Soapdish.

Review #2533: Soapdish.

Cast: 

Sally Field (Celeste Talbert / "Maggie"), Kevin Kline (Jeffrey Anderson / "Dr. Rod Randall"), Robert Downey Jr (David Seton Barnes), Cathy Moriarty (Montana Moorehead / "Nurse Nan"), Elisabeth Shue (Lori Craven / "Angelique"), Whoopi Goldberg (Rose Schwartz), Teri Hatcher (Ariel Maloney / "Dr. Monica Demonico"), Garry Marshall (Edmund Edwards), Kathy Najimy (Tawny Miller), Arne Nannestad (Burton White), and Paul Johansson (Blair Brennan / "Bolt") Directed by Michael Hoffman.

Review: 

Who doesn't love a good soap opera? I vaguely remember seeing a bit of soap operas when I was younger (I'm told Passions had a town witch?) but parodies of soap operas have been around since what, Soap (the nighttime parody that ran in the late 1970s)? Apparently, the original impetus for what became Soapdish was formed during production of Steel Magnolias (1989), as writer Robert Harling had a handful of conversations with Sally Field and Alan Greisman, a producer and Field's husband at the time (apparently, Sigourney Weaver was at one point considered for the lead role before rejecting it, a move she regretted). Originally tabbed with Herbert Ross to direct at TriStar, it eventually shifted to Paramount, with a few other changes as well Andrew Bergman (who stated that he did not visit the set much) gave re-writes to the script. Of note is that Aaron Spelling served as a co-producer (yes, in between an executive producer on shows such as The Love Boat and Dynasty*, Spelling dabbed in producing, with this being his last one as a producer before being an executive producer for The Mod Squad [1999] and Charlie's Angels [2000]). This was the fifth feature film directed by Michael Hoffman who actually had studied at Boise State University before earning a Rhodes Scholarship that led to him studying Renaissance literature and eventually became involved in drama. Hoffman served as a co-founder of both the Idaho Shakespeare Festival and the Oxford University Film Foundation; his first feature was made at Oxford with Privileged (1982). Made on a budget of $25 million, the movie was a light success with audiences. Honestly, I had this film on the shelf as part of a three-pack (where it was somehow lapped in with Book Club [2018] and The First Wives Club [1996]) for a few years, so there's that.

 

Sure, it's a light farce that has a few garish colors with its outfitting at times (as designed by Nolan Miller of Dynasty fame that you can see in select shots here), and sure, it moves along with a quick pace at 97 minutes...and that's all good with me. It is a dazzling affair wrapped in the odd quirks that come with big stars and bigger egos that lends itself to plenty of humor from people who seem pretty game. At the helm is Field (already a bit familiar in comedy for those who watch, say, Smokey and the Bandit every year like I do*) in a role that lets her have a chance to play a goofy pampered oddball that is affectionately entertaining. She clearly had enjoyment at doing a slapsticky type of farce that could've just as easily been played as a pathetic clown but instead has a plucky type of charm to laugh along with in the wide variety of moments that come with being a name that ages by the Hollywood minute while real-life drama and soap drama really can just crash together. The best little scene might be with Goldberg and Field exchanging in a little game of egoboosting when the former pretends to recognize the latter at the mall to the surprised glee of a handful of fans (everyone loves a scene-chewer). Kline actually had a bit of experience with soaps via a brief run on Search for Tomorrow, so it probably makes sense that he said this role was akin to playing a "psychotic", which seems apt for someone basically given some room to play a neat little ham. Of course the real chewer of scenery in delightfulness is Moriarty, who clicks into place in ravenous conniving energy from the jump, one who takes (nearly*) everything in stride. There are highlights from rest of the cast in neat little quirks that come through, such as the brief dazzling nature of Hatcher*, the charmingly smarmy Downey Jr, the relatively normal charm of Shue, the all-too brief fun of seeing Marshall/Fisher riff on the usual privileged executive or the beleaguered Goldberg. It's a likable movie with plenty of goofy little moments of seeing people have fun with the inner workings of "the right shot", "the right script", "the right thing" all going to hell at the whims of basically who talked last or pulled rank the best. By the time the movie rumbles to its conclusion involving offbeat revelations and a plausible enough sell of life basically moving along to the next season of gossip and looking for the next thing to chase. As a whole, Soapdish is a charmer that dishes out enough little moments of amusement to keep the viewer soaped up for a fun time.

 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*I was going to mention 7th Heaven in the "hey, remember this show?" but I feel that mentioning the show starring an actual pervert seems a bit much.

*I know Field is a two-time Academy Award winner and all that, but, yeah, Smokey is the one I think about when I think of Field first, which I probably should rectify. At least I don't think of her as a flying nun.

*I don't understand the criticism of the transgender character being revealed to be the villain. What, are transgender people supposed to be saints in every film ever? 

*And as we all know from Seinfeld, "they're real...and they're spectacular." I will say that if I had to consider watching slowly watching a TV show from start to end from the 2000s, Desperate Housewives would be on the shortlist. No, really.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Review #2206: The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Cast: 

Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), Jamie Foxx (Max Dillon / Electro), Dane DeHaan (Harry Osborn / Green Goblin), Campbell Scott (Richard Parker), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), Colm Feore (Donald Menken), Paul Giamatti (Aleksei Sytsevich / Rhino), Sally Field (May Parker), and Felicity Jones (Felicia) Directed by Marc Webb (#1780 - The Amazing Spider-Man)

Review: 

Okay, so maybe The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) had a few admirers for its ideas on the character (as originally devised by writer-editor Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko for comic books). It was self-serious in a way that surely seemed distinct from those other Spider-Man movies from the first decade of the 20th century, well, as much as one can be when having a villain be someone named The Lizard. A sequel was pretty much right on the get go, complete with Webb returning to direct. This time, the screenplay was done by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner, who had been hired to do a re-write of the first draft that had been done by James Vanderbilt (as such, each were credited for the story). Plans to set up further films by Sony to basically set up their shared universe involving Spider-Man related things such as, say the "Sinister Six" or Venom were in mind prior to the release of this film in May of 2014. The film was made at a budget that is probably more than the reported $290 million that attracted slightly fewer people to the theater than the last film (read: money, but money...).; amusingly, X-Men: Days of Future Past came out three weeks after this film (good lord, I actually remember seeing it in theaters) as a film made in the shadow of previous franchise films that hinted at the idea of a follow-up film to a different type of result. Of course, any plans with further Spider-Man films with Garfield as the star all went away in a flash in the span of roughly a year to where the next appearance of Spider-Man came with Captain America: Civil War (2016) and blah blah blah, you probably already know about Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) and the return of certain folks with different costuming.  

Admittedly, there are a few elements worth appreciating, because even the lesser films had something useful to watch in the main lead, and Garfield does manage to carve out something worth watching for a film that is now a decade old. The charm exhibited between him and Stone is star-crossed enough to make the resolution something worth exploring in its impact in a sequel (in theory). They have useful chemistry together, even if some could have the caveat of "nice romcom, but this is a Spider-Man movie" right then and there. A good chunk of the movie is "in theory" when you send a few compliments its way, but there is no truly terrible aspect on the level of say, Blade: Trinity (2004). The action generally works out for those expectations one could hope for in a mid 2010s film that was at least trying to provide some sizzle alongside a moderate steak. And then you get to the film itself and realize that some movies just don't know when to stop. The first film may have been a bit lacking in its attempts to differentiate itself from a previous acclaimed trilogy, but it at least didn't have the gall to throw everything at the wall with a smirk on its face. Here I just find watching a competition of whether one can call it a poor man's Batman Returns (1992) or Batman Forever (1995) that was made by people who really thought they could get away with making a bloated sequel that could also set up something called "The Sinister Six" rather than picking one villain and sticking with it. Did the world really need bits and pieces of a "how did the Parkers die conspiracy"? I think they needed it about as much as they needed a blue Electro. If Spider-Man 3 (2007) was the byproduct of a studio wanting just a bit too much for their superhero sequel, Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the one that says, "hold my beer" and then some (this is a movie that casts B.J. Novak for a bit role that I guess is actually a "thing" in certain comics that for a film is about as interesting as the end of this sentence). Either have an Electro or have the weirdness of a man infused with the mode of a goblin, you really should pick one regardless of if it is a sequel or not (to say nothing of the attempt at setting up a bigger future threat in Giamatti and an "accent" that is completely unnecessary). It is bloated and average in all the frustrating ways possible, somehow being even more self-serious than the first one. 

I barely read any kind of comics, but I vaguely remember looking over a cheap reprint of a Spider-Man comic with Electro in it that had him in a green and yellow outfit that looked about on par for the 1960s that thought it would be cool to do crime when he got struck by lightning on a power line. Obviously one can see that the blue present here had inspiration from less older renditions of Electro, but I imagine that having a blue look also helps when it comes to making spectacle filmmaking. They really thought they were cooking with this character, but all they managed to do was cook up a really amusing look to go with characterization that absolutely cannot hold water with Foxx there to try and play a "nobody turned into a somebody". Of course, it probably isn't nearly as clunky as trying to set a fast one in having Garfield and DeHaan look like old reunited buddies prior to tragedy, which really seems to come off as if one was watching part three of a five part plan that actually is being held up by duct tape. His stuff seems almost studio note'd away with the parts that actually seem like a descent into madness (with the transformation sequence anyway). Field described in an interview after the release as one with troubles when it came to depth as if trying to put "10 pounds of [expletive] in a five-pound bag". This is a pretty accurate way to describe her characterization in terms of having exactly one remotely interesting scene (involving her and Garfield sitting and talking about one's parent). Hell, by the second film of the Rosemary Harris version of Aunt May, it had her finishing prayers to annoying goblins and seeing bank robberies up close. All you get with Field and her characterization is, um, being a nursing student to help with bills that get the sidelines because hey, got to get all this other stuff in about a secret abandoned station or ghost Denis Leary showing up at the most, um, interesting times. It is entirely possible that if you combined the amount of screentime of Scott/Davidtz between the two films as the Parker parents, you might actually finish neck and neck with Field, and only one had the distinct pleasure of being in the start of a film for some reason (the answer for that probably has something to do with the reasoning for wanting to ask exactly who asked about who the Parkers were to an audience that still has "with great power comes great responsibility" stuck in their head). When it comes to comparing bloated movies like say, a Pirates sequel to this, that one has it beat because it at least looks like it is having fun doing things. In general, this is a muddled movie that is all "in theory" - the chemistry of Garfield and Stone work in bits and pieces for a movie that is bloated with too many villains and not nearly enough structure to hold it up beyond the bare minimum of average. There are good comic book movies and bad ones, and this one (ten years standing) achieves the goal of straight average disappointment. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Hooper.

Review #2011: Hooper.

Cast: 

Burt Reynolds (Sonny Hooper), Sally Field (Gwen Doyle), Jan-Michael Vincent (Delmore "Ski" Shidski), Brian Keith (Jocko Doyle), Robert Klein (Roger Deal), John Marley (Max Berns), James Best (Cully), Alfie Wise (Tony), Adam West (himself), and Terry Bradshaw (Brawler) Directed by Hal Needham (#033 - Smokey and the Bandit, #034 - The Cannonball Run, and #945 - Smokey and the Bandit II)

Review: 

The stuntman does not get enough respect, if you think about it. They work hard in a profession where the danger can be apparent for any type of stunt, especially in the old days (Shark (1969) saw a stuntman get attacked and killed by a great white shark and then the producers put the footage in the film and change the title to reflect that...and that film had Reynolds as star). Yakima Canutt was the first stuntman to win an Academy Award, you know, being awarded an honorary one in 1967; it was he who performed the famous drop stunt in Stagecoach (1939). Of course, I mention this because of the fact that I am talking about a movie made by a former stuntman in Hal Needham with a star in Reynolds that was known for doing his own stunts. It was the second film in the career of Needham, who I'm sure we all know and well from Smokey and the Bandit, released one year prior to this film in 1977. The original basis for the film was set in 1975 with Lamont Johnson (best known for TV productions more than his films, which included The Last American Hero (1973)) slated to direct it for Warner Bros., but delays related to the dispute over the original title (The Stuntman) eventually led to Needham becoming involved (incidentally, that film that caused the name dispute, named The Stunt Man, was released in 1980). The screenplay was done by Thomas Rickman and Bill Kerby, while the story was done by Walt Green and Walter S. Herndon. This was the second film with Needham and Reynolds, who were such good friends with each other that it served as one of the inspirations for the dynamic in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019). After the film, Needham would direct seven further feature films (with a handful of TV productions, but we are only talking about his run that ended with Rad in 1986), four of which had Reynolds as a star, albeit with mixed returns.

The following organizations are listed in the credits: the Stuntmen’s Association of Motion Pictures, Inc., Black Stuntmen’s Association of Hollywood, Stuntwomen’s Association, Society of Professional Stuntwomen and Stunts Unlimited. It is definitely a movie made by someone that wants to show perspective in the stuntman in all of the strange ways possible: fun, if not painful when handled incorrectly. At his best, Reynolds had the charisma to make whatever he said come off with wonderful timing, and for the most part, it is true here in a film that is probably more charming than funny, a good ole' boy movie that one is already familiar with if they like stuff such as W.W. and the Dixie Dancekings (1975) or Smokey and the Bandit. But beneath the humor is a movie that has one thing stick out among the stunts: everything is but a fleeting moment, and it always helps to take care of oneself when something of us (whether that involves a profession of risk-taking or say, being a teacher) reaches its end. So yes, it is a movie that hones what Needham seems to like most in filmmaking when it comes to staging crashes in quality spectacle while having the backdrop of moviemaking drama that would be right at home with something like, say, Souls for Sale (1923). Reynolds is self-deprecating and self-aware enough to make charm count double more than if it was a random actor told to play the role to generic macho levels. Inside the freewheeling spirit of a man who cracks jokes with a younger presence meant to take the place of guys like him is someone who has to grasp with just what he is going to do at the moment where everything he cares about goes in a flash being more than just "away in the distance". So yes, beyond the timely instances of people playing games on the highway and having goofball barfights to go with rocket cars is a movie that has the semblance of caring about the stunt person with some sort of heart on its sleeve. Reynolds, who would know more than anyone about having to learn for years what it really meant to be an presence in demand, handles things in the purest sense of charm, is what I am saying. Sure, the dynamic between him and Field is probably not as involving as their last pair-up in a film (the aforementioned Bandit), but they are still ideal in the winning sense of looking like people you would believe could share a room together without straining for words. Vincent is not so much a hotshot newcomer as an inevitability, one who seems totally fine with the idea of seeking the thrill of stunt performance to make himself a name in a town that will use him as they please until the end (if you think about it, Reynolds trying to make his mark with Vincent as basically living the last part of his dream through him seems familiar to those who like to live their fantasy through an actor they see in film). Evidently, the character Klein plays is based on Peter Bogdanovich, who directed Reynolds in At Long Last Love (1975) and Nickelodeon (1976), and Needham worked on the latter film as a stunt double for Reynolds. There is a story that Needham told once about a planned stunt where he would fall through a tree and Bogdanovich asked if he could go any higher, with Needham responding with "I can go as high as you like. You just have to keep adding zeroes to the number on that cheque." Needless to say, it is evident where Klein is coming from as the heel, and he does fine with it. Keith and his old rascal persona makes for engaging support when it comes to seeing how age treats the old hellraisers, while Best (a regular presence in television and film for a handful of decades) provides an amiable dynamic in parts with Reynolds. The film labors itself to relative familiarity by the time you are at the end of its 99 minute runtime, but there are plenty of familiar films that turn out pretty good because of the showmanship displayed in making it seem fitting to watch without waving away what you could see coming (in other words, a punch in the face is only as fun as how much it seems earned to watch play out). If the aforementioned Bandit film was like a deep-fried entree, Hooper is basically dessert, one that has a suitable conviction of showmanship to go with a few charming moments for classic Reynolds fun, which means one's enjoyment of it will basically ride on how much they roll with the stunts that Needham and company wish to pull off.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde.

Review #1861: Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde.

Cast: 

Reese Witherspoon (Elle Woods), Sally Field (Victoria Rudd), Regina King (Grace Rossiter), Jennifer Coolidge (Paulette Bonafonté), Luke Wilson (Emmett Richmond), Bob Newhart (Sid Post), Bruce McGill (Stan Marks), Dana Ivey (Libby Hauser), Jessica Cauffiel (Margot Chapman), with Moonie the Dog (Bruiser), and Alanna Ubach (Serena McGuire) Directed by Charles Herman-Wurmfeld.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember Legally Blonde (2001), the movie that dealt with forging a path for oneself with confidence that was pitched at one point as "Clueless meets The Paper Chase", based on the material of the same name by Amanda Brown. It was a feel-good movie that Robert Luketic directed as the feel-good legal hit of its time. Or something like that, because I remember it surely could have reached further in the departments of humor and legal mumbo-jumbo besides what it did. Yea, subverting the expectations of a perpetually smiling lawyer that bounces off snide comments as it was just another sunny day in lawyer land. It was more interesting in the small attempts at awareness rather than its goofy hand at comedy. The less you predict, the better it went. Herman-Wurmfeld is probably best known for this film alone, despite the fact that this was his third feature film (Kissing Jessica Stein (2001) had attracted attention on the indie circuit). Kate Kondell served as the screenwriter.

It is evident that someone watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) and thought, hey I can do a movie kind of like that, complete with cribbing footage from it too. But this movie has an idealism about it that manages to come off as the equivalent of too much cotton candy at the fair that only leads to simple vomit. It is a movie that seems to have been nicked and tucked in re-writes to where one would hope it is taken out to pasture with the mix of sitcom lines and characters to go with. absolute zero meaningful drama. Taking something like the issue of animal testing and making one bored to tears is quite the achievement in dubiousness. It begs for a cynical hand at the wheel to deal with politics or some sort of inspiration beyond cribbing dynamics from the first film in being yet another fish out of water story. Beyond (million dog) marches and congressmen changing their mind on things because their dog is gay, one simply finds themselves wishing these scenarios were, well, funny. Witherspoon fares the best out of everyone in the same way that a shirt with a dirty spot looks cleaner when washed but doesn't really get rid of the spot. The cheery disposition presented here only works to the fishbowl level of sitcom times here, where one would rather see more scenes between her and Wilson because of the interesting dynamic between sunny charm and a dry Wilson. Sally Field (accompanied by a goofy wig) seems lost with material that has her say at one point "don't worry Bob, I'll get her ... and her little dog too." At least the secret adversary mentor in the first film was suitable for what was needed. Here, she seems there more for name recognition and a nice check rather than something useable. King plays the snooty foil that was already done before in the first film, and it is evident that nothing really changes for the better beyond what you already know what is going to happen in bla-bla land that King can't elevate too much. Newhart as a doorman with key knowledge to help Witherspoon in the ways of politicking sounds like the lead to a joke, but this is one is at the expense of the audience who find themselves rolling their eyes at whatever paycheck was used to waste his time here. McGill is nice and dandy in the easy cliche role, one that might have been a better fit for the second lead role rather than Field in terms of smarminess...instead he gets to play a guy swayed in protecting dogs from getting animal tested because damn it he loves his gay big dog. As a whole, the original movie has been dissected and had some of its aspects repeated here within a fish-out-of-water story where the lead gradually wins the respect of her peers with her can-do attitude to adapting to the environment that uses her know-how (i.e. fashion sense) to get what she aims to do before giving a speech at the end while everything goes exactly right for her. It is the equivalent of chewing gum for 95 minutes, where one will find a bit of sweet release on two points: the one moment where chewing it is cool, and the moment when you finally decide enough is enough and spit it out. Folks big on the original might find something okay with this one, but others would do better to look elsewhere.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Smokey and the Bandit.

Review #033 Redux: Smokey and the Bandit.

Cast: 

Burt Reynolds (Bo "Bandit' Darville), Sally Field (Carrie), Jerry Reed (Cledus "Snowman" Snow), Jackie Gleason (Sheriff Buford T. Justice), Mike Henry (Junior Justice), Pat McCormick (Big Enos Burdette), Paul Williams (Little Enos Burdette), Macon McCalman (Mr. B), Susan McIver (Hot Pants), and George Reynolds (Sheriff Branford) Directed by Hal Needham.

Review: 

"I'll never win an Academy Award. But I'll be a rich son of a bitch." - Hal Needham

I first saw this movie at the age of fourteen in 2011. I found the movie (and I quote) "a load of fun.", one that proved quite humorous and captivating in its sequences involving cars, trucks...you get the idea. Over ten years later, it is interesting to consider how a film can age after 45 years. On May 19, 1977, Smokey and the Bandit premiered at Radio City Music Hall as a Rastar production from Universal Pictures. The way it came together might be as interesting as the actual film, since one has to remember that it was the brainchild of a former stuntman making his debut. Born in Tennessee, Hal Needham served in the United States Army as a paratrooper during the Korean War before entering Hollywood as a stuntman in 1956 (after stints as an airplane jumper and tree trimming), which resulted in work for various productions in television and film, and it was here that he met Reynolds while serving as his double on television in 1959, which soon resulted in a long-lasting friendship (to the point where he lived in the guesthouse of Reynolds for twelve years). He soon did stunt coordination and second unit action, most notably with The Longest Yard (1974). Needham approached Reynolds about doing the film based on his script (originally set for a B-movie target that would have had Jerry Reed as star) when he had trouble getting studios to take him seriously as a director. Reynolds, despite apparently calling it one of the worst scripts he ever read, decided to do the movie with Needham. For better or worse, this is the one film that Needham is best remembered for, despite the fact that he directed a handful of features and television work in the next two decades (his last theatrical film however was Rad (1986)). This would include further collaborations with Reynolds such Hooper (1978), The Cannonball Run films (1981, 1983), and Stroker Ace (1983). The Bandit series would continue with Needham, Reynolds, Field, Gleason, and Reed each doing Smokey and the Bandit II (1980). Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 (1983) saw only Reed & Gleason return for what was surely far less returns than the previous film (which was already a huge disappointment). One further Bandit came around with four made-for-television films that were all directed by Needham in 1994 before he retired in 1999 (perhaps fittingly, his last project was a TV film with Reynolds as the star). Needham died at the age of 82 in 2013, but not before he was celebrated with an Honorary Academy Award as a pioneer in stunt technology and procedures in safety. The writers for the film were Needham and Robert L. Levy (who also served as a producer) for the story while the screenplay was done by James Lee Barrett (author/writer/producer best known for scripts such as The Cheyenne Social Club), Charles Shyer (his first credit), and Alan Mandel.

I could go quite a bit about weird trivia about this movie (like Alfred Hitchcock saying it was one of his favorite films), but it helps to get to the point. The reason the film works so well isn't really because of any great tense moments or elaborate directing (as this is a movie full of improvisation more than anything) There is a good reason this was the second highest grossing movie of the year of 1977, and that is because it captures the essence of entertainment that comes with adventure and humor. It is probably up there as one of the best films with Burt Reynolds as a star (one he cited as the most fun he ever had in making) and definitely a movie you could nickname a "Southern classic". We are talking a movie where Coors Banquet Beer is something to get down to Georgia (at the time, one could not buy or transport the beer east of Oklahoma) in a hurry that features three former television stars, two award-winning singers, a football player-turned actor, and a comedy writer-turned actor. But the main point is this: it may have a loosely-developed story, but it doesn't cloud all the fun and excitement one manages to get from the film, one that is the definitive feature for both Needham and Reynolds in its execution of comedy and adventure. It isn't perfect, but then no movie truly is perfect, and it is the importance of picking movies that one can see again and again that truly matters when it comes to an appreciation of cinema or "Americana" in general; in other words, it wears its appeal and flaws on its sleeve with no filter or shame.

Readers and anyone familiar with cinema of the time know that Reynolds cultivated his lovable rogue persona into stardom with Deliverance (1972) after years of toiling in television and low-budget films. Of course, this film wasn't his first rodeo when it came to car-action films, since White Lightning (1973) was a well-regarded hit in the South. He has the comic timing and confidence required here for a "good ol' boy" movie that winks to the camera with the appeal to everyone (the folks that want to be him and the folks that want to go home with him). Sure, Deliverance might be a tight rival on the top tier of Reynolds movies, but this is the movie I find myself going back to again and again more than anything (besides, his other films with Needham never quite had the same magic). It does seem weird to consider that Field was actually a television presence before finding eventual fame in film, but it was this film, alongside the TV production of Sybil (1976), that helped her break out of just being known as the star of Gidget and The Flying Nun, for which you can credit Reynolds for fighting for her to be cast (arguing that "talent is sexy"). As such, she makes an excellent partner to Reynolds because of her own quick timing and energetic grace that make for instant chemistry (they would star in three other films together). And then of course there is Reed. The Atlanta native grew up with an ambition to be a star in Nashville from a young age, and he eventually proved to be successful in country music (both writing and singing music alongside his guitar-playing). As a close friend of Reynolds, he had appeared with him in a variety of films such as W.W. and the Dixie Dancekings (1974) and Gator (1976), but it is his singing (which won him three Grammy Awards) that he is obviously best known for, particularly with his singing of "East Bound and Down" (written by Reed and Dick Feller), which has endured in my mind for many, many years with its beat and singing, with his energy proving quite infectious as both actor and singer. Gleason was a television icon for two decades, and yet he had time to dabble in film roles alongside singing (his "mood music", I kid you not, actually had one album that stayed on the top ten in charts for nearly three years), and Reynolds personally wanted him for the film, for which Needham would allow him free rein to ad-lib. In fact, it was Gleason who came up with one of the best little sequences of the movie: the one and only scene where Gleason and Reynolds share a scene together, which the two setup with efficient timing; Gleason and Henry make a worthy 1-2 bumbling punch together, which also goes for McCormick (writer on The Tonight Show) and Williams (Academy Award winning songwriter), who each serve as a useful foil for Reynolds. The 96-minute run-time proves just right when it comes to not overstaying its welcome (editors Walter Hannemann and Angelo Ross earned the film's one Academy Award nomination), one that moves from scene to scene with charm that paces itself with its car sequences that are executed crisply without just being loud silly sequences that wreck cars just to wreck cars. There are a handful of scenes one could highlight, such as Reynolds and Reed bumbling through acquiring beer from Texarkana or when Field tries her hand at driving the Trans Am (which still exudes sleek excellence), but the best way to enjoy it is to see for yourself. As a whole, it is the kind of fun-loving movie that packed the right people together for the right movie at the right time for a movie that has endured for 45 years because of how it captures the Americana spirit of fun and good times in all of the excesses that come with doing so for one of the best movies in the career of both Reynolds and Needham, a pairing like no other.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Amazing Spider-Man.

Review #1780: The Amazing Spider-Man.

Cast: 

Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), Rhys Ifans (Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard), Irrfan Khan (Rajit Ratha), Denis Leary (Captain George Stacy), Martin Sheen (Uncle Ben), Sally Field (Aunt May Parker), Campbell Scott (Richard Parker), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), Chris Zylka (Flash Thompson), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), C. Thomas Howell (Jack's Father), Jake Keiffer (Jack), Kari Coleman (Helen Stacy) Directed by Marc Webb.

Review: 

"I wanted it to be more grounded and more realistic and that went for the emotion of the scenes, the physical action and wardrobe. It's less based in Steve Ditko world and probably closer visually and more influenced by "Ultimate Spider-Man" but it is also very much a world of our own devising."

Did you know that five years passed between Spider-Man 3 (2007) and this film? Well, I guess I should be surprised, but I really am not. Honestly, it is weird that I finally got around to this film just before it turned ten years old, and yet here we are nearing six decades since the creation of the comic book character. Admittedly, it made sense to try to re-invent a new interpretation of the comic book character. After all, this is the first one to feature artificial web-shooters (like in the comics), and it follows the tradition of casting lead actors playing "teenaged" superheroes while nearly pushing 30 years old. The film was written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves (you would recognize the middle name as the writer of last two Spider-Man films). At the helm to direct was Marc Webb, best known for his debut feature in 500 Days of Summer (2009), and he would do the subsequent sequel two years later.  I suppose we've gone from "dorky" Peter to "outcast" Peter, complete with a full-fledged dive into the high school experiences of the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man and the perceived mysteries of his parents (for which some of this is taken from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, which had begun in 2000).

It isn't a bad thing to be a mediocre movie, but it is a weird thing to make a mediocre superhero movie that basically serves as a retread of the 2002 Spider-Man that to me suffers the distinct quality of self-serious sickness. Maybe each film reflects the growing trend of the decade they were made in, but I found it to be a movie that is practically straining to pull off its tricks (new and old) that only succeeds in making the average comic book movie "amazingly" average because I only care to a certain point about the attempts at a "darker" interpretation of this hero. The memory of the old films lingers hard here, and it is confounding that it never manages to even rise above Spider-Man 3 despite having less clutter when it comes to villain composition or storylines (although with a 136-minute run-time, at least it isn't quite as long as it could be). Really if you think about it, the best way to keep the ball rolling with superhero films when changing actors might as well just follow the James Bond route and just roll with things with whatever mood you want to go with (such as going from A View to a Kill (1985) with The Living Daylights (1987), if you get my drift). Heaven knows one doesn't need another sequence of a bunch of New Yorkers rising up and helping Spider-Man.

Garfield, at the very least, makes a definable mark on the lead role that shows a touch of angst to go with loneliness and cockiness that shows the potential in a vulnerable hero. For the most part it works out, with likely the most interesting scene being one where he says just what his name is when saving a kid on a bridge (see, not every moment a masked hero taking off his mask is eye-rolling). Granted, the quips might take time to get used to, but at least he seems comfortable with the role and all that comes with having to follow the tradition of pretend-normal high schooler. Stone basically weaves her way through a role that would have weighed down a lesser actress (i.e., this could have been a role of mush). Regardless of if one knows the character or not, she makes it work with plenty of patience and charm that results in palatable chemistry with Garfield (your milage may vary, of course). In theory, the Lizard is an interesting villain to put on screen (the character, not the alter-ego, was in the last two films). However, he only is interesting when it is Ifans on screen as himself, not so much when he is turned into that CG render that looks like a silly slug. Sure, trying to strive for perfection without weakness can be interesting to ponder for a villain, but seeing it come out of a slug makes it hard to reconcile with the urge to snicker. Think about it: you have a guy going around as a lizard that at one point comes out of the toilet of a high school right before he delves into a plan about spreading gas around to turn people into lizards (well, "reptilian" would also be a suitable word to use, but either word is still funny to say out-loud).

The strangest thing is that the weak link among the supporting cast is Field (Khan doesn't count, since he is more a victim of the "comes-and-goes" box). She has admitted to not particularly enjoying the role, doing it more as a favor (specifically to friend and producer Laura Ziskin) that described it as one that you "can't put ten pounds of shit in a five-pound bag." (as quoted in 2016, which I guess applies to both features). Again, not to beat the dead horse of "the previous movies", but the role-from-five-years-ago had a bit more to really do when it comes to interacting with the lead character. Here, she pretty much has a handful of sentences that don't go anywhere that Rosemary Harris had done three films ago. Sheen is engaging for what is needed in patience (basically saying that quote about responsibility and power without having to just say it). There is probably something to be said about featuring Scott and Davidtz in its opening that seemed to hint at something "mysterious" when it comes to the parents of Spider-Man, but I'll be damned if I can give one single iota about it. Leary breezes through cliches with strange ease (one doesn't try to picture him suddenly break out into "standup", at least). As a whole, the movie is the equivalent of taking a few years off between going on an amusement park ride: sure, maybe something is different, but in the end it is just familiar motions to varying effect. There are certain times when the effects for showing the web-slinging ride can work out to interesting effect (no points for wondering how it looked in 3D), and the action sequences are decent for what is needed, which means that Webb basically managed to make a safe film that does the minimum and doesn't stumble. In that sense, that is probably the best endorsement one can make for a curious viewer.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Smokey and the Bandit II.

Review #945: Smokey and the Bandit II.

Cast:
Burt Reynolds (Bo "Bandit" Darville), Jackie Gleason (Sheriff Buford T. Justice / Gaylord Justice / Reginald Van Justice), Jerry Reed (Cledus "Snowman" Snow), Dom DeLuise (Dr. Frederico "Doc" Carlucci), Sally Field (Carrie/"Frog"), Paul Williams (Little Enos Burdette), Pat McCormick (Big Enos Burdette), David Huddleston (John Coen), Mike Henry (Junior Justice), John Anderson (Governor), and Brenda Lee (Nice Lady) Directed by Hal Needham (#033  - Smokey and the Bandit and #034 - The Cannonball Run)

Review:
It's hard to believe it has been over 900 reviews (and six years) since I watched and reviewed Smokey and the Bandit. It is only fitting that I return to do the sequel, after all these days.

When I reviewed the first film in April of 2011, I called it a "load of fun", in part because it really was an enjoyable piece of entertainment. When it comes to the sequel, it is evident quite immediately that it is inferior in pretty much every way to the original. From the comedy to the stunts to the entertainment value to the heart, it is not only a disappointment but it is also a lazy kind of movie. Not only does this feel like a rehash of the first film, it is a bad imitation that only serves producers who wanted to make a profit of the Bandit name. Reynolds himself has admitted his displeasure with the film in interviews, stating how it was an unnecessary sequel, and I can't help but agree.

It's not so much that the actors are terrible, it's the writing that sinks the movie to a level that it never recovers from. Reynolds and Field have decent chemistry when they are simply allowed to interact and not have lines about why their characters broke up in the first place. It would've been better to just have them just be a couple then having this whole thing where they just argue (of course the parts before Field show up where the Bandit is a sad drunk aren't any better). The parts where Bandit has become a sort of folk hero don't really help the film as it does just be a lazy way of invoking the first film over and over again. Reed does a fine job as expected, with "Texas Bound and Flyin" being an adequate title song for the film (though obviously nothing tops "Eastbound and Down"). It's interesting to see Gleason back again, especially when he plays three characters in one scene (through trick photography), and his parts with Henry are useful enough. DeLuise is charming as always, but he doesn't really bring anything to the movie more than just a few Italian phrases; this happened to be filmed around the same time as The Cannonball Run, which while not exactly a great piece of work is easily better than this film, while also having better scenes of Reynolds and DeLuise. The fact that Williams and McCormick don't show up in the movie again after they recruit the main characters also doesn't help, considering they drive the plot (wanting an elephant delivered to a political convention). The fact that everything feels like a caricature doesn't help either.

The only trick that the film seems to have up its sleeve is a big sequence involving 50 cars and semi-trucks piling on each other in the desert, with destruction after destruction. However it only manages to come off as just going through the motions, feeling like a cartoon. The whole movie feels like a dumb cartoon, and it really seems to drag after the first hour or so. It's amusing (in a mocking kind of way) how they don't even end up delivering the elephant to Dallas on time, because of course not. It ends with Justice trying to chase them down on a bus, perfectly encapsulating the lazy nature of a film that comes and goes without a payoff. There are no real stakes, nor are there any moments where I felt like I needed to care about anything that happens. On the whole, the best thing I can say about the movie is that it makes the viewer want to see the original film again. I hope I didn't go too long with my critique, folks.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Mrs. Doubtfire.

Review #831: Mrs. Doubtfire.

Cast
Robin Williams (Daniel Hillard / Euphegenia Doubtfire), Sally Field (Miranda Hillard), Pierce Brosnan (Stuart Dunmeyer), Lisa Jakub (Lydia Hillard), Matthew Lawrence (Christopher Hillard), Mara Wilson (Natalie Hillard), Harvey Fierstein (Frank Hillard), Scott Capurro (Jack), and Robert Prosky (Jonathan Lundy) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, #118 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, #304 - Home Alone, and #310 - Home Alone 2: Lost in New York)

Review
Honestly, I hadn't seen this movie in years, in fact it might have been on a VHS, actually. It wasn't for lack of interest, it just never came to me. There are numerous movies about cross-dressing (#084 - Tootsie, #106 - Some Like It Hot, #637 - The Birdcage) along with numerous comedy-dramas, but Mrs. Doubtfire manages to be a fine movie that doesn't veer too much towards standardization due to the energy of its main lead. Williams, alongside some really exceptional (and award winning) makeup, manages to make the role his own, with these two characters being very distinct and interesting. He just weaves into these characters and voices well, though it almost gets a bit tiring near the end, but the dinner sequence is adequate. Field also does pretty well, managing to be likable in a role that could've turned out one dimensional or not as memorable, with her scenes with Williams being well handled. The kids don't have much screen time, but they're pretty okay. The rest of the cast do fine. The balance of comedy and drama is well enough, neither intruding too much on the other. At just over two hours it may be a bit too long, but Williams is enjoyable enough that it works. It's not too sentimental nor cynical, having a ending message (by Williams) that is pretty poignant. Does it always work? No, but it works just enough in part due to its main character(s) and a quirky charm.

Overall, I give it 8 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: Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco.

Review #437: Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco.

Cast
Michael J. Fox (Chance), Ralph Waite (Shadow), Sally Field (Sassy), Carla Gugino (Delilah), Sinbad (Riley), Tisha Campbell-Martin (Sledge), Michael Bell (Stokey), Robert Hays (Bob Seaver), Kim Greist (Laura Seaver), Benj Thall (Peter Seaver), Veronica Lauren (Hope Seaver), and Kevin Chevalia (Jamie Seaver) Directed by David R. Ellis.

Review
The previous film (#186 - Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey) was fine, a reasonably paced family film with good banter and pairing of Don Ameche, Michael J. Fox and Sally Field, with minimal, but not too little scenes about the family, and it made sure to not run on for too long. The sequel tries to do the same thing, but in someways, that is the major flaw of the film, it just feels like a rehash, only with minor differences. Sure there's a love interest, and...a dog gang, but this film, while okay at best, fails to surpass the original in quality. Fox is good, and Field is as well, and Waite does okay as a replacement actor, as Don Ameche had dies prior to the filming of the second film. The problem isn't exactly with the actors, it's more a problem with the script, which doesn't really go anywhere. It has fun moments, but it feels like it is trying either too hard or not enough. The scenery of San Francisco looks nice, and I imagine families would like it somewhat, but the first one is definitely better.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey.

Review #186: Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey.

Cast
Michael J. Fox (Chance), Don Ameche (Shadow), Sally Field (Sassy), Robert Hays (Bob), and Kim Griest (Laura) Directed by Duwayne Dunham.

Review
After the "trilogy" of films reviewed here as of late, I decided to pick something of lesser evil, Disney. Well actually Walt Disney Pictures, but still. While the human characters are mostly standard in acting and dialogue, the film focuses more on the animals and their trip home. Fox, Ameche, and Field do a good job, having some good banter, making you entertained in a reasonably paced 80 minute film that sees these animals transform as the film progresses, which a bit different from all that I've seen in the past few weeks. One thing I almost forgot to mention is that this is a remake of a 1963 adaptation also made by Disney which was based off the novel. This is a decent film that is almost 20 years old.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.