence that carries the film to a short, but mostly sweet finish line. Out of all the Christmas Carol films I've reviewed, this isn't the best one by any means, but if you want something short and mostly sweet, this is the one for you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Field of Dreams.

Review #488: Field of Dreams.

Cast
Kevin Costner (Ray Kinsella), Amy Madigan (Annie Kinsella), James Earl Jones (Terence Mann), Ray Liotta (Shoeless Joe Jackson), Burt Lancaster (Archibald "Moonlight" Graham), Timothy Busfield (Mark), Frank Whaley (Archie Graham), and Gaby Hoffmann (Karin Kinsella) Directed by Phil Alden Robinson.

Review
Being a baseball nut (as I am) will probably make this film even more of a treat for them, but even if you're not a baseball nut, this is still a pretty enjoyable film. This is my first time watching a film that stars Kevin Costner (Though my dad seemed to love watching his films on DVD when I was growing up), and he does an alright job, perfectly awkward in a film like this, and he pairs off really well with James Earl Jones, the two just mesh well with each other. But of course, the two actors who quite nearly steal the show are Ray Liotta and Burt Lancaster, and it's because their presences in the scenes each have just leave a lasting impression on me, and it really is a warming film that forgoes sentimentality it transcends into its own one of a kind of films. Costner joined this film because he felt this would be "this generation's It's a Wonderful Life", and I don't blame him because while it may not be one of the greats, it can certainly be watched any time, any day, and work just the same.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Soylent Green.

Review #453: Soylent Green.

Cast
Charlton Heston (Thorn), Leigh Taylor-Young (Shirl), Chuck Connors (Fielding), Edward G. Robinson (Sol Roth), Joseph Cotten (Simonson), Brock Peters (Hatcher), Paula Kelly (Martha), and Stephen Young (Gilbert) Directed by Richard Fleischer.

Review
Soylent Green has been considered as a film to be reviewed in the past, and I do vaguely remember having a chance to seeing it right around last year, but I decided to take a good night sleep instead. So...After feeling a bit under the weather, carrying a death wish and not wanting to do a lame pun by reviewing a Friday the 13th film on the most over hyped superstitious day, I decided to watch Soylent Green. The film was adapted from the novel Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison, who died just last year. This film has probably one of the more notable last lines which essentially gives the film new spin, but even still this doesn't validate all of the film. Heston is fine and Taylor-Young is okay, but the main actor that I seem to connect with is Edward G. Robinson, in his final film role, with his last scene of his last movie being both sad and ironic in approach. He does a good, if not great film, even if he isn't in the film too much. This feels like it could've been a Twilight Zone episode, especially with the twist ending and such. The future is grim bleak, and looks more like 1973 than 2022 at times. It's an okay film, highlighted with a fair twist and one or two great scenes, it's an alright science fiction film for the most part, just take it for what its worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Incredible Shrinking Man.

Review #420: The Incredible Shrinking Man.

Cast
Grant Williams (Scott Carey), Randy Stuart (Louise Carey), Paul Langton (Charlie Carey), Raymond Bailey (Dr. Thomas Silver), April Kent (Clarice), and William Schallert (Dr. Arthur Bramson) Directed by Jack Arnold.

Review
This film was based off the novel by the late Richard Matheson, who wrote the screenplay for this along with several films, novels and TV episodes such as The Pit and the Pendulum (1961), The Raven (1963), the novel I Am Legend and the 1964 version, Somewhere in Time, Duel, The Comedy Terrors, numerous Twilight Zone episodes...and Jaws 3-D. But nevertheless, The Incredible Shrinking Man benefits from a fine screenplay by Matheson, who keeps the plausibility levels high and the watchability even higher. The acting is alright, and Grant Williams is the best out of everyone in the film, we see the emotion he goes through, and it comes off as believable. The effects are the cornerstone of this film, and they look convincing, especially for the time this was made, and the scene where Williams' character is attacked by the cat is really good. This is a fine film, and I applaud Matheson for his work on this film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.