The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

Review #2417: The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

Cast: 

Terence Stamp (Bernadette Bassenger), Hugo Weaving (Anthony "Tick" Belrose / Mitzi Del Bra), Guy Pearce (Adam Whitely / Felicia Jollygoodfellow), Bill Hunter (Robert "Bob" Spart), Sarah Chadwick (Marion Barber), Mark Holmes (Benjamin "Benji" Barber), Julia Cortez (Cynthia), Alan Dargin (Alan), and Ken Radley (Frank) Written and Directed by Stephan Elliott.

Review: 

“We didn't back down from the Australian-ness of it; we said, ‘This is us. Take us or leave us.’ And the world chose to take it....I think the heart and soul of the film Priscilla, Queen of the Desert that works is that in the midst of all the glitz and glamour and showing off and bitchy lines and great songs, there was a really simple story about a man trying to come out to his son."

Sure, why not. Stephan Elliott (born in Sydney in New South Wales, Australia) had made his debut as a filmmaker with Frauds (1993), having apparently been a filmmaker...of weddings, for several years. Apparently, the wait in getting that film made led to what eventually became Priscilla, specifically a Mardi Gras that he saw a plume of feathers rolling up a street like a tumbleweed. The movie was inspired by three actual drag queens that were intended to be in the movie: Cindy Pastel (Ritchie Finger), Strykermyer (Mark Fitzhugh) and Lady Bump (Stuart Garske). Of course, when Elliott managed to attract interest for a considerable production (millions of Australian dollars, which I'm sure has its own currency stature), it was instead decided to go with "bankable" actors. Various people from Tony Curtis (the Some Like It Hot star was apparently talked out of it by his wife) to David Bowie were floated around. At any rate, Elliot suggested to his friend Andrew Saw to do a documentary on the original trio, which ended up happening with Ladies Please in 1995.* The Australian production, to put it mildly, wound up as an international sensation, even winning Academy Awards for its costume design by Tim Chappel and Lizzy Gardiner (one example was a dress made with "rubber thongs", so here is a visual of that). In 2006, a stage musical premiered in Sydney, with Elliott co-writing the book that has had various productions come around all the world. Elliott has continued to direct over the years, ranging from Easy Virtue (2008) to his latest one with Swinging Safari (2017); he actually announced plans to do a sequel to this film in recent years. Terence Stamp died just a few weeks ago at the age of 87.

Hell, I don't know drag queens that well. I understand it as merely a way for people to express themselves in a world filled with vulnerability all around. Some people do karaoke to the poor drunks at the bar, others put on costumes to play to the lyrics of an ABBA song, the important thing is to be free, at least that is how I would view it. I don't know the bohemian, but it doesn't mean there isn't something that can be gleamed from it with some degree of humor or heart, and this works out pretty well for what you might call a road movie fit for all the misfits. Specifically, it is a movie for people trying to figure out what they really are in the proverbial closet of responsibilities. You've got a person in grief doubting they can find love, one who has a son and a wife he drifted from, and, well, a young man in the flaming arrogancy of youth all trying to make due on the road that isn't necessarily going to be a straight-edge path (hell, you've got folks fainting at one particular sight twice). The darndest thing is that the costumes really are pretty neat, they manage to fit the character in a strangely graceful way, where you could just accept it right then and there that someone will wear a getup filled with shoes in the same way that you'd expect a couple of ping-pong balls could make a creature costume for a sci-fi movie (ironically, the three main actors learned that when in full drag, nobody knew who they were). So yes, it isn't so much an act for the performer as it is a way to just express themselves, and that actually is pretty funny in the hands of a terrific ensemble. Stamp in particular is exquisite, rising above what could've merely been fodder for just delivering zingers and actually making it quite enjoyable to see the plight on screen for the easiest dilemma facing old folk: too many memories and not nearly enough time to see it all through. Simply put, Stamp (initially reluctant but gradually got into it) just sinks right into a performance that is wholly believable in all of the quibbles and charm necessary because damn it, who else could just be Bernadette? Weaving does sell the dilemma that comes with trying to face who they really are beyond hang-ups and see things as they should be, which does eventually work out for its climax when bringing the folks together. Of course, it is Pearce (known at the time for his television work in Neighbours, which had Elliott with some doubts) and his devilishly bold energy that steals the show, whether that involves the sequence with him on top of the bus or just the snappy barbs that come around with Stamp for obvious campy enjoyment, at least to a point. Hunter (a good friend of Stamp) is the last key to the puzzle, and there is something quite infectious about his charm that rolls right alongside the others when he gets involved. In general, the movie is quite infectious in what probably counts as a form of "camp", but I just like seeing the dedication it takes to put on garish stuff and just do it in front of people, flamboyance be damned. The 103 minutes pass on by with little hitches, managing quickly to have you rolling along with these folks, whether that involves their bus being defaced or the sobering sequence where Adam gets beaten up and has a talk with the one who ends up saving him from the harrowing reality that can come with people who look and talk a little different from "the norm", as they say. By the end, you've got a few folks that have become a bit wiser from their journey and had a little bit of fun along the way, and that's a pretty good thing to accomplish. As a whole, it is a nice little road movie that shows the perils of the road in each and every shade alongside the warmth that comes with finding who one really is beyond the mask, which is a pretty funny and sobering accomplishment that nobody really could just see coming from Australia.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Incidentally, that was the same year the movie To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar (1995) came out involving three actors as drag queens on the road. The crew of the Priscilla film heard about the production of that movie but were not too worried about it being a ripoff when they read the script.

Poor Cow.

Review #2169: Poor Cow.

Cast: 

Carol White (Joy), Terence Stamp (Dave Fuller), John Bindon (Tom), Queenie Watts (Aunt Emm), Kate Williams (Beryl), Billy Murray (Tom's mate), Ken Campbell (Mr Jacks), Tony Selby (Customer in Pub), and Anna Karen (Neighbour) Directed by Ken Loach.

Review: 

Really it shouldn't be a surprise to see another graduate of the dramatic arts reach film with "kitchen sink" dramas, and it seems oddly timely as Ken Loach apparently has released his last film as a director just a few months ago. Born in Nuneaton, Warwickshire (also just known as "The Midlands") in England to an electrician father and a hairdresser mother, Loach had ideas of going for law (but also having the itch to act) as a youth, even after being part of the Royal Air Force. He did so at Oxford University, where the itch to act grew into the realization to have a future in the theatre, complete with being a part of the "Experimental Theatre Club". Eventually, he made his way to directing for BBC Television, which involved a handful of plays for The Wednesday Play such as "Up the Junction" and Cathy Come Home" (each featuring Cathy White as the lead) is likely the most noted of those works. He had been inspired by his favorites of that time in the Czech New Wave and Italian Neorealism when it came to shaping his work, when it came to "people are just being, not performing" (that aforementioned play had a great deal of improvised scenes, such as the ending with select members of the public, for example). The film that became his first as a feature director was based on the novel of the same name by Nell Dunn (who had written the "Up the Junction" book and subsequent TV adaptation; she noted enjoying the lead character of this film years later). Loach and Dunn collaborated on the screenplay for the film. Loach's enjoyment of filming the previous play with White made it pretty easy to have her in the lead role for this film, which had a good deal of improvisation for filming (complete with using a handful of one takes). The film was a general hit, but his next effort with Kes in 1969 became his hallmark feature in a career that had highs and lows (distribution or not) in films and the occasional documentary that generally involved issues near and dear to him and his socialist leanings.

For the most part, this works out to a mostly solid trip with the drippings of social realism and lyrical nature that goes through the long and winding road of 101 minutes in the realm of wavering decisions made by people left to fend for themselves in a changing world. It strums along with occasional music from Donovan for that type of empathy that can only come from folks who know it is better to let the ride go through all the paths required for a decent experience that makes some irreverent observations. It is like a melody of malaise that is both time capsule and sticking point of the now for what works out most of the time in that one particular target of spinning drama, with White (who with performances such as this had a brief run in building a star) in the middle of it. One can only handle so much as a person that can only go where they can go as a woman on the lower rungs of the has-beens and never-weres (if she is the "poor cow", imagine the term one goes with for men that might as well be on the farm). She handles this wandering pursuit of things and other associated items (such as say, a growing child or drifting tastes for how other men feel) in that sense of passiveness and illusions, where the only idea of happiness comes with that spontaneous and confused whirlwind chemistry with Stamp (who isn't as nearly involved in the latter parts of the film by design). I particularly like that scene in bold faced realities where he is sharing snippets of a robbery job that he tried doing only to reveal just how deluded it got (a beating rather than a skirmish). By default, they are the most interesting presences, because life only gives you one or two people that perhaps might spring interest in the odd lives teetering in squalor, whether that involves the pathetic in enablers or abusers. It is a mess of a movie by design, which will result in varied interest from those who end up viewing it, for better or worse. At any rate, it was a useful first start for a career director in Loach who continued to strive for further films in his own way of naturalism and messaging that comes and goes to those who know where to look.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
Next up: Gary Ross and The Hunger Games

Get Smart.

Review #1593: Get Smart.

Cast: 

Steve Carell (Maxwell Smart), Anne Hathaway (Agent 99), Dwayne Johnson (Agent 23), Alan Arkin (The Chief), Terence Stamp (Siegfried), Masi Oka (Bruce), Nate Torrence (Lloyd), Dalip Singh (Dalip), Ken Davitian (Shtarker), Terry Crews (Agent 91), David Koechner (Larabee), James Caan (The President), David S. Lee (Ladislas Krstic), Bill Murray (Agent 13), and Patrick Warburton (Hymie) Directed by Peter Segal (#466 - Nutty Professor II: The Klumps, #826 - Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult, and #1066: - The Longest Yard (2005))

Review:

If there is anything that the last few years have taught me, it is the value of finding television series from the past to look upon from start to finish and enjoy in all of its values, whether that means comedy or something else. Get Smart (created by Mel Brooks and Buck Henry) ran for five seasons from 1965 to 1970, with Brooks having a desire to create a "crazy, unreal, comic-strip king of thing about something besides a family", alongside the fact that the late 1960s had a boom in spy shows (with programs such as The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and The Avengers). It featured Don Adams as the main star, who was mostly known for his nightclub and television work prior to playing the role that made him an TV icon in Maxwell Smart. Barbara Feldon and Edward Platt co-starred in the show to the benefit of numerous humorous exchanges. 

The funny thing is that they already made a film adaptation of Get Smart, with The Nude Bomb (1980, having only Adams). It did not succeed well with anyone. A TV revival film and a short-lived revival series followed in the next few years, both having Adams and Feldon star among others (the revival had Andy Dick as a star - it did not succeed well with anyone). And yet, here we are, having to rely on the director that gave us the worst Naked Gun film. Sure, Peter Segal isn't a terrible director, in the same way that if you cloned ten of him you may end up with one possible movie of theirs that will actually be really interesting to view for laughs. This is not that time. Perhaps it is a coincidence that the film seems tedious by the first 25 minutes, because you could simply use that time to watch one Get Smart episode instead. Sure, the show did have its moments that don't quite age well (there are quite a few stereotypes present at certain episodes), but generally there was plenty to enjoy when it came to the bumbling efficiency portrayed by Adams that went with the clever clear-cut Feldon and the long-suffering Platt. What we have here is a joke of itself, mediocre in every which way with all of its obvious jokes that goes to show how much a modern comedy really can make you question the validity of time itself when it is 110 minutes long. The movie may not have a laugh track like the show, but it sure seems to play way too much for obvious moments way too much, and it manages to be excruciating in its attempt at mixing action and humor, making what was generally a comic spy show into an action spy comedy - for heaven's sake, the Austin Powers series wasn't even this bumbling in its stupidity. Incidentally, both feature at least one joke involving a fat suit - get it, because Max was fat, but now he isn't, truly the bastion of originality when it comes to updating old material to the modern age...if you are 12 years old. But hey, how many directors featured on Movie Night have had four consecutive stinkers featured?

By this point in time, perhaps Carell seemed like the exact choice for a bumbling lead, as he had managed to do well with The Office since its premiere on television in 2005 - at least when the show actually utilized him for worthwhile moments of humor as opposed to dumb gags. Little Miss Sunshine (2006) only furthered that curiosity. Here, he just seems mired in a lame situational role, where gags involving him seem to be easy to call out a few seconds before they actually happen. He seems trapped here, sorely missing that certain brazen charm that Adams had brought to the role that means more than just saying a line from before and hoping it sticks (having him be a bumbling rookie rather than just an established bumbler also doesn't gel). In other words, saying "would you believe..." is only really funny when the right timing comes along with it. The same goes for Hathaway, who only succeeds in making one realize just how Feldon did so well with silky smooth confidence that played really well with Adams on the show. Here, it is liking watching two actors engage in "Baby's First Action Comedy", one where you could almost replace one of them with a wax dummy and probably not notice half the time. She seems to deserve better here, because one doesn't find anything here to really find funny besides the occasional eye glance. It is all cliché with no fiber behind it. Johnson is okay, in the sense that if the film needs something with self-assured charm that he can deliver it, but anything else is too murky for him (the same can be said for anyone really, but I digress). Arkin does lend a laugh or so with an otherwise middle-ground imitation of what was done before, which is also reflected with Stamp (who isn't exactly trying to impersonate Bernie Kopell). Oka and Torrence supposedly are meant to be an amusing duo as side characters, but watching my cat mess around with cords is more amusing to take note of. At least Singh has it easy, since he doesn't talk much. Actually, the one real sticking point I can use to point out the contrast in TV and film is in Koechner, who while seeming like a decent comic presence in other films is sorely the wrong one to make comic antics come across with what the show brought to spies - it wasn't high brow stuff, but it surely had more to do with quirky joy than the pale action tones with sprinkles of jokes present here.

There were quite a few silly scenarios present in the show, why don't we recall some of them: One involved protecting a prince that needs to stay fat to still be prince, and there were countless ones involving smuggling (such as through dolls, circuses, and parrots). Here, writers Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember have merely caught a shell of what was done before, winking too much at itself with attempts at humor while its obvious attempts at capturing action feel flat. Would you believe...that there was an intent to make a sequel? Would you believe...that Carell wrote his own script for it? Would you believe...nobody really had interest to do a sequel? The answer to all these questions is a yes, with my condescension landing especially hard on the latter question, because this was a tiresome sit to really do. One could be generous when it comes to its attempt of comedy and action, but in the end it all comes down to preference with adaptation and the overall success rate of actually making a worthwhile successor to what was done before. In this case, there is no ray of hope in the proverbial sunshine to be found here, with a film that is a mundane malfunctioning modern-day mediocrity in of itself. You might say they missed it by that much - in this case, by a mile.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Legal Eagles.

Review #1278: Legal Eagles.

Cast: 
Robert Redford (Tom Logan), Debra Winger (Laura Kelly), Daryl Hannah (Chelsea Deardon), Brian Dennehy (Cavanaugh/Joe Brock), Terence Stamp (Victor Taft), Steven Hill (Bower), Christine Baranski (Carol Freeman), Roscoe Lee Browne (Judge Dawkins), David Clennon (Blanchard), John McMartin (Forrester), Robert Curtis Brown (Roger), Grant Heslov (Usher), Sara Botsford (Barbara), and Jennifer Dundas (Jennifer Logan) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters, #031 - Ghostbusters II, #243 - Stripes, and #487 - Twins)

Review: 
It doesn't take too much time to think that this film could seem interesting. The original idea was to make a buddy film involving Bill Murray and Dustin Hoffman, but when those plans fell apart, Redford expressed interest in doing a romantic comedy, which inspired changes to a dynamic reminiscent of Katherine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy films. The screenplay and story were done by Jim Cash and Jack Epps, Jr, with Reitman contributing to the latter. In a sense, this film is a romance. Of course it also happens to have a sense of comedy, thriller, and courtroom drama packed into its two hour duration, which turns out to be a most unwieldy combination. It certainly seems too packed in to really make the impact it wants to make, which results in a thoroughly average film. It complicates itself too much without really getting a feel for the simple things that can make a film tick: just having fun. One instead sees something that is bound to certain excesses (namely its budget of $40 million) and not working as great whenever it tries shifting gears between rom-com and thriller. There either seems to be too many characters or not enough that actually seems worthy enough to invest in. At least the performances are fine to watch, with Redford and Winder coming out the best, since they at least seem like they are having some sort of chemistry together, whether when trapped in buddy scenarios like an exploding warehouse or some other odd scenario, like Redford and his character that likes to tap dance when unable to sleep (gee, where do you think they'll go with that quirk). Hannah and her performance artist-turned-accused robber/murderer does okay, giving off a laugh or two, but she seems stretched pretty thin in actually making her presence really count, odd but harmless. When she actually does try to romance Redford and his character, I'm just twiddling my thumbs more than anything. Dennehy does just fine, snide yet worth seeing. The other members of the cast don't have as much to really do, seemingly there just to fill time and plot, which is a shame. How does one make a buddy movie with lawyers seem so awkward? One cannot help but wonder if this film needed more or less re-working to really hit its mark (it most certainly needed a trimming down). Actually, there exists an alternate version in which Hannah's character is found to be guilty of one of the murders. I guess that could've proved interesting, though I wonder if that version had more focus. The film just comes and goes, whether in the courtroom or somewhere else. At least one might get some sort of enjoyment over spectacle for the film, what with a climax involving a burning building and all, but its setup doesn't really leave much to give investment over. Their fates never seem to be hanging too much in the balance, and guessing who the real culprit is gets to be pretty easy when the others start dying off. It just seems like a movie too safe to either be really funny or usefully dramatic, trying to get its hand in many genre jars and getting only crumbs in return. It's a bland movie, but at least one could probably come out of it without groaning too much for two hours. I can't call it a winner, but it could probably work as a lark if faced with nothing else to do.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Bowfinger.

Review #795: Bowfinger.

Cast
Steve Martin (Robert K. Bowfinger), Eddie Murphy (Kit Ramsey / Jiffrenson "Jiff" Ramsey), Heather Graham (Daisy), Christine Baranski (Carol), Terence Stamp (Terry Stricter), Robert Downey, Jr. (Jerry Renfro), Jamie Kennedy (Dave), Adam Alexi-Malle (Afrim), and Kohl Sudduth (Slater) Directed by Frank Oz (#521 - The Muppets Take Manhattan)

Review
Ooh look, another survivor from the Blockbuster vault. Anyway...

Movies about making movies are interesting to watch with regards to watching the craft try to make something out of nothing, which also describes Bowfinger really well. Martin (who also wrote the script) does a wonderful job playing this desperate producer who clearly has a vision to make films but has neither the talent (nor luck) to do it. Murphy does a fine job in a double role, playing each person brilliantly enough that they stand out equally, and it is fun to see him play around with a character as paranoid as Ramsey is. Graham also excels with her charm and enthusiasm, with the rest of the cast also doing a fine job making these interesting characters stand out. Bowfinger is a movie that doesn't take a vicious stab at the Hollywood system, but it sure does rib at it enough with a good amount of fun and with good timing with regards to the lines. The antics of trying to film the movie (including a scene on a freeway) are excellent to watch, and you really get a good feel for these people in their attempts at making a movie. Bowfinger manages to wrap itself nicely in 97 minutes while balancing all of these wonderfully weird characters together to make for an entertaining look into making a film (in the non-conventional sense).

Countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Superman II.

Review #785: Superman II.

Cast
Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent / Superman), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Terence Stamp (General Zod), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Sarah Douglas (Ursa), Jack O'Halloran (Non), Ned Beatty (Otis), Valerie Perrine (Eve Teschmacher), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Susannah York (Lara), Clifton James (Sheriff), and E.G. Marshall (The President) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night and #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum)

Review
If you're interested in the review, skip this paragraph, as it does not pertain to the review, merely serving as a little bit of background...

If you remember my review from two years ago of the original Superman movie (#547), I had said that it was a fine epic that succeeded in nearly every way possible, with the most important being that it was entertaining. Naturally, the movie was a success, and Superman II (which had been filmed simultaneously with the first film) would soon follow...but not with Richard Donner, who was "replaced" from the film by the Salkinds producers a few months after the first film's release. Richard Lester was tasked to finish the film. The dispute over what footage of the movie is Donner's and so on continued for years, with a "Richard Donner Cut" made in 2006 that tried to restore (as much as possible) footage that Donner had shot, though he was not involved with that cut.

With all that in mind, Superman II still manages to be a decent sequel. While it isn't up to the same craft as the first film, Superman II is as least entertaining enough to work. The movie has elements of humor that veer into slapstick (no doubt added by Lester), which admittedly gets in the way of enjoying my favorite part of the movie: The climatic fight with Superman and Zod, Ursa & Non. While it is a good fight that takes up the last 30 (or so) minutes of the movie, it is marred by random aspects. One example is Superman throwing his emblem shield at Non, which mystifies me on the level of practicality. Reeve and Kidder do have good chemistry together once again, and the romance is at least watchable, even despite the fact that Superman can just erase memories with a kiss (if he chooses to, I suppose), which makes for a peculiar (if not extremely inevitable) reset. The movie takes time to get going in the sense that it is more fun with Zod and the others around. The effects, while a bit peculiar at times, fit the movie well enough. Stamp certainly makes for a standout villain in the sense that there finally is a villain who can match to the physical strength of Superman, alongside the fact that Stamp is entertaining to watch, especially when asking someone to kneel. I wish that the idea of Superman taking his powers away in favor of being with Lois could have been more than just a five minute blip that just passes through and is nearly forgotten, right up to the end, anyway. I do find it interesting that at the end of the movie, Superman beats up a trucker (the one who had beaten him up while he was temporarily human), because...I guess Superman really felt that he needed to get some sort of retribution. Superman II is a sequel that has its bogging flaws, but it shines just enough with charm and a little bit of magic to work.

As for the sequel...next time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Haunted Mansion.

Review #746: The Haunted Mansion.

Cast
Eddie Murphy (Jim Evers), Terence Stamp (Ramsley), Nathaniel Parker (Master Edward Gracey), Marsha Thomason (Sara Evers/Elizabeth Henshaw), Jennifer Tilly (Madame Leota), Wallace Shawn (Ezra), Dina Waters (Emma), Marc John Jefferies (Michael Evers), and Aree Davis (Megan Evers) Directed by Rob Minkoff (#073 - The Lion King)

Review
Yep, I knew I would get to this one eventually. Not because I actually was interested in the movie, but because I figured that I'd have to dust this off my shelf and actually watch this for the first time in years. After watching it again, I have no reason to ever touch it, unless my shelf mysteriously burns down and this is the only surviving object. If you want a movie with Eddie Murphy, look elsewhere. If you want a movie with Terence Stamp, look elsewhere. If you want a movie that's funny, look elsewhere. If you want a movie that has some scares and thrills, look elsewhere. If you want- you get the idea. The main problem is that the movie doesn't fit for anyone looking for entertainment in either comedy or horror or even fantasy, because it doesn't leave any lasting impressions. I wish the movie had focused more on the ghosts such as Gracey and his relationship with Henshaw, because most of what you get to know about it (like Ramsley interfering with the impending marriage and the aftermath) only seems to pop up after the movie has already played itself out and used up its effects. Why did Ramsely not approve of the marriage? Who was Elizabeth, because we hear her mentioned, but we never really see her as much. Instead, we get a story that's about as standard as one can get, with a workaholic character, an evil butler, and so on. At least the acting isn't bad, though I do wonder what interested Terence Stamp, who hams it up a bit, especially at the end. The movie is neither funny or scary, but it's not beyond awful. The makeup effects by Rick Baker do look well, and the movie at least runs short at around 88 minutes, which means one will probably forget the movie after about an hour. I had not realized that this was based off an attraction used at Disney theme parks. Looking back, I wonder how the attraction is compared to this.

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

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Superman (1978).

Review #547: Superman.

Cast
Marlon Brando (Jor-El), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent/Superman), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Ned Beatty (Otis), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Glenn Ford (Jonathan Kent), Valerie Perrine (Eve Teschmacher), Phyllis Thaxter (Martha Kent), Trevor Howard (First Elder), Maria Schell (Vond-Ah), and Terence Stamp (General Zod) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, and #356 - Lethal Weapon 2)

Review
Of all the comic book movies I've done on this...show, I suppose, the one glaring omission has been the Superman franchise. Superman was the first major superhero feature movie made (Side note here: There had been three serials made before this movie, such as Superman (1948), Atom Man vs. Superman (1950), and Superman and the Mole Men (1951), along with animated shorts made by Fleischer Studios, a radio and television series), and the movie's success would lead to more superhero films. But anyway, how is the film itself? Let's start with the actors. Brando does well for the small amount of time he has, and his speech to his newborn son is effective, but also powerful. Hackman is a decent villain, he does pair well with Beatty, who isn't half bad in a supporting role. Christopher Reeve is just perfect in both roles, managing to act well enough to make these two personalities stand out effectively. Kidder is good, she pairs off well with Reeve, and the scene where Superman takes Lane on a flight is a really good scene that only shows the emotion the movie has. The movie has excellent effects and manages to tell a good story with only a few bumps along the way. The ending either makes Superman's character fully defined...or a cop out that is actually more confusing in how it works then infuriating. I think it's more of both, it defines that Clark/Superman is here for a reason, a point mentioned by Kent's adoptive father, in contrast to Jor-El's warning about changing history. Superman finds his destiny, and it does make sense, though the time traveling part boggles my mind. Endings aside, the movie is a fine epic that succeeds in nearly everyway possible.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Wall Street.

Review #095: Wall Street.

Cast
Michael Douglas (Gordon Gekko), Charlie Sheen (Bud Fox), Daryl Hannah (Darien Taylor), Martin Sheen (Carl Fox), John C. McGinley (Marvin), Terence Stamp (Sir Larry Wildman), James Karen (Harry Lynch), Hal Holbrook (Lou Mannheim), Sean Young (Kate Gekko), and James Spader (Roger Barnes) Directed by Oliver Stone.

Review
This film is a classic, pure and simple. Sheen and Douglas play each other off so well, with Douglas being the main man here, doing an excellent job, especially with his "Greed is good" Stone mixes so many things from different periods of time to get them all matched into respective characters. The one single flaw is Daryl Hannah. I don't know why, but her acting here is...Dull. I know she plays basically a lackey to Gekko, but couldn't they at least make her do a better job at it? The film is excellent in value that makes you interested and a little bit smarter at the end. We are close to 100 Reviews. Countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.