EDtv.

Review #1848: EDtv.

Cast: 

Matthew McConaughey (Edward "Ed" Pekurny), Jenna Elfman (Shari), Woody Harrelson (Raymond "Ray" Pekurny), Ellen DeGeneres (Cynthia Reed), Martin Landau (Al), Sally Kirkland (Jeanette Pekurny), Elizabeth Hurley (Jill), Rob Reiner (Mr. Whitaker), Dennis Hopper (Henry 'Hank' Pekurny), Viveka Davis (Marcia Pekurny), Christian Kane (P.A.), Adam Goldberg (John), Wendle Josepher (Rita), Merrin Dungey (Ms. Seaver), Ian Gomez (McIlvaine), and Clint Howard (Ken) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, #1085 - Willow, #1095 - Solo: A Star Wars Story, #1509 - Apollo 13)

Review: 

If you remember, The Truman Show (1998) was a movie that happened to feature a man with his life unknowingly being displayed on television to a captivated audience of the world. EDtv, released on year later, is a movie that happens to feature a man with his life knowingly being displayed on television to a captivated audience of the world. One can be called a "satirical comedy" and the other can fall into the "psychological comedy-drama satire". Well, that isn't particularly fair to this feature, which is actually a remake of the 1994 Quebecois film Louis 19, King of the Airwaves [Louis 19, le roi des ondes]. Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel (who had written the scripts for a handful of Ron Howard movies likes Splash (1984)) wrote the screenplay for this film. Of course, one really shouldn't reference better material in its own film, with this film referencing An American Family (the hit reality TV show of 1973) in its early minutes when talking about its "innovations"...that show happened to inspire its own spoof with Real Life (1979), a comedy movie involving a documentary filmmaker trying to live with an American family for a year. The funny thing is that EDtv came out nine months after The Truman Show as a big-budget production that runs at 123 minutes (longer than you-know-who), and yet it was a considerable failure with audiences at the time. Maybe it was just more interesting to see Jim Carrey try to tap into comedy-drama rather than Matthew McConaughey (fresh from overrated material like Dazed and Confused (1993) to A Time to Kill (1996)), or maybe it was something else. But I think you know the answer isn't just that EDtv is inferior to The Truman Show, because dueling movies with similar concepts can work out for both sides. Besides, this was made in the era of shows like The Real World, what could possibly go wrong? 

Unfortunately, the movie only barely scratches the surface when it comes to any sort of "bite", because it point-blank does not know what the hell it wants to be, fledging between romcom and satire in ways that only an indecisive polar bear could love. I'm not saying that the movie needed to have the bite of Network (1976) when it comes to human nature, but one is basically watching a slightly amped version of The Jerry Springer Show. Of course, even Springer got to "take advantage" with his own movie that happened to have been released around that time with Ringmaster (1998), so perhaps calling EDtv the sitcom-infused love child of Springer and other offshoots is a bit on the mark. Maybe it isn't as much of a fantasy as the earlier 1998 movie, but it sure isn't any more in touch with reality, because its main motivation is never entirely convincing: if you were asked to be on television and have your life broadcast 24/7, you probably would have to be a crazy person to really go with this, and the movie just doesn't hold its own in terms of believability beyond what you would see in a paper-thin sitcom, which seems catered to being a movie made by committee of producers rather than a movie made from any semblance of believability. In other words: when you become a person on camera, you will lose far more of yourself than you prove to gain, and only the best translates well to television (best of course is subjective, since there are countless examples of people being famous on television for the sake of famous). 

The cast is here and there, which is not something you really want to say about a movie that likely has its myriad of cameo appearances happen because of some sort of insecurity (most apparent with its moments with Jay Leno, a presence odious enough to insult rather than allow him to make jokes for you). It especially doesn't help when the movie likes to show brief moments with "the average American viewer" from time to time, since it only adds on to the dry factor in all of its unnecessary nature (while homing in on the made-by-committee point). My real problem is that there are just too many characters present here, spiraling out of control for two hours when one could trim a few minutes and lose nothing. McConaughey is technically decent in the film in that he never borders on insufferable when it comes to being "man on television 24/7", because the script does want a presence of warmth within the initial spark of naivety that overrides any sense of wanting a looser script (i.e. either a performance of a loser or someone less likable). In short: he is fine despite the limitations presented. Elfman is wrapped in the least funny part of the film: the rom-com parts, which doesn't help matters when one is trapped like a fishbowl in ways that probably make Dharma & Greg seem completely tolerable, since the chemistry with McConaughey is marginal at best. Hell, even Hurley and her "hired gun" performance is slightly more interesting, even if it ends abruptly. Harrelson is slightly entertaining, but again, the movie needs desperation from its people rather than goofy middlemen (Landau and Kirkland play to form handily, but that isn't saying much). DeGeneres spends half of her time watching the screen of the lead character and the other half coming up with "zingers" that make for a forgettable performance, as if being the originator of 24/7 reality TV isn't exciting enough to make into biting humor besides the use of Reiner, which is as predictable as a meathead insult. Perhaps it is amusing fate that Hopper is in this movie, as he was actually originally cast in The Truman Show before being replaced by the filmmakers for Ed Harris. He just doesn't get much to do for his two scenes, which is surely disappointing for an actor of his stature - granted, the scene where he tries to reminisce about an old memory with his son only to misremember it on live TV.

There is potential for a movie worth watching in the desperation of someone who thinks that the best hustle in life is to go out on television and show their whole lives to the world, but the movie only thinks of it in the most basic of ways that has the effect of a whimper. It might be a cheap thing to say that the movie was steamrolled by a movie with a better director, writer and overall cast, but nobody, and I repeat, nobody, will ever find reason to give abject praise to EDtv, a mediocre movie in every sense of the word, without having to strain hard to not compare it to The Truman Show. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Apollo 13.

Review #1509: Apollo 13.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Jim Lovell), Bill Paxton (Fred Haise), Kevin Bacon (Jack Swigert), Gary Sinise (Ken Mattingly), Ed Harris (Gene Kranz), Kathleen Quinlan (Marilyn Lovell), Mary Kate Schellhardt (Barbara Lovell), Emily Ann Lloyd (Susan Lovell), Miko Hughes (Jeffrey Lovell), Max Elliott Slade (Jay Lovell), Jean Speegle Howard (Blanch Lovell), Tracy Reiner (Mary Haise), David Andrews (Pete Conrad), Michele Little (Jane Conrad), and Chris Ellis (Deke Slayton) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, #1085 - Willow, and #1095 - Solo: A Star Wars Story)

Review: 
"I've acted with all types, I've directed all types. What you want to understand as a director, is what actors have to offer. They'll get at it however they get at it. If you can understand that, you can get your work done."

When it comes to well-established directors in entertainment for over four decades, one key figure of versatility is Ron Howard. He was very familiar with show business from a young age, owing to his parents both being actors and his younger brother Clint also became a child actor (all three would appear in several of his films). Howard began acting from the age of five, and his first major role was in The Andy Griffith Show beginning in 1960, which ran for several years. Howard would credit the friendly environment of the production in allowing participation and curiosity over the role of the director's role in making the show what it was for getting him interested in becoming a director. Howard continued to act in his growing years in film and television (such as The Music Man, American Graffiti, and Happy Days) before venturing his way into making a film with the low-budget Grand Theft Auto (1977), which he starred in and co-wrote with his dad Rance. Since his breakthrough with Night Shift (1982), Howard has gone on to directing a variety of genres in a four-decade career, including comedy, adventure, and thrillers.

Howard became interested in doing the film when reading about the facts of the mission and realizing the interest sprang not so much in just making the audience experience space but also making a story of human triumph. The film first came into interest with the non-fiction account of the mission by its commander Jim Lovell that he co-wrote with Jeffrey Kluger in Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13, published in 1994. William Broyles Jr and Al Reinert would be behind the screenplay (with un-credited rewrites from John Sayles). What a fascinating film we have here, both on how it treats its subject matter and as an experience in entertainment. Its depiction of the "successful failure" of the Apollo 13 is one that has endured for over two decades because of how Howard and his crew managed to cultivate meaningful drama and spectacle into 140 minutes with near-perfect precision for what makes exploration and resilience so interesting. We look upon the Apollo missions with wonder for how they did those missions from the Earth to space and beyond with the technology of the time while not forgetting that the Apollo missions rode and fell in popularity over the years that followed landing on the Moon, as if one could see travel away from home as just typical, but this particular mission showed the resilience of people under pressure on Earth and off it to maintain themselves with failure not being an option.

Hanks, an affirmed lover of the space program, is naturally perfect here, having a natural charm and spirit that we care to see in his pursuit of travel with curiosity and nuance. Paxton follows him with well-followed spirit and a vivid presence worth viewing in the ship in the struggles that came for the mission. Bacon finishes the main trio of shipmates with earnest interest, while Sinise stands firm on the ground with conviction through those moments used in spurts throughout. Harris reins in respect and determination with a well-rounded performance that exudes confidence and professionalism each time he is on screen within Mission Control. Quinlan certainly seems right in her instinct for what is needed, with the real Lovell praising her as being fairly authentic to her own thoughts and feelings of the time. The others fill in the seams with no problem in keeping the interest and docudrama on the level. The interest in looking at history told through the lens of a film is where the accuracies and inaccuracies blend in with each other. In this case, there are certain quibbles that come with making a drama (such as for example Mattingly being more of a composite for several astronauts and engineers with regards to solving the power consumption problem for re-entry or the neglection of Glynn Lunney and his team in those crucial first hours of doom), but nothing comes across as contrived or illogical to ruin what is a fairly accurate movie, particularly in its look (noted in several parts by crew members, such as the Mission Control set). Think about this: this is a film that did not utilize documentary footage, rather instead going for re-creation of the whole experience through effects and sets, which would include the KC-135 (a fixed-wing aircraft that is used to train astronauts for weightlessness), which they could only use for filming in zero gravity for very brief intervals (25 seconds at a time). On the whole, one can find themselves wholly invested into the proceedings without needing much familiarity with the Apollo missions, and even those who know it will still find plenty to take interest in without seeming inevitable. It wins most of its moments in sentiment and tension with a clear-cut cast and well-done technique to make a solid enough winner for the era that remains timeless then as now as a portrait of the people that stood up when failure was not an option.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Shootist.

Review #1453: The Shootist.

Cast: 
John Wayne (J.B. Books), Lauren Bacall (Bond Rogers), Ron Howard (Gillom Rogers), James Stewart (Dr. Hostetler), Richard Boone (Sweeney), Hugh O'Brian (Pulford), Bill McKinney (Jay Cobb), Harry Morgan (Marshall Thibido), John Carradine (Beckum), Sheree North (Serepta), Rick Lenz (Dan Dobkins), and Scatman Crothers (Moses) Directed by Don Siegel (#893 - Dirty Harry and #920 - Invasion of the Body Snatchers)

Review: 
"I think in America I'm looked upon as the equivalent of a European director--which is quite laughable. I've never had a personal publicity man working for me. So all this came out of the blue--all this publicity. The cult was not engineered. It festered, in a sense. And erupted. And it did me a lot of good."

"The guy you see on the screen really isn't me. I'm Duke Morrison and I never was and never will be a film personality like John Wayne. I know him well. I'm one of his closest students. I have to be. I make a living out of him."

Time waits for no man, where a life and a career each have a beginning, middle, and eventually an end. In a career that spanned a half century, John Wayne appeared as a star or in a small part in over 150 films in a variety of genres (with the Western and war genre being the most prominent) with plenty of collaborations taking place that would serve him and others well in too many films to list. By the time of this film, he had been survived a diagnoses of lung cancer in 1964 (which led to having surgery to remove a lung and four ribs) along with other health problems for the rest of his life, which proved especially apparent for filming here (with compromised breathing during filming in Carson City alongside influenza). He was driven to do this film because of the desire to star in the title role, which apparently had been rejected by several actors such as Paul Newman and George C. Scott. Wayne finished the film but found himself diagnosed with stomach cancer in early 1979, which led to his death on June 11 at the age of 72. The film is adapted from the novel of the same name by Glendon Swarthout with a screenplay by his son Miles and Scott Hale. At the helm as director was a careful craftsman in Don Siegel, who had started his career as a montage director for Warner Brothers before becoming a director with The Verdict (1946), the first of a career comprised of noirs, action films, and Westerns (with this being the fifth-to-last film of his career). 

Wayne helped in recruiting old friends of his to star in the film, such as Stewart (his first film role in five years, having moved his focus to television work while having a hearing impediment), Bacall (who worked with him in Blood Alley 21 years earlier), Carradine (who made several appearances in Wayne films), and Boone (who had worked with Wayne before in Big Jake but is most commonly known for his lead role in Have Gun – Will Travel). There is a great deal of familiarity and foreboding nature to this film, a quiet elegy to a time of the past when it comes to the legend of the gunfighter. We've seen these kinds of characters before in other films, and we know a good deal of where the film urges to go. And yet, there is an undeniable power to how enjoyable the final result is, buoyed by a grizzled Wayne that shows plenty of dignity that we come to expect from him without becoming wrapped in self-serving pity, an actor who lives and reacts on his own terms for consistency. He may not be known as the most sensitive actor, but one can't help but care for those moments where he stands without a gun just as much as the parts with it. Bacall follows along with reserved grace to make a worthwhile pairing in the moments with Wayne, while Howard makes a curious youthful(ish) presence to accompany Wayne with slowly-growing interest. While Stewart has just two scenes in the film, it is always nice to see him around with his stately presence nonetheless, solemn yet fitting. Boone, O'Brian, and McKinney make for worthy adversaries when the moment requires it, while Morgan, Carradine and Crothers prove amusing. There were key changes made to the script from the novel, particularly with its climax. The book had ended with Howard's character shooting Wayne after the gunfight left him mortally wounded, which led to him throwing the gun away. In the film, he shoots the bartender that shoots Wayne in the back and then throws the gun away. I like the climax and its simplicity, which accompanies a film of 100 minutes that achieves most of what it wants with a carefully sensitive nature to lead up to one more gunfight that we can't help but enjoy to see play out with the familiar faces out in play. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Music Man.

Review #1410: The Music Man.

Cast: 
Robert Preston (Harold Hill), Shirley Jones (Marian Paroo), Buddy Hackett (Marcellus Washburn), Paul Ford (Mayor George Shinn), Hermione Gingold (Eulalie Mackechnie Shinn), Pert Kelton (Mrs. Paroo), Ron Howard (Winthrop Paroo), Susan Luckey (Zaneeta Shinn), Timmy Everett (Tommy Djilas), Harry Hickox (Charlie Cowell), and The Buffalo Bills (Vern Reed, Al Shea, Wayne "Scotty" Ward, Bill Spangenberg as The School Board) Produced and Directed by Morton DaCosta.

Review: 
Showmanship can go a long way when it comes to musicals, for better or worse. This film was adapted from composer/conductor/bandleader/playwright Meredith Willson's Broadway musical of the same name, which he co-wrote the book (alongside Franklin Lacey), music and lyrics for based on his boyhood in Mason City, Iowa. After years of trying to get producers on board for it and revisions and cuts to songs, the production premiered on Broadway in 1957, running for four years with stage and film actor Preston (chosen after numerous others rejected it, such as Gene Kelly) in the lead role, and it would garner Tony Award wins the following year, winning awards such as Best Musical and Best Actor for Preston. Further productions have been done in London alongside revivals, with one being planned for later in this year on Broadway. When Warner Brothers bought the screen rights for the play, they wanted a prominent figure for the lead role, with the first choice being Frank Sinatra and another consideration being Cary Grant. Willson held firm to his preference for Preston, and he prevailed eventually in this regard; DaCosta, who had directed the play on Broadway, would serve as director and producer with the intent of being as faithful to the original as possible, which is reflected in its 151 minute run-time.

When it comes to grand old musicals, this is one firmly in the middle of average and great, fairly memorable in its rendition of songs and its Americana spirit that makes for a pleasant time for those who are into that sort of thing. On the one hand, I applaud the efforts to maintain the spirit of the play into a film with plenty of design and beat, complete with having Preston helm the ship as lead. On the other hand, it generally seems to hit its mark only just enough to make it worth one viewing and that is it. The enjoyment of said film rests on one's patience for its matter of singing and its small-town trappings and humor, which do fine in parts. If one desires songs and plenty of people to go along with it and inspire jokes that hit with that sensibility of a folksy spring, this will likely pan out. Preston is the best aspect of the whole film, relentless in his façade with plenty of charm and capability to sing and talk as well as anyone. Jones (a trained singer who was the only person signed to a personal contract by Rodgers and Hammerstein) accompanies him with her own share of pragmatic grace that makes for a capable chemistry with Preston to go with fine singing. Hackett makes for a capable comic relief and a decent dancer (despite my reservations about "Shipoopi" as a whole). Ford and Gingold each contribute a few courtly laughs, while child TV star-turned-future director Howard makes a fine bright presence. There are quite a few highlight moments and songs, with "Seventy-Six Trombones" being a particular entertaining one to listen to, and the film does land itself with fair rallying spirit that entertains its audience without drowning in too much sentimental hokum to wither the fun. This is a fair show to seek out for those who like some Americana spirit from way back when that entertains to this very day.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Review #1095: Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Cast: 
Alden Ehrenreich (Han Solo), Woody Harrelson (Tobias Beckett), Emilia Clarke (Qi'ra), Donald Glover (Lando Calrissian), Thandie Newton (Val), Paul Bettany (Dryden Vos), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (L3-37), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), Erin Kellyman (Enfys Nest), Jon Favreau (Rio Durant), and Linda Hunt (Lady Proxima) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, and #1085 - Willow)

Review: 
Note: Gee, seems like I am a bit late to the party - if there ever was one for Solo. Honestly, timing issues was the reason for the delay in doing this film (which was also the case with Upgrade). Hopefully you will enjoy this review in any case.

Admittedly, the world of Star Wars is vast with the amount of worlds and characters it can show over the course of the numerous movies that have been released since the original in 1977, and I suppose it only makes sense to make a prequel, since this franchise loves to do that trend every so often, particularly in recent times. The fact that this is the fourth Star Wars film in the past three years does tend to inspire the idea that perhaps the franchise is suffering a bit of fatigue with storytelling. The debacle involving the replacing of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller midway into production with Ron Howard taking over directorial duties and having reshoots doesn't help matters, either. I am reminded of its prequel cousin Rogue One (#888), which mostly utilized characters we had no recollection of prior to its release, and it made the most of what it wanted to tell with a tinge of seriousness and a fair story.

With this film, there is a share of old and new characters, and the appeal of the movie depends on how much appeal they bring to something that generally hits more than it misses, but it also will depend on how you see Ehrenreich in the main role. There is no understating how Harrison Ford managed to make this charming rogue of a character come to life through the four films he appeared in, and it may not be something you can just have someone take over and have a smooth transition. Needless to say, Ehrenreich is a bit shaky at times in this role, particularly around the first half (and any sort of close scene with Clarke), but I feel that he does tend to seem a bit more comfortable around halfway through, and he manages to handle the climax fairly well. Perhaps a better actor would've served the film better, but the best thing that can be said for him is that at least the writing for the character tends to compliment him enough to where it isn't a terrible experience to see it played out. Harrelson plays his mentor role with some relish that make the part seem alive at times, sticking out fine in his time on screen. Clarke is okay, but I feel that she is slightly underdone by the writing on her character, which isn't always consistent to make her seem interesting to follow at times, with the chemistry between her and Ehrenreich not being particularly too great (although I won't say it kills the film's spirit at least). In a film about one charming rogue, it is the appearance of another charming rogue that steals the show, as Glover captures the character originally played by Billy Dee Williams without any sort of doubt, capturing the cool nature of why he is compelling to follow with from his first appearance in the movie. He's fun to watch interact with the others, and I suppose I really did need a scene with a room dedicated to all of his capes that he wears. Newton is okay in her brief time on screen, with Bettany proving to be a fair adversary. Waller-Bridge is fine, although some of her bits can prove to test one's patience with a droid with moxie - for better or worse. The rest of the cast prove just fine to watch. The action sequences and effects are finely done, as one might expect, and the movie tends to move at a fair pace, without becoming bogged by cliches or too much predictability. The writing by Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan (who had served as writer for films involving the character in The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens) has a fair amount of focus to making sure that the characters do tend to have interactions with each other that prove fruitful and occasionally amusing, even if tends to tread familiar lines, although at least it doesn't plod too much through its 135 minute run-time. Is it an entirely necessary movie? I suppose it depends on if you really wanted (or needed) to see an adventure of a younger version of a character you (probably) liked. The film likely won't win any new converts into the Star Wars mythos, but it will prove to be satisfactory entertainment for people looking for a good adventure, and I think that is likely the best hope one can have when watching a film sometimes.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Willow.

Review #1085: Willow.

Cast: 
Warwick Davis (Willow Ufgood), Val Kilmer (Madmartigan), Joanne Whalley (Sorsha), Jean Marsh (Queen Bavmorda), Patricia Hayes (Fin Raziel), Billy Barty (The High Aldwin), Pat Roach (General Kael), Gavan O'Herlihy (Airk Thaughbaer), Maria Holvöe (Cherlindrea), with Kevin Pollak and Rick Overton (Rool and Franjean), and Kate & Ruth Greenfield and Rebecca Bearman (Elora Danan) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man)

Review: 
It is strange to see this film 30 years after it came out, a high fantasy movie that certainly has its fans and detractors after all this time. The story was done by George Lucas, notable for his work on the original Star Wars trilogy, with the screenplay being done by Bob Dolman, who had done work in television such as SCTV Network 90 (for which he won two Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Writing for a Variety Series). In any case, the idea for the movie was conceived by Lucas in the 1970s that had mythical qualities that was in some of the same vein as had been done with Star Wars, with Lucas once stating, "It was an idea that came to me in reading a lot of mythology and a lot of fairy tales and I realized that there hadn’t been very many feature films in that genre of just pure fantasy."

In any case, it is evident that there was a great deal of effort to really try to make something worthwhile as entertainment with this movie, but I don't think that it quite succeeds in its pursuit. By the time that this film came out, there had been numerous fantasy films that came and went in the decade, and I have covered a few of those in other reviews, such as Clash of the Titans, Conan the Barbarian, and Krull, but I think that the problem with this movie is that it isn't particularly on the level of either of those films in terms of adventure. There isn't much in its story elements that hasn't been done in other movies, such as its quest and prophecy elements, but I will admit that it isn't an excruciating adventure, just one that isn't as fun as it thinks it is. Davis does a fine job with this title role, giving it some passion and usefulness that helps keep the movie on some sort of track. Kilmer, in a role that likely reminds viewers of other films with rogues, does a decent job with what he's given, having a few moments of amusement and action that come off convincing enough times. Whalley leaves a faint impression, but nothing too particularly inspiring. Marsh does an okay job as the villain, but it isn't anything too particularly notable. The others are alright, although Pollak and Overton's characters prove to a bit grating at times. The film's best highlight might be its effects, done by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), with the most notable one being when Hayes' character is changed from being an animal to human, done by digital morphing. It's an interesting effect to see the gradual change to the end result (aided by computer programs) that has a fine payoff. The film certainly has a decent look and cinematography (as done by Adrian Biddle), but I find that there just isn't enough in what the movie is trying to push in its action or its story to really make big entertainment. It feels a bit slow at times, such as in its middle portion, punctuated by its 126-minute run-time and a story that feels a bit by the numbers at times. It isn't anything too unique, but it also isn't anything that merits much passion beyond a mild interest. I can understand its cult status and why some may find it enjoyable, but I can't particularly give it a ringing endorsement. Take it for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Cinderella Man.

Review #546: Cinderella Man.

Cast
Russell Crowe (James J. Braddock), Renée Zellweger (Mae Braddock), Paul Giamatti (Joe Gould), Bruce McGill (James Johnston), Craig Bierko (Max Baer), Paddy Considine (Mike Wilson), David Huband (Ford Bond), Connor Price (Jay Braddock), Ariel Waller (Rosemarie Braddock), Patrick Louis (Howard Braddock), Rosemarie DeWitt (Sara Wilson), and Linda Kash (Mrs. Gould) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas)

Review
Damon Runyon once described the life of James J. Braddock in one quote: "In all the history of the boxing game, you'll find no human interest story to compare with the life narrative of James J. Braddock." The movie attempts to make a winner of that story, and it succeeds. It's taken over 500 reviews, but I finally reviewed a move that has Russell Crowe, and he does a good job, he dominates the movie, but he does let the other two in the main trio of main actors shine, Zellweger does well, especially in the scenes with Crowe, and Giamatti is memorable, along with really talented. The boxing action is good, it certainly looks like a match, and the interior scenes look good along with it. The movie has an old fashioned feel that certainly looks good on film. The movie may have good boxing, but it also focuses on the downturns of the Great Depression and Braddock's family, and the scenes make the movie more whole, it doesn't bring the film down, it just gives it a new voice to keep on going. This is a good film that manages to be both entertaining and warming.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Review #301: How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Cast
Jim Carrey (The Grinch), Taylor Momsen (Cindy Lou Who), Frank Welker (Max), Jeffrey Tambor (Augustus May Who), Christine Baranski (Martha May Whovier), Bill Irwin (Lou Lou Who), Molly Shannon (Betty Lou Who), Clint Howard (Whobris), Mindy Sterling (Clarnella), and Anthony Hopkins (Narrator) Directed by Ron Howard.

Review
In my review of The Cat in the Hat (#210), I mentioned the How The Grinch Stole Christmas film in one line of the rhyme (don't ask) Even the Grinch has a better film. 91 reviews later, the being known as irony has come, and so here I am reviewing this. Does it live up to the so called rhyme? It certainly is better The Cat in the Hat, but this can't escape the reaches of the thing known as criticism. To be fair, Jim Carrey (Who is very familiar here: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Mask, Batman Forever, Mr. Popper's Penguins) does a show stealing job, even if sometimes he is a bit grating on the ears. The rest of the aspects varies severly. There are some decent performances by the supporting cast (Let's face it, in any Carrey film (That I've reviewed), he pretty much overshadows the entire cast), but there are some...oddities. Let me get this out of the way, but I loved the 1966 animated special and the 1957 book (By Theodore Geisel [Also known as Dr. Seuss]), but this isn't really in terms of...love. The makeup, while admirable for the effort, isn't really necessary. I do wonder if there is a Doctor in Whoville though. And then there's the main problem that in a way is connected with the other Seuss film adaptation. It's that the characters are radically changed from their original inception. While in the special the Whos were not really characterized other then just citizens who loved the spirit of Christmas, I could at least get their motivation and admire it. Here, the Whos are just...mean spirited. And that even extends to the Grinch's origin (Due to the Who's. Oh hey, that rhymed. But I don't have time.), which feels souless. Perhaps it was meant to be that way, instead of the Who's being happy with what they had, make them the opposite to try and make an interesting story. Then I realize that violates the spirit and soul of Dr. Seuss and his books. The last 20 or so minutes do attempt to be more like the book, but that doesn't help as much. In the end, while their is some sort of dialouge with a bit of comedy, it is hampered by a flawed script that doesn't capture much of the book of the lesson at all. But I will indulge you in a rhyme once again.

The Grinch is indeed better then the Cat,
But it really isn't much better then that.
Jim Carrey does a decent job,
But this still might make you sob.
Not in a good way,
But in a head shaking foray.
The spirit of the book is messed with,
It will give you an absolute fit.
Go watch the special instead,
You won't have the feeling of dread.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: American Graffiti.

Review #141: American Graffiti.

Cast
Richard Dreyfuss (Curt Henderson), Ron Howard (Steve Bolander), Paul Le Mat (John Milner), Charles Martin Smith (Terry "The Toad" Fields), Cindy Williams (Laurie Henderson), Candy Clark (Debbie Dunham), Mackenzie Phillips (Carol Morrison), Wolfman Jack (Himself), Bo Hopkins (Joe Young), Manuel Padilla, Jr (Carlos), Beau Gentry (Ants), and Harrison Ford (Bob Falfa) Directed by George Lucas (#113 - Star Wars)

Review
This film is cool, pure and simple. This film is nostalgic, but not in the way that only people from the 60's can enjoy it. Anyone can feel for these characters and all the fun they do in one night. The acting's good, especially from Dreyfuss. The characters are memorable, the cars are memorable. I must mention Harrison Ford and his performance as this would begin a partnership of roles for him with Lucas. This film may not be perfect in the sense that this could film could easily be forgotten without this cast, but this is still a classic film that takes you back to when you had a load of fun all in one night.

The Countdown to 150 continues...10, 9...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.