Radioland Murders.

Review #2241: Radioland Murders.

Cast: 

Brian Benben (Roger Henderson), Mary Stuart Masterson (Penny Henderson), Scott Michael Campbell (Billy Budge), Michael Lerner (Lieutenant Cross), Ned Beatty (General Walt Whalen), Brion James (Bernie King), Stephen Tobolowsky (Max Applewhite), Michael McKean (Rick Rochester), Corbin Bernsen (Dexter Morris), Bobcat Goldthwait (Wild Writer), Anita Morris (Claudette Katzenback), Jeffrey Tambor (Walt Whalen Jr), Larry Miller (Herman Katzenback), Christopher Lloyd (Zoltan), Harvey Korman (Jules Cogley), and Dylan Baker (Detective Jasper) Directed by Mel Smith.

Review: 

Believe it or not, I have had this film very, very, very loosely on the radar for years. Here's a good question for you folks: would you believe that this film had George Lucas as a writer? Among the fifteen films where he has been credited as a writer (story or otherwise), it probably goes without saying this is the most obscure of the group. Lucas thought of the story for the film around the time he had developed American Graffiti, which if one remembers was released in 1973 (Lucas equated the friendship had in the film between the kids and the disc jockey to a phenomenon that Radioland would explore further when it comes to radio infused with fantasy). The co-writers of that film in Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck were asked by Lucas to work on the script for the film, which in the mind of Lucas was meant to be aimed as a homage to films such as Who Done It (the Abbott and Costello film from 1942); strangely enough, if one looks up this film on Wikipedia, it lists two other films involving murders at a radio station. The success of films such as Star Wars (1977) among other things kept Lucas busy, but eventually he came back to the idea of a film based on his interests in old-time radio, once stating that "You can trace radio back to the old storytellers around the fire. It's been lost over the years." By the time of the 1990s, one could utilize computer technology for their films, and this apparently is one that really used it to distinct usage, such as the sights in the exterior of the main building the film takes place to go along with select interior walls to go with a certain shot for the climax. Jeff Reno and Ron Osborn (best known for their work on the TV show Moonlighting) were hired to deliver re-writes to the script, evidently under the request of Universal Pictures. The director was Mel Smith, who had done plenty of work within sketch comedy in his native England prior to directing his first film with The Tall Guy (1989), which Lucas liked. The result was a production that had plenty of rushed work near its ending stages, with Lucas apparently doing some unit work alongside Smith. One description of the film was "cinematic pickup sticks." The film, once budgeted for $10 million that eventually rose to $15 million as a Lucasfilm production for Universal, came and went into theaters to incredibly small audience turnout. Smith directed three further films before his death in 2013 at the age of 60, most notably with Bean (1997).

Why don't we be a little nice for a moment when it comes to a movie now three decades old: there are gags in it that are worth a chuckle (heh, radio will never die...), and it is actually a bit interesting to figure what is an special effect in a movie that one wouldn't expect to need many effects, which make for a curious eye (or what have you) on the chase at times. It looks like a radio production for worthwhile decor. One gets a slight chuckle at seeing George Burns basically play himself for one last film bit (incidentally, Burns, playing a 100-year-old comedian for a bit, would die in 1996 at the age of 100). Now, where were we? You don't usually see it happen, but this is one of those sad, sad, sad times where you can see just where a film is about to die that makes one really understand the meaning of "death by a thousand cuts". I feared it would happen late in the 108-minute runtime but nope, this is a movie that either ropes you in with its barrage of slapstick and zany nature or makes you internally scream for it to shut up and breathe. It tries to be quick in pace with its 1939 setting that tries to make one interested in the workings of its radio trappings and the growing murder mystery...and it really strains credibility once you wonder why it couldn't just have been one or the other instead of this miserable mishmash. See, one really wants to like these people and the strange quirks that come with a soundman being played by the most lucid actor possible in Lloyd or the goofy military-stylings of Beatty...and then one gets to the leads and finds the charm levels are essentially right down the tube. It doesn't seem particularly fair to denigrate Masterson (then known for roles such as Immediate Family [1989]) and Benben (the then star of the HBO sitcom Dream On), because surely, they were at least game to do the gags with quick timing and the routine I'm sure you would expect of a once burning romance. But with Benben and his preening mugging in a role that is meant to be funny in its comedy of circumstance (get it? he happens to be around when murders keep happening? eh?!), you can't craft a winner when essentially stuck in a pit with a plastic spoon when Masterson is essentially left adrift to try and match. The sitcom-level dynamic just comes off as noise bereft of life. Even seeing Lerner there makes one sad because if you're going to see someone play a familiar role, you sure as hell want it to be in something more rewarding (Goldthwait somehow makes his performance in Scrooged seem subtle). Campbell isn't even on the level of a goofy Baker while poor Tobolowsky is merely ordinary until the film remembers it has a mystery to solve. By the time the film lumbers to the end of who did what and why to go with how and where it will go, you are gladder that it has ceased transmission. In trying to capture what one thinks the screwball was all about in the realm of rapid-fire construction, being outclassed by previous throwback attempts like Oscar (1991) is a sad state of mind to be in. With middling interest in characters that don't win one's attention for an overcooked script, one can only find pity within a film that never really had a chance.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Hell, come on down Dutch.

Sneakers (1992).

Review #1886: Sneakers.

Cast: 

Robert Redford (Martin Bishop / Martin Brice), Ben Kingsley (Cosmo), Sidney Poitier (Donald Crease), David Strathairn (Irwin 'Whistler' Emery), Dan Aykroyd (Darren 'Mother' Roskow), River Phoenix (Carl Arbogast), Mary McDonnell (Liz Ogilvy), Stephen Tobolowsky (Werner Brandes), Timothy Busfield (Dick Gordon), Eddie Jones (Buddy Wallace), George Hearn (Gregor "Greg" Ivanovich), Donal Logue (Dr. Gunter Janek), Lee Garlington (Dr. Elena Rhyzkov), and James Earl Jones (NSA Agent Bernard Abbott) Directed by Phil Alden Robinson (#488 - Field of Dreams)

Review: 

Ensemble movies need their appreciation too, if you think about it. Do you remember WarGames (1983)? In the process of writing the script for that film, Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes discovered the existence of "sneakers", which refers to hackers that well, sneak into a computer system somewhere (in this case, the hackers here are hired by banks to break in and test the security system). A number of drafts eventually attracted the attention of Phil Alden Robinson, and he ended up spending nine years trying to get the film going. Getting the attention of Robert Redford (cast in a role originally intended with a star in their mid-40s as written by people in their 40s) helped the process and eventually led to a film with a cadre of actors that went from veteran stars to younger names such as River Phoenix (this was the penultimate movie released before his death the following year) while squeezing James Earl Jones in for one scene. Lasker and Parkes also produced the film, which was their fourth venture together (one of them was Awakenings (1990)). Clearly, the movie is really more of a take on the caper movies of yesteryear with its distinct characters in its ensemble, although the message about a world run by "little ones and zeroes" probably still seems quite true after three decades. You probably remember Robinson as the director of Field of Dreams (1989), his second effort; Sneakers is his third feature effort, and his next feature film ended up being Freedom Song eight years later.

Admittedly, it is a nice little movie when it comes to seeing familiar faces in an attempt at a techno-thriller/heist movie. Oh sure, it is a movie that does extoll a little bit about the quirks of a new age where having control of the information might be more important than having the fastest gun. Sneakers does so with a grasp of a number of cliches you have probably seen in countless heist movies with how you can describe the supporting characters in two-word phrases or how the climax is operated (besides the literal slow-motion sequence), right down to needing to acquire a box. In that sense, it can either prove as a comfort movie with plenty of enjoyment from an age like the 1990s or just an average ensemble, and I think it works out more often than not to make a quiet winner. Redford does well with what is needed in general charm, a uniter of misfits with what you've seen a few times from him (perhaps playing a bit of The Sting but without looking like a copy). Poitier, in his penultimate appearance in a feature film, still has the knack for steely timing to contrast the semi-whimsical others, mostly against Aykroyd (amusingly, when approached for the film, he actually was more interested in playing the Cosmo role before being told that Kingsley was signed for it). Kingsley doesn't have as much to really do as the adversary, but in a movie with just a fraction of action and more about the general chase, this works out okay in general familiarity (better him than a ham or a nonentity, perhaps). Strathairn lends a few chuckles to go along with a wiry Phoenix that make the most of those little moments to shuffle the plot. McDonnell makes a quality deadpan middleperson, one who does share a few interesting moments with Redford alongside some chuckles with Tobolowsky, who seems to be having a ball with his moments on screen. 126 minutes is admittedly a big ask for thrillers to enjoy, but I think it does pull enough out of the bag of enjoyment to work at the expectation required from its cast and crew. It's a movie about a couple of scraps who just want to untangle themselves from a weirdo conspiracy involving uncertainties that is dealt with in wry patience that makes a solid little three-decade gem. If fun-loving ensembles trying to play caper is up your alley, go right ahead with this one, where the game of concerns of privacy still holds true now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Breaking In (1989).

Review #1492: Breaking In.

Cast:
Burt Reynolds (Ernie Mullins), Casey Siemaszko (Mike Lafeve), Lorraine Toussaint (Delphine), Sheila Kelley (Carrie / Fontaine), Albert Salmi (Johnny Scot, Poker Player), Harry Carey (Shoes, Poker Player), Maury Chaykin (Vincent Tucci, Attorney), and Stephen Tobolowsky (District Attorney) Directed by Bill Forsyth.

Review:
"There's always something you want to say. I would not want to make a film that did not say anything, I'm not interested in getting into something that's just a piece of entertainment, a James Bond or an adventure film. I don't enjoy filming that much, in fact I don't enjoy filming at all and to go through all that for the sake of money would just not interest me."
"I'm not sure if I can swagger anymore, but I can limp with the best of them."

It's easy to forget about a director when Burt Reynolds is your star in a comedy. For example, Scottish-born Bill Forsyth first got into films through an advertisement out of high school and ended up doing short documentary films for eight years, notably founding Tree Films with Charles Gormley in 1970. He wrote his scripts for That Sinking Feeling and Gregory's Girl years in advance, but attempts at getting funds did not take hold with the BFI Production Board. He forged on anyway in making the former film, doing so in 1979 on a cheap budget with actors from the Glasgow Community Theatre. Some of the actors from that film would return for his next film, Gregory's Girl (1981), which resulted in positive notices as the film he is best known for (his next film, Local Hero, also received praise), and he received a British Academy Film Award for each film (the former for screenplay and the latter for direction). This was his second and last film done in North America, with the other being Housekeeping (1987). The film was written by John Sayles (behind films such as Return of the Secaucus 7 and Eight Men Out), whose script had been laying around for a few years that Sayles did not think was something he could direct, and Forsyth updated the script. And then of course there is Burt Reynolds, the one shining reason one might pick this film out in the first place (particularly if you are sentimental towards seeing him in something that could be good). Whether the film is good or not, he remained a fascinating actor to watch be a part of the action for over five decades, with this being at the tail end of his popularity, and he took part in the film for very little money due to his interest in the character role (Forsyth had desired someone like John Mahoney for the role, but a push by Act III Communications for someone with a bit of star power eventually led him to approach Reynolds).

It's a shame that this wasn't a success with audiences on release (making less than two million dollars on a budget of over five million), because it is a decent little movie, even if it isn't exactly the most well-known film for either Forsyth or Reynolds (I happened to have come across this on the Internet and went with it on a guess, although a DVD would obviously be a better quality bet). Sometimes you just have to enjoy a shaggy dog robbery story. In a retrospective article about the film, Forsyth himself described it as "an awkward little movie. It’s not an American film and it’s not a European film; it’s ungraspable what it is." There is definately an interesting sort of tone that Forsyth takes to the material, one that doesn't really go for all of the caper cliches that come with a heist film, instead taking an approach to fleshing out two quirky people that find themselves into this certain business with their own distinct mannerisms and approach. One has probably seen the traditional old pro teaches the hotshot story before, but if one presents it with honesty, it usually works out for a decent time. There isn't anything remotely spectacular about it, but there are bits and pieces that are charming, and the main duo also helps out while also having a few little moments of heists that favor moments of dialogue over anything too explosive (which can work out for those patient for it). Siemaszko, having started appearing in films for six years with bit roles and supporting turns (such as Back to the Future) proves lively enough for the film's liking, carefree yet never lacking when on-screen with various situations of charm. Reynolds, with a hitch in his step and a quieter tone than usual, holds to the challenge quite well, still managing to capture a wise world-weary presence without needing to rely on anything hammy (the makeup on him to make him look older looks fine) that we gravitate to pretty well (of course one could gravitate to Siemaszko too, at least when it comes to brash impulse decisions) with comfort. Seeing these folks try to make a living within a strange world of compromise and duplicity makes for a careful movie, not exactly a laugh-out-loud caper, but also not too plaid for curious enjoyment. It certainly is a curious film for both Forsyth and its two stars in Reynolds and Siemaszko, and if you happen to come across it looking for something diverting, you may be fairly satisfied with what you recieve, getting a few chuckles alongside a decent time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Mr. Peabody & Sherman.

Review #1125: Mr. Peabody & Sherman.

Cast: 
Ty Burrell (Mr. Peabody), Max Charles (Sherman), Ariel Winter (Penny Peterson), Stephen Colbert (Paul Peterson), Leslie Mann (Patty Peterson), Allison Janney (Edwina Grunion), Stephen Tobolowsky (Principal Purdy), Stanley Tucci (Leonardo da Vinci), Patrick Warburton (King Agamemnon), Zach Callison (King Tut), Dennis Haysbert (Judge), and Leila Birch (WABAC) Directed by Rob Minkoff (#073 - The Lion King and #746 - The Haunted Mansion)

Review: 
In a world where any kind of show or segment can be adapted into a show, I suppose it only makes sense that this exists. This is an adaptation of "Peabody's Improbable History", created by Ted Key that appeared as a segment on The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends from 1959 to 1960. It is also the 28th film from Dreamworks Animation, which seems to want to churn out as many products of entertainment as it pleases, which can certainly lead to some interesting things - for better or for worse. The best thing I can say about this film is that it will get the job done in terms of entertainment for its target audience, for better or worse. There is a certain charm that the movie has with its jokes, having an eccentric nature that combines with some engaging animation to carry the movie more often than not. Burrell does a fine job, being fairly clever and interesting to watch while generating a fair share of amusement. Charles does fine, having a spunky boyish nature that plays well with Burrell in the history segments, with the family segments playing off okay. Winter does okay with what she's given, but her character generally comes off as annoying and self-serving, and her chemistry with the other two is more irritating than dynamic; with her first scene (involving her calling Sherman a dog), you'd think she was actually playing an adversary. She lightens up slightly, but not entirely to make a winning trio. The only other person with significant screen-time is Janney, playing a bureaucrat that is an unwanted presence each time she pops up, not generating any sort of laughs, representing the time when the movie slows itself down to try and create conflict. There are three main timelines covered in the film, with a varying consistency that don't plod too much, with the Troy marginally being the best one with its energy, with Warburton helping out in that regard. Nothing says "history lesson" like puns and goofy portrayals of history, reminding me a bit of History of the World, Part I (1981), albeit with attempts to connect the plot together. The story, written by Craig Wright (writer for shows such Six Feet Under) is usually up to task. The time travel story does weave itself a bit complex, but it proves workable without being too cliched. However, the film's problem is its elements besides time travel. Perhaps there wasn't a way to make a film without introducing a third to go with the main duo, but then I remember that Back to the Future (1985) and the Bill and Ted films worked out just fine with weaving its time travel and humor with its duo. The whimsicalness can only go so far when the emotional arc tries to wedge itself in, for better or worse. The climax is okay, but its shoehorned parts about the nature of the duo's relationship (in an attempt to establish "heart", I suppose) border on cringing the audience. When the movie wants to have zany fun and not try to go through the motions of predictability, it is engaging and worth a fine time, making for a solidly average but serviceable movie. At 92 minutes, it won't torture its audience, working as decent fare for families and anybody looking for a decent time to travel with.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Thelma & Louise.

Review #1076: Thelma & Louise.

Cast: 
Susan Sarandon (Louise Sawyer), Geena Davis (Thelma Dickinson), Harvey Keitel (Detective Hal Slocumb), Michael Madsen (Jimmy Lennox), Christopher McDonald (Darryl Dickinson), Stephen Tobolowsky (Max), Brad Pitt (J.D.), and Timothy Carhart (Harlan Puckett) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, and #739 - The Martian)

Review: 
Thelma & Louise is an engaging road movie that has its shares of laughs and tough moments that belies itself on the strength of its two main characters. It manages to serve as great entertainment full of self-discovery and sharp honestly that resonates even after over two decades since its release. Sarandon and Davis make for a capable duo in part because of how their distinct personalities mix and match. Sarandon plays her role with a roughly honest type of viewpoint that never seems too cynical nor too out-of-place in any scene. Davis does a great job in making her dependably energetic character seem the perfect match to play with Sarandon, and her chemistry with Pitt is fairly well-done if not quick. Pitt has a slinky hustler charm to him that makes him watchable each scene that he is in, having a magnetic pull that served to be his breakthrough role. Keitel does a good job, evoking honestly in his authority role that never comes off as distracting. Madsen sells his casual rocker role fairly adeptly, quick to charm and care. McDonald plays his character with the right sense of control and inflated self-importance that fits the movie pretty well. The film has numerous particularly emotions in its scenes, whether shocking or amusing, and it manages to never veer itself too much in one direction that would come off as distracting. The screenplay by Callie Khouri is a tightly packed one that was rewarded with Academy Award and Golden Globe honors. The film has a controlled look that feels fairly authentic, having an execution to it that is surely captivating - particularly since it doesn't betray its principles. It doesn't ever comes off as just a road movie without much substance, with these main characters becoming memorable ones to follow. It has some turns and cliches that seem par for the course for this type of genre, but it doesn't detract from its value as an adventure too much. Even at 129 minutes, this is a film that never feels like it is wasting any moment with these characters and the tale that it is weaving. The movie has an ending that certainly serves as a symbolic and memorable capstone to something that clicks at the right times with the right kind of people behind and in front of the camera. It makes a leap for entertainment - and it succeeds at that quite well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Garfield: The Movie.

Review #689: Garfield: The Movie.

Cast
Bill Murray (Garfield), Breckin Meyer (Jon Arbuckle), Jennifer Love Hewitt (Dr. Liz Wilson), Stephen Tobolowsky (Happy Chapman), Nick Cannon (Louis), and Alan Cumming (Persnikitty) Directed by Peter Hewitt (#022 - Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey and #287 - The Borrowers)

Review
A movie based off a long running comic strip? What could go wrong? And...nothing really goes wrong, but nothing goes right either.  Garfield the comic strip is a best a mild read better suited for a Sunday read when nothing good is on but you're out of books (someone who is out of books to read? What is this, 1995?) Turning it into a movie may not be the best use of resources, and the movie proves just that. The main reason that the movie falls short is that it doesn't have much to offer and manages to be just as breeze worthy like the comic. Murray is not a bad Garfield, but when your main voice actor is only in this because he thought the movie was written by a Coen brother and confused them with Joel Cohen, that's saying something beneath the surface. The rest of the characters are more or less forgettable, with Meyer and Hewitt's characters being more standard "lovey-dovy" cliche than actual full fledged people. Actually, their characterization is more 2-D than 3-D, so props for making them comic-like? And our villain? The only notable thing he does is that he intends to use a shock collar on Odie. I realize that sounds weird to list that, but other than that, he is standard stuff, though at least Tobolowsky tries his best to make him sound interesting. The movie could be better for younger audiences, though it wears itself out after a while. Overall, the movie isn't inherently terrible, it's just not anything special. It can't even qualify as a terrible movie, it just reigns as a middle of the road movie. I'd stick to the comic...or reading the parody web comic Garfield Minus Garfield.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Groundhog Day.

Review #342: Groundhog Day.

Cast
Bill Murray (Phil Connors), Andie MacDowell (Rita), Chris Elliott (Larry), Stephen Tobolowsky (Ned Ryerson), Brian Doyle-Murray (Buster Green), and Rick Ducommun (Gus) Directed by Harold Ramis (#138 - Bedazzled (2000) and #208 - Caddyshack)

Review
It figures that Groundhog Day is upon us, a day described by the main character as "A thousand people freezing their butts off waiting to worship a rat. What a hype.", so why not review a film with the same title? So how is it? Pretty good. Once again, I'm reviewing something with Bill Murray involved (Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II, Scrooged, Tootsie, Caddyshack, Stripes, Space Jam), and he once again does a good job, always seeming to have some good wry humor, which helps the film in more ways than one. MacDowell does a fine job, better than the last time I reviewed her (#307 - Hudson Hawk), and the rest of the cast do good, keeping the level of humor high. But its main benefit is its story, which manages to be original and straight forward. It is well made and it is especially telling in how life sometimes seem to resemble a rerun over and over for unknown reasons, kind of like these reviews. On a day where a rat tells us it might be early spring, this film celebrates 20 years, and I celebrate that it manages to stay original after those years. Happy Groundhog Day, everyone.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Freaky Friday (2003)

Review #204: Freaky Friday.

Cast
Jamie Lee Curtis (Dr. Tess Coleman), Lindsay Lohan (Anna Coleman), Chad Michael Murray (Jake), Mark Harmon (Ryan, Tess's Fiance), Harold Gould (Grandpa Alan), Stephen Tobolowsky (Mr. Elton Bates), Christina Vidal (Maddie), and Ryan Malgarini (Harry Coleman) Directed by Mark Waters (#151 - Mean Girls)

Review
This film is a remake of another film from 1976 (which already had a TV remake in 1995). Anyway, Curtis and Lohan are a good pair in this film, Curtis especially (proving once again that she can work in a comedy) and Lohan do fine jobs. The film has its moments that at least make you chuckle in a relatively decent run time (97 minutes). It's weird to think this film is almost nine years old (at least I'm reviewing it on a Friday, so there ya go), and yet it still is a decent film.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.