Used Cars.

Review #2398: Used Cars.

Cast:

Kurt Russell (Rudy Russo), Jack Warden (Roy L. Fuchs / Luke Fuchs), Gerrit Graham (Jeff), Frank McRae (Jim), Deborah Harmon (Barbara Jane Fuchs), Joe Flaherty (Sam Slaton), David L. Lander (Freddie Paris), Michael McKean (Eddie Winslow), Michael Talbott (Mickey), Harry Northup (Carmine), Alfonso Arau (Manuel), Cheryl Rixon (Margaret), Al Lewis (Judge H. H. Harrison), Woodrow Parfrey (Mr. Chertner), and Dub Taylor (Tucker)

Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, #747 - Back to the Future Part II, #748 - Back to the Future Part III, #1527 - Cast Away, #2229 - I Wanna Hold Your Hand)

Review: 

 “This movie is structured on a classic Frank Capra movie except that everybody lies.”

Look, sometimes movies don't get the right type of luck in reaching audiences. Or they just don't get it, who the hell knows. You might remember that Robert Zemeckis had his directorial debut with I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978), that 1964 comedy involving teens and The Beatles that flopped on initial release. But Zemeckis continued on with Bob Gale on another production together two years later with Used Cars, which now had John Milius and Steven Spielberg serve as executive producers. Apparently, Milius was the one who came up with the idea of the movie with Spielberg that had thoughts of a Las Vegas used-cars salesman, which at one point had George Hamilton floated as a possible lead. Gale and Zemeckis did research at used car lots, as one does. The movie was shot around the Arizona area in the span of a month in 1979. On July 11, 1980, Used Cars was released in theaters and was a marginal success (it was made for substantially more money than Hand, for example). Apparently, the release was bumped up a month by Columbia Pictures (as led by a man that had sold cars at one point in his life) due to good test screenings, and yes, I said *good* screenings. As as a result, the movie came out just barely after the release of movies such as Airplane! (1980). The next movie directed by Zemeckis was Romancing the Stone (1984), which lit the match for his eventual breakthrough as a director. Incidentally, Used Cars (1980) was the only R-rated Zemeckis movie until Flight (2012).

I don't do car dealerships, but good god, I do love ensemble comedies. It is the kind of old-fashioned hokum that would've fit right at home in the days of Old Hollywood (as if it was an inverted A Wonderful Life), even if others might shudder at the thought of "crass" characters for a comedy. The thing is that they are *fun* and crass characters for a delightfully exploitative movie. What, have you never thought about a used car salesman going into politics? (as opposed to 70-year-olds running for president again and again) It wasn't like the previous decade was a normal one, what with people becoming president without the voters being involved. It is a barrage of crude brilliance that could only come from people who wanted to blaze a trail of humor at all costs and played it extremely cool in the process. Sometimes I wonder what makes Kurt Russell so good that he could've had his own fan club. I think it just is the fact that he seems to have the swagger to pull off nearly any performance with no sense of bullshitting you. He can do the action movie hero type (as one loves), he could do drama (I see Miracle [2004] every year), and most importantly, he can do comedy. Of course, this was his first film in five years, having moved away from Disney productions after The Strongest Man in the World (1975) that saw him do television and even play Elvis. With this movie, you need someone with a cocksure attitude, and you get that in spades with Russell, who is tremendously devious and tremendously funny for what clearly should've been the role to help see Russell as a legitimate talent*. He just rolls the hustle on his mind with no hesitation and the confidence that arrives in slippery likability, where one loves to watch what harebrained idea that he wants to peddle next. His time spent with Harmon is probably the only time he tries to really be honest (well, as much as one can when being around a dead person for a good chunk of the film), and even then it is still funny to see him squirm in chicanery. But the real focus is on folks you see around Russell like the superstitious (and funny) Graham or the slippery McRae or the lesser-shown McKean & Lander (who at that time were paired together on TV with Laverne & Shirley) in tech hijinks. But of course, Warden and his double role (for a time, one of them dies and is buried in an Edsel that is both touching and amusing) helps to seal the film as a real treat. He practically seems like the kid in a candy store in grousing humor that plays off the whole "one guy looks like this, the other guy acts like this" thing that makes me smile every time I see him on screen (one line in particular stands out about the "country going to the dogs" because when a politician was bought, they would stay bought). The cut-in sequences (where the boys decide the best way to raise awareness for their dealership is illegal cut-in commercials) are special standouts in ludicrous energy and audacity*, but the real show-stopper is the climax involving plenty of cars that might as well have been a cattle drive like Red River (1948) with such rousing spectacle and lunacy on display. In total, one doesn't see a cop out in a movie that looks at people and sees grifters all in line. As a whole, the screwy logic on display in salesmanship and outright lies to fill a hustle has managed to age spectacularly well for a movie that definitely deserved better in its time. But four decades (and a half) is still plenty of good milage for a director who got even better from here, so check it out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*He also tried to have a baseball career but suffered an injury. Is this the third film of the trinity of movies that people didn't get in the 1980s with The Thing and Big Trouble in Little China? Or would Tango & Cash make it a square? At least Escape from New York got him to righteous status.

*One scene has a naked lady in it, as one does when packed with an R-rating. Just be ready for breasts, as they say.

I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

Review #2229: I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

Cast: 

Nancy Allen (Pam Mitchell), Bobby Di Cicco (Tony Smerko), Marc McClure (Larry Dubois), Susan Kendall Newman (Janis Goldman), Theresa Saldana (Grace Corrigan), Wendie Jo Sperber (Rosie Petrofsky), Eddie Deezen (Richard "Ringo" Klaus), Christian Juttner (Peter Plimpton), Will Jordan (Ed Sullivan), Read Morgan (Peter's Father), Claude Earl Jones (Al), and James Houghton (Eddie) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, #747 - Back to the Future Part II, #748 - Back to the Future Part III, #1527 - Cast Away)

Review: 

Sure, there have been a few Beatles-related films here and there. But this is one that its creators often referred to as "a cross between American Graffiti and Ben-Hur" that somehow makes sense (for the latter film, one never sees a certain face...). Robert Zemeckis spent a decade studying and working prior to this film. Robert Zemeckis spent a decade studying and working prior to this film. This included meeting Bob Gale at USC Film School that shared his interest in making "Hollywood movies". Zemeckis directed a short film called "A Field of Honor" that saw him awarded a Student Academy Award in 1975 that attracted the attention of Steven Spielberg because, well, Zemeckis barged into Spielberg's office one day to show it to him. This got Spielberg to be a mentor to Zemeckis that would see him tabbed to direct his first feature film at Universal Pictures, which was this film. Apparently, the original idea was basically the question of if one could make a movie just about waiting in line that eventually spiraled from there. 1978 was an interesting idea for Beatles-adjacent films, with this (loosely sharing the title of The Beatles song "I Want"-oh you already know) being the middle of a group that included the TV mockumentary All You Need Is Cash and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (the jukebox musical with plenty of Beatles songs...as mostly covered by Peter Frampton and the Bee Gees). The resulting film (as written by Zemeckis and Gale as their first filmed screenplay) was not a hit despite warm reviews (preview and beyond) but Zemeckis and Gale kept busy, with the two's script for 1941 being filmed (by Spielberg) and released in 1979 before Zemeckis directed his next film with Used Cars (1980).

It is a pretty madcap film (98 minutes) about the nature of a moment crystalized in time, specifically February of 1964. It is a warmhearted film about people who just get swept up in the mayhem of Beatlemania for a film that lives it to the fullest in a way that manages to ride on charm without needing to show a Beatle up close (which goes with a main group where 28-year-old Allen was the most experienced on film). It is a neatly constructed ensemble film that doesn't have (or really need) an all-encompassing narrative to just roll with people that all manage to evoke a certain time and type (which even features Murray the K, who really referred to himself as a "fifth Beatle") that one can resonate with amid all of the nostalgia that doesn't cloy for a return of the old days but instead just rides the wave of hysteria. One does not wince at seeing the hysteria that arises from these folks, such as saying "Well, his wife could die" when presented with the fact that one of the Beatles being married or just the fact that people could go gaga for something that just happened be in the stomping ground of a Beatle. There is a key balance among the four leading stories that shows a guiding touch of humor within self-realization (small or not), starting with Allen, who has such worthwhile timing when it comes to finding that nerves really do wash away when faced with let's just say is euphoria with a guitar (as opposed to just being a reluctant pal-to-be-wife). Sperber is probably the one that draws the most amusement, because she is paired a good chunk of the time with Deezen and his particular type of energy (perhaps not surprisingly, he has called himself the "world's biggest" Beatles fan) as devotes fans that really makes one consider just how wrapped up a "fan" can be. The rest of the cast does pretty well in drawing amusement in the exhibition of teenage impulse (you know the usual, such as pushing folk music, wannabee saboteur, or wavering fixations), which probably works best with the sequence involving Newman, Di Cicco and Juttner that sees them abscond with tickets with some silly movements and lines that they sell just as well as any other time in the film. The Sullivan sequence involving shots that cut from seeing the group (amid a crowd of other fans) and then, well, parts of that Beatles performance (with stand-ins obviously that were coordinated by a Beatles superfan when it came to movements) is the cherry on top of a worthwhile journey with a pride for the time it aims to capture without stuttering at any real moment. Sure, it is a familiar film in its comedy, but it is a comforting type of film that shows talent among its young cast and crew in terms of execution and overall charm.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Redux #352: Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Cast: 

Bob Hoskins (Eddie Valiant), Christopher Lloyd (Judge Doom), Charles Fleischer (Roger Rabbit, Benny the Cab, Greasy and Psycho), Stubby Kaye (Marvin Acme), Joanna Cassidy (Dolores), Kathleen Turner (Jessica Rabbit), Alan Tilvern (R.K. Maroon), Lou Hirsch (Baby Herman), David L. Lander (Smart Ass), Fred Newman (Stupid), June Foray (Wheezy and Lena Hyena), Mel Blanc (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Tweety Bird, and Sylvester), Joe Alaskey (Yosemite Sam), and Wayne Allwine (Mickey Mouse) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express)

Review: 

On June 22, 1988, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was released in theaters. It was a solid movie that marked a new high point in integrating animation and live action in cinema. There had been a handful of films that had animation within a primary live-action setting, such as with Song of the South (1946) and Mary Poppins (1964). But this was something quite special, from its director in Robert Zemeckis all the way down to a lead actor that had to spend several scenes having to act again thin air. A graduate of USC Film School, Zemeckis had directed four films before this one: I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978) and Used Cars (1980), Romancing the Stone (1984), and Back to the Future (1985). The success of Stone had been preceded by two audience flops (both of which were produced by Steven Spielberg), but even before then he had an interest in directing a project that was to adapt the novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, originally published in 1981 by Gary K. Wolf. Shortly after publication, Walt Disney Productions (as headlined by Ron W. Miller at the time) bought the film rights to the mystery fantasy novel in an attempt to make a blockbuster production. You may remember that this is the period where Disney tried to branch to more interesting work beyond what they had done in live action, which namely involved films such as Tron (1982) to go with a small collection of animated features. Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman wrote a number of drafts that eventually became a screenplay that did away with the original setting that involved comic strip characters (and a darker ending) for an alternative 1947 Hollywood with Golden Age animation characters. Disney tried to make to test footage with Darrell Van Citters as animation director (and Paul Reubens as voice for the title character). However, by 1985, Disney (who ousted Miller, champion of the project) decided to partner with Amblin Entertainment (headlined by Spielberg), which was a deal that would see a budget just under $30 million (after a projection of it being for $50 million) and complete creative control for Zemeckis and Spielberg...and the former decided to pick who he called the best animator in the world to do the film: Richard Williams. The son of an illustrator and painter, Williams was inspired by a childhood showing of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) to become an animator, and by the time he was a student at the Ontario College of Art he already was a commercial artist. He did a variety of short films and segments after the success of The Little Island (1958), with his work on the short film A Christmas Carol (1971) garnering him his first Academy Award. He did not like the idea of moving to the States to work on the film with the Disney bureaucracy, so they shifted production to London (they also made a deal to help him finish a film he had been making on-and-off since 1964 with The Thief and the Cobbler, but that is its own can of worms); his intent of breaking the animation rules (for which one stressed to not move the camera, which Williams felt was animators just being lazy) was helped with Industrial Light and Magic, who dealt with optical composition  as explained by the supervisor for the film in Ed Jones here (if one wants to hear a perspective within animators, click here). At any rate, with a budget that ballooned to over $50 million, the film (released under the Touchstone Pictures label, which had been created by Miller) was a major success in its time, garnering four Academy Awards that dealt with editing (Arthur Schmidt), sound effects editing, visual effects (Ken Ralston, Williams, Edward Jones, and George Gibbs), and a special achievement award for Williams.

As explained by associate producer Don Hahn years later, Zemeckis had an intent to do animation with live action in a "very contemporary way", which mainly involved a camera that would move to go in a moody film noir. There would be various methods used to help with making sure the live actors (Hoskins, mostly) would interact with something that could be transferred to making it look like he is at eye level with the toons (there were also a few sequences with blue screen, which can be seen in a certain home Blu-ray release as a special feature), such as: mime artistry, puppeteering, and robotic arms. Charles Fleischer dressed up in a rabbit costume and acted as a stand-in behind camera for a wide variety of scenes. As a whole, it is a hodgepodge movie that is one part cornucopia of cartoon characters from the past such as Betty Boop or Yosemite Sam, one part film noir and also one part comedy. What a wonderful film to view through the lens of interaction, one that is consistently on edge to either play noir or comedy without breaking out one false note in its 104-minute runtime. Oh sure, the scenes and bits spent with the toon characters are a delight (because they aren't mere cameos for the sake of being there), but it is the performance of Hoskins (who had plenty of theater experience before doing film) in versatility that makes the whole magic act work as well as it does. Imagine having to act in a film where you have to do mime training to go along with having to interact with characters that aren't really there on set beyond a stand-in. As such, he excels at interaction on eye level and in his timing when it comes to both noir and as straight man when paired with Fleischer (remember, he was in a bunny suit on the side), who makes for a quality comedic presence in blustering clownishness with rapid-fire pace. Turner was actually not credited for her role in the film (nor was Amy Irving for the introductory song), which she described as one where "the whole body is the breath". It certainly is a relaxed way of doing a sultry-but-moral noir player. Lloyd is perfectly stiff as one would hope from such an imposing figure that makes the resulting climax all the more interesting within its payoff (who better to turn a place of cartoon mayhem into one of business mayhem than a judge?). The other live action players do well within the detective story reaches that mainly involve a strait-laced Cassidy or oddballs in Kaye and Tilvern. The Ink & Paint Club probably represents the best opportunity to show just how far one could go in devastating brilliance of the link in animation and live action for quality enjoyment that keeps your attention in humorous elegance. The build-up to actually reaching Toontown makes for quite a quality payoff when one gets to see a sequence of Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse on the same screen (with the same amount of time together, per agreement), which is particularly special because it still remains the only time the two have been in the same screen (this was the last appearance of Bugs Bunny as voiced by Blanc in a feature before his death in 1989). It isn't a movie just about seeing what character shows up, of course, because the main point of the film is to show just how much fun one can have in the art of blending animation and potboiler adventure that is neat in its manic execution. As a whole, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a treat to watch from start to finish, one that benefits from a wonderful performance from Hoskins and the contributions of Zemeckis, Williams and company to deliver a highly watchable movie in all of the right ways that stands the test of time.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Cast Away.

Review #1527: Cast Away.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Chuck Noland), Helen Hunt (Kelly Frears), Nick Searcy (Stan), Chris Noth (Jerry Lovett), Lari White (Bettina Peterson), Vince Martin (Pilot Al), Michael Forest (Pilot Jack), and Jay Acovone (Pilot Peter) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, #747 - Back to the Future Part II, and #748 - Back to the Future Part III)

Review: 
"I had a passionate interest in the technique of filmmaking. I think, because of how I was raised, I always assumed that I would be some sort of technician. I just love the process and I thought, "Maybe there's a way I can be a camera man or something."

Innovation is always welcome in cinema, particularly when it comes to the work of Robert Zemeckis. Interestingly, he got his interest in film in a blue-collar upbringing that did not encourage much particular interest in the arts besides television, which he felt was the one thing that was inspirational to him when it came to seeing something different from his Chicago life. He was interested in film through an 8 mm film camera that his family had for themselves, which he would use to gradually hone skills in narrative (using stop-motion work, for example). The film that inspired him the most in terms of its power was Bonnie and Clyde (1967), which made him want to go to film school, to the disappointment of his parents. He did some studies at Northern Illinois University along with film cutting at NBC News and commercial editing before deciding to apply for transfer to the University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts. He sent an essay to them alongside a short film he made that was in his words "an illustration of a Beatles song" (essentially an early example of a music video) - while he did receive confirmation to the school, he did not initially receive one from USC itself, until he pleaded with an official to improve his grades. He proved quite well with studies, and one of his short films (A Field of Honor) wound up winning a Student Film Award (which are presented to student filmmakers by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences) in 1975. He moved into features with I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978) but only reached success after Romancing the Stone (1984), which was soon followed by classics like Back to the Future (1985), Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), and Forrest Gump (1994). He is known as an innovator in visual effects along with versatility in various genres in his body of work, which involve both comedies and dramas.

The genesis for this film came in parts of three: Hanks had an idea inspired by an article he saw about Boeing 747s carrying FedEx packages over the Pacific every day involving what would happen if went down. William Broyles Jr was enlisted to develop a story from that idea (with a stay on a deserted beach being the impetus for Wilson the volleyball), and Hanks had approached Zemeckis about it a short while after making Forrest Gump. It would take a few years to both develop the right script alongside with filming, since the latter part depended on Hanks gaining and then losing 50 pounds (with the time spent during that break leading to Zemeckis making a film about another story he was interested in - What Lies Beneath, which share film crews and was released the same year as this). I must admit that this was a film long on my radar to do. The concept is an interesting one, even if it has the task of holding together for over two hours with mostly just one actor present (or perhaps not if one is familiar with Robinson Crusoe, although I was reminded of the subsequent film All is Lost). Being stuck on an island, with a few convenient things around him that changes a guy carried by time into one with all the time in the world to himself. I think we can all relate to the plight of someone that is all alone to themselves, apart from others for significant time with only a few devices (or perhaps none at all) as comfort. The film requires an actor who can exude great everyman charm that can be alone with himself and then share a conversation with a volleyball. In this sense, Hanks seems just right for the part. He carries this film for most of its 143-minute runtime with care for having us keep our eye on his evolution of solitude and desperation. We sense his anguish and heart through moments such as trying to make his first fire or searching through the packages at what was and what never will be. Undeniably though, I do enjoy the film a bit better when Wilson joins the fray as someone for Hanks to bounce off, and it is up to the viewer in what they really feel for when it comes to the beginning and closing scenes, since I do kind of wish that the film just ended without having actually meeting the others again (in other words, end on one specific shot), just to shake things up further. That isn't to say Hunt and the others are bad, only that they only serve a very basic purpose that is casual and okay to follow through. Maybe it just depends on how much one knows about the film before seeing it, though this is a 20-year-old film now, so make your own path. It isn't exactly the kind of film I rank very highly with most of his other work, but Zemeckis managed to pull off a careful curiosity, nonetheless. On the whole, it is an involving movie, one that will surely resonate well with those who like the art of seeing someone fend for their lives with instinct while watching the waves go by.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Back to the Future Part III.

Review #748: Back to the Future Part III.

Cast
Michael J. Fox (Marty McFly and Seamus McFly), Christopher Lloyd (Doc Brown), Mary Steenburgen (Clara Clayton), Thomas F. Wilson (Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen and Biff Tannen), Lea Thompson (Maggie McFly and Lorraine Baines-McFly), James Tolkan (Marshal James Strickland), Elisabeth Shue (Jennifer Parker), Matt Clark (Chester the Bartender), Richard Dysart (Barbwire Salesman), Pat Buttram (Saloon Old-Timer), Harry Carey Jr. (Saloon Old-Timer), and Dub Taylor (Saloon Old-Timer) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, and #747 - Back to the Future Part II)

Review
The third (and final) part of this trilogy is regarded by some to be the weaker of the three movies, though it is kind of hard to keep the same magic for three movies over a five year span without having some sort of familiarity. Parts II and III were filmed back to back, released one year apart. To be honest, I can't really find much to hate, mainly because this is a trilogy that is easy to appreciate. The cast once again does a fine job. Steenburgen (the only new main person) does a fine job, especially with Lloyd. They actually have some good chemistry together, especially when talking about Jules Verne. The scene with them dancing is also pretty fun to watch, especially considering the music in the background is by ZZ Top, who are certainly Sharp Dressed Men (rimshot). Wilson once again manages to play a pretty good bully, though this one actually has a weapon for once. Fox and Lloyd are good once again, especially when trying to find way to get the DeLorean to actually get to 88mph...like giving the car alcohol.

The Old West is certainly an interesting setting, and the sets do look really well done, especially the town festival scenes and the saloon. The movie isn't as funny as the last two, but at least it makes up for it by being as entertaining and as good-looking. It also is a satisfying way to end the trilogy, all capped off with a time travelling train. How did it get there? I'm not sure, but I'm not complaining that much. Overall, this is an great trilogy that is entertaining and enjoyable, from beginning to end. While the first film is the best, they are all enjoyable in their own way. If you haven't seen them, go see them.

Countdown to #750: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Back to the Future Part II.

Review #747: Back to the Future Part II.

Cast
Michael J. Fox (Marty McFly, Marty Jr, and Marlene McFly), Christopher Lloyd (Doc Brown), Thomas F. Wilson (Biff Tannen and Griff Tannen), Lea Thompson (Lorraine Baines-McFly), Elisabeth Shue (Jennifer Parker), James Tolkan (Mr. Strickland), Jeffrey Weissman (George McFly), and Flea (Needles) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, and #701 - Back to the Future)

Review
Ah yes, October 21, 2015. The FUTURE. Welp, not now anyway, because today is actually the day that the DeLorean time machine arrived (with Doc, Marty and Jennifer) at the beginning of this film, so I figured that it would be appropriate to review this today, what with our hoverboards and our self lacing shoes...and Jaws 19. Let's recap the first movie, shall we? Or not, because I can just say it quite simply: It's a fun movie. Go see it, if you haven't already. But how is the second movie? It's enjoyable, but maybe not as much as the first one. The characters are enjoyable and about what you'd expect, though I didn't notice that Fox played Marlene McFly, mainly because of the makeup, mainly used for the 2015 scenes, which look pretty good.

Crisipin Glover is one of the two actors (with Shue replacing Wells as Jennifer) from the first film who doesn't return for the sequel, either because of pay issues or (according to him, anyway) his problems with the moral of the story (specifically his belief that the money is the reward that leads to happiness), but he would technically be in it, due to footage from the first film being used and Weissman (in prosthetics) playing him, which led to a lawsuit.

Fox and Lloyd shine again, especially when Doc is explaining the new alternate timeline. It's a bit strange to see Marty try to sneak a Sports Almanac from the future to try and make some money back in 1985, especially considering him and his family are already doing pretty well, what with the new truck for Marty and all at the end of the first film. But to be fair, at least Marty learns a lesson by the end of the film (mainly to make sure that when you get rid of something, you really get rid of it thoroughly). The gag of him dropping everything when someone calls him "chicken" is a bit annoying, though it at least is addressed a bit more in the next film. Wilson still does good at being a bully, even when he's playing an aged bully...who still waxes cars. The hoverboard action in 2015 is certainly a highlight to watch, as fun as the skateboard chase in the first film. The movie certainly likes going back to the first film, and it is a little fun watching Marty try to avoid himself while getting to see events again. It's a movie that certainly works as a sequel, and while it isn't quite up to the first film, it is at least a worthy sequel...that leads itself to a sequel of its own.

Countdown to #750: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Back to the Future.

Review #701: Back to the Future.

Cast
Michael J. Fox (Marty McFly), Christopher Lloyd (Doc Brown), Lea Thompson (Lorraine Baines-McFly), Crispin Glover (George McFly), Thomas F. Wilson (Biff Tannen), Claudia Wells (Jennifer Parker), and James Tolkan (Mr. Strickland) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, and #648 - Beowulf)

Review
Yep, Back to the Future. I told you all that this film would be reviewed sometime in the future. And low and behold, the future has arrived. Which is now the present. Or the past. Forget what I said early. Back to the Future is a movie I've watched a few times over the years, from seeing it on a projector when I was a young kid to seeing it on HBO Family (yes that actually exists) three (or so) years ago, I remember this movie vividly as I'm sure many of you do. That being said, this movie is great. Are you not surprised? It doesn't matter when I watch it, it's still a fun movie to watch, and an even better movie to talk about, especially when it comes to the characters. And the music. Fox is just so likable to watch, especially his interactions with Doc and Biff, and he gets his chance to shine alone as well, and one of my (many) favorite scenes is him playing Johnny B. Goode at the dance, solely because Fox looks so energized in that moment of euphoria.

Speaking of energy, Christopher Lloyd is just pure energy, with a load of charm along with the ability to just make words just pop into the head, especially when it comes to gigawatts, pronounced as jiggawatts. Lloyd and Fox make for a really good team because their interactions seem real and seem like the kind of thing that would happen with nearly anyone else. Biff is actually a pretty good villain in the sense that while he is not what one would call intelligent, he is still a brute force of strength that also is what he is: the bad guy that loses. But at least Wilson has his moments, especially with Glover, who is perfectly cast, as is Thompson. The soundtrack by Alan Silvestri is great to listen with its scope working well on the movie, though I must note that Huey Lewis and the News' "Back in Time" and "The Power of Love" are also beneficial to the music being so effective as a whole. This is a brilliant film that features one of my favorite things: A DeLorean. The car is so cool looking (minus the giant door opening, which could really hurt if not opened carefully), and the fact it serves as the time machine is just great, given that it already looked like a strange device. The movie is clever, fun, exciting, hilarious, wickedly cool, and just plain ol' classic. I highly recommend watching the movie more than once.

Oh yeah, the sequels. I'll get to them...in the future.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Beowulf (2007).

Review #648: Beowulf.

Cast
Ray Winstone (Beowulf), Anthony Hopkins (Hrothgar), Angelina Jolie (Grendel's mother), John Malkovich (Uniferth), Brendan Gleeson (Wiglaf), Robin Wright Penn (Queen Wealtheow), Crispin Glover (Grendel), and Alison Lohman (Ursula) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and #581 - Forrest Gump)

Review
It is somewhat weird for me to write a review of a movie I also had to write a compare and contrast essay about, but here we are. Beowulf is a classic tale from long ago that inspired many tropes of heroism in other stories, which is why it has had a few adaptations over the years, like The 13th Warrior, or even the 1999 version of Beowulf, along with spin offs such as Grendel (and the film of it as well), but this movie is something of its own. Motion capture animation is hit and miss when it comes to scenes, at times it can look good, like the battle scenes but other times it looks a bit off-putting, such as closeup shots of characters looking more like a 90's interactive adventure story. The actors are at least entertaining, they seem to have a grasp on making these character interesting, though the character motivations and the plot itself is changed significantly. The idea to have Beowulf be a flawed man is either a brilliant way to make the plot seem more interesting, or just disappointing that they couldn't follow the story even in motivations.

At least the characters are given more screen time to develop, though the story sometimes seems more like a telenovela then an action film. At least the film has moments that are pretty fun to watch, the scene at the end is pretty good, I like how the movie doesn't hold back on the action/violence, and even though the movie has its silly moments (the beginning scenes are a bit odd to watch), it at least is an entertaining movie. Is it a movie that's true to the story? Not really, the whole subplot of Grendel's mother has a few new subplots and the movie ends on an ambiguous note, whereas the story ended on outright victory. I guess the movie's quality depends on your relation to the story and if you can let changes not affect your perception of the movie. I thought it was just okay, but at least it tried to be an entertaining movie, and it probably did a better job at doing that then the other two Beowulf films I mentioned earlier, which I guess is a good thing.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Forrest Gump.

Review #581: Forrest Gump.

Cast
Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump), Robin Wright (Jenny Curran), Gary Sinise (Lt. Dan Taylor), Mykelti Williamson (Bubba Blue), Sally Field (Mrs. Gump), and Haley Joel Osment (Forrest Gump, Jr) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express and #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit)

Review
Forrest Gump is a movie that could be loved for its cheerfulness and epic way of storytelling or easily to deride for its over sentimental nature that make for an overrated movie (It could be argued by many that Pulp Fiction deserved the Best Picture Oscar more then this film, but that's neither here or there), but it is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get. For me this is an alright movie, a movie that is certainly interesting and certainly endearing, especially with its performances. But he best performance for me isn't by Hanks, it's by Gary Sinise. Why? Because Sinise's character development from a character with a so called pre-determined destiny to a bitter vet who still manages to encounter Forrest is interesting to watch and his speech about how Gump cheated him out of his destiny is very dark but perfect for Sinise. It's not that I don't like Hanks as Gump, but after a while it doesn't hurt to admit that Sinise brings a layer of needed darkness to the movie and that his character is certainly welcomed in a film such as this. The rest of the cast is fine and quirky, the characters are about as whimsical as you expect (Save for Wright and Sinise, which is a good thing because too much whimsical would probably kill the movie), but oh well. The movie is certainly appealing, and I recommend at least one viewing to see what all the fuss about. Or (again) to see who deserved the Best Picture award more, but at least watch the movie.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Polar Express.

Review #317: The Polar Express.

Cast
Tom Hanks (The Conductor, the Hobo, Santa Claus, and the Narrator), Daryl Sabara (Hero Boy), Eddie Deezen (Know-It-All Kid), Nona Gaye (Hero Girl), Peter Scolari (Billy the Lonely Boy), Dylan Cash (Boy on Train), Jimmy Bennett (Billy), with Brendan King and Andy Pellick (the Pastry Chefs) Directed by Robert Zemeckis.

Review
This is one of those strange Christmas films, a motion capture computer animated film, where apparently the movements are captured and then inserted into computer animation. If this sounds weird, it kinda is. Hanks portrays a more than just one character, and he does a reasonable job balancing the roles. Zemeckis does a decent job directing. The acting by the other cast are okay, not horrible, but not entirely special. The main thing of contention is the animation. It is either lifelike and creates a sense of magic or it is slightly creepy and it makes you wonder why they didn't just make a regular animated film. I pick the middle. While it does have some of the magic that makes a classic, it sometimes feels artificial, deliberately checking things off the list of what to do. While I don't think it's a classic by much means, it is recommended for anyone who likes trains and some Christmas spirit. Just expect some odd animation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.