Movie Night: The Replacements.

Review #370: The Replacements.

Cast
Keanu Reeves (Shane Falco), Gene Hackman (Jimmy McGinty), Brooke Langton (Annabelle Farrell), Jon Favreau (Daniel Bateman), Rhys Ifans (Nigel Gruff), Orlando Jones (Clifford Franklin), Brett Cullen (Eddie Martel), Faizon Love (Jamal Jackson), Michael Taliferro (Andre Jackson), Jack Warden (Edward O'Neil), and Ace Yonamine (Jumbo) Directed by Howard Deutch.

Review
This is at heart...an epitome of generic sports movie. This is a movie filled with sports cliche on top of more sports cliches. In fact, you could count the amount of cliches and play Cliche Bingo. What is Cliche Bingo? Think of the cliches that make up sports movies, such as:

The washed up player who is trying to redeem himself.
The grumpy coach.
The romance subplot between a player and cheerleader/person.
The crazy owner.

The big man.
The crazy guy who has a lot of power.
A speech about needing heart/determination/the guts to win.
Playing a strong team and being the underdogs yet somehow winning.

The antagonist who could also be one of their own.
The comic relief character.
Being down at halftime/near the end of the game.
Dramatically diving/slding/slapshooting/moving by a player.

I realize that's only 12 and you would need 12 more to make an actual bingo card, but let me tell you a secret: You can find the rest if you look hard enough. The acting is decent enough, though I do wonder what exactly motivated Hackman to do this movie. I know what you're thinking is the reason, which might be the reason for Welcome to Mooseport, but that's neither here or there. The football action is at least watchable, the movie's not horrible, it's just a typical sports movie that is sickeningly sweet to the point where by the end of it you just want to watch actual football, at least that isn't acted out. Most of the time.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: House on Haunted Hill (1959).

Review #369: House on Haunted Hill.

Cast
Vincent Price (Frederick Loren), Carol Ohmart (Annabelle Loren), Richard Long (Lance Schroeder), Alan Marshal (Dr. David Trent), Carolyn Craig (Nora Manning), Elisha Cook Jr. (Watson Pritchard), Julie Mitchum (Ruth Bridgers), Leona Anderson (Mrs. Slydes), and Howard Hoffman (Jonas) Directed by William Castle.

Review
In a way this was the longest time ever spent on a film. Why so? See, I began watching the film last Tuesday before being cut off due a neighbor's fire, which postponed the review until I got enough time to watch this ironically short length film which lasts about 70 minutes. So how was it? It was allright. It wasn't as silly I thought it could've been, and it does have its moments with even a twist at the end, which I didn't really expect honestly. And there's our main lead, Vincent Price, who has been reviewed here before in House of Wax and The Great Mouse Detective, and in this film he does pretty good, evoking the classical master of cool, overshadowing the rest of the cast and yet still making this a fine film to at least watch.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Little Shop of Horrors.

Review #368: The Little Shop of Horrors.

Cast
Jonathan Haze (Seymour Krelboyne), Jackie Joseph (Audrey Fulquard), Mel Welles (Gravis Mushnick), Dick Miller (Burson Fouch), Myrtle Vail (Winifred Krelboyne), Karyn Kupcinet (Shirley), Leola Wendorff (Siddie Shiva), Lynn Storey (Hortense Fishtwanger), Wally Campo (Joe Fink/Narrator), John Shaner (Dr. Phoebus Farb), Jack Nicholson (Wilbur Force), and Charles B. Griffith (Audrey Junior) Directed by Roger Corman.

Review
Not only is today Jack Nicholson's birthday, it is also the first review of a film directed by Roger Corman, who reportedly has directed over 50 films and produced 300...one of them being Sharktopus. But nevertheless, this is an early 60's film made in two days from sets used in another Roger Corman production that has inspired a musical and a remake. And...the film is good. Despite the title, it actually has a good amount of laughs, which make the horror scenes more contrasting, creating a good balance. And of course, Audrey Junior makes me giggle, and that may sound strange, given the amount of reviews here. Nicholson may have a small part, but it certainly is memorable. The acting is fine, and it has its good moments all throughout. The effects work well and the film flows well given the small, but fine length. Happy 76th birthday, Jack. Great way to celebrate Earth Day, huh?

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Julius Caesar (1970).

Review #367: Julius Caesar.

Cast
Charlton Heston (Mark Antony), Jason Robards (Brutus), John Gielgud (Julius Caesar), Richard Johnson (Cassius), Robert Vaughn (Casca), Richard Chamberlain (Octavius), Diana Rigg (Portia), Jill Bennett (Calpurnia), and Christopher Lee (Artemidorus) Directed by Stuart Burge.

Review
Well, well, I'm reviewing a movie based on a play by William Shakespeare, and it's been a while since I've done that (#103 - Romeo + Juliet, unless you count #229 - She's the Man, but even that was just a revised version), but there is the benefit of the star power, who've managed to be reviewed in films here, examples being: Planet of the Apes, Arthur, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, any of Christopher Lee's films, etc. (Seriously, this is the tenth time he has been listed, and he is listed here due to his small but significant part in the film.) But nevertheless, does that mean that there is a good film in all of that? In some ways yes, but in others, no. Heston does a good job, commandeering a relatively good performance, probably the best here. Gielgud does alright, even if his part is ironically small (It's not like his character is the title of the film or anything), but oh well, and Richard Johnson does a decent job, even if he is another example of having a beard equaling being evil. The supporting cast (Such as Rigg, Vaughn and even Lee) do okay, not having much time to act but adding on nicely. Then there's the acting performance that apparently some are split on, Jason Robards as our de facto lead. His performance has been called "flat" and "wooden", I prefer to use "miscast". He just looks a bit old for the part, given the grey hair, which even Johnson doesn't have. Besides that, the battle sequences are alright and the sets do look like there was effort put into it, but in the end not everything connects perfectly, despite the movie being a decent adaptation of the play. Take it for what its worth, which may or may not end with "Et tu, Brute?". Ironically, the only reason I watched this was due to my teacher selecting this to be shown to our English class.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Dude, Where's My Car?

Review #366: Dude, Where's My Car?

Cast
Ashton Kutcher (Jesse), Seann William Scott (Chester), Jennifer Garner (Wanda), Marla Sokoloff (Wilma), Kristy Swanson (Christie), David Herman (Nelson), and Hal Sparks (Zoltan) Directed by Danny Leiner.

Review
This movie feels like it was made on a whim, made with sub plots held together by a very loose string made (obviously) in the turn of the millennium, and because of that, this film is deeply rooted in the 2000's, nothing more, but is there any hope for this film? Maybe if you were really, really, really bored or needed 100 minutes to waste, sure. Kutcher and Scott are strangely a decent duo, only because they match in annoyance, oddly enough they remind me of a 2000's like version of Bill and Ted, which is either sickening or just sad. The jokes are hit and miss and sometimes annoying to the point where I just yell "Get to the point", which changed from a playful annoyance to an irritated yell which thankfully did not make me want to throw my hockey puck. The story is strung up easily but it feels like the jokes are the only thing making the movie last longer, which is what most would call "padding", which gets old. There's no point in judging the acting because there's not much point, but at least some comedies try to be a bit subtle, but oh well. The movie isn't "North" bad, it's around the level of "Happy Gilmore" level.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Jackie Robinson Story.

Review #365: The Jackie Robinson Story.

Cast
Jackie Robinson (Jackie Robinson), Ruby Dee (Rae Robinson), Minor Watson (Branch Rickey), Louise Beavers (Mallie Robinson), Richard Lane (Clay Hopper), and Harry Shannon (Frank Shaughnessy) Directed by Alfred E. Green.

Review
This is an unusual movie, not because it's a film about a baseball player, but the fact that the man that plays the main character based off real life events...is the same guy, starring himself. Basically in a nutshell, Jackie Robinson playing Jackie Robinson. But nevertheless, the film doesn't have any other odd quarks, it is sort of a footnote, released at the mid point of Jackie Robinson's career, and this was the first of a few films about him. The acting is decent, nothing too special. Robinson does okay for what is essentially just Robinson being Robinson. But at least the film has its moments and it at least for what it's worth tells a story. Robinson was the first African American to play in Major League Baseball since the 1880's, and he would be the first of many to come. The film is okay and short to the point at about 70 minutes. Take it for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: High Anxiety.

Review #364: High Anxiety.

Cast
Mel Brooks (Richard Thorndyke), Madeline Kahn (Victoria Brisbane), Ron Carey (Brophy), Cloris Leachman (Nurse Diesel), Harvey Korman (Dr. Montague), Howard Morris (Professor Lilloman), Albert Whitlock (Arthur Brisbane), and Rudy De Luca (Braces) Directed by Mel Brooks (#061 - Blazing Saddles, #198 - Spaceballs, #248 - Robin Hood: Men In Tights, #361 - The Producers)

Review
Mel Brooks keeps popping up here, and this is the fifth review reviewing a film directed by him (sixth with him, #087 - Robots), and the track record of his films are fine, ranging from a 7 to a 10, so could this keep the track record going? Yeah, pretty much. The film is a parody of suspense films by Alfred Hitchcock (most notably Vertigo), and the parody for the most part works out well. It doesn't shred Hitchcock (in fact, Hitchcock gave Brooks some wine after the film was released), it instead embraces it, and yet still has some good gags. Brooks is alright, not a bad lead. Kahn and Carey are okay, but what I find the best are Cloris Leachman and Harvey Korman, who do a fine job (being the villains, spoilers, but yeah.), and make this worthwhile. Admittedly some of the jokes don't hold up as well, but at least I had some fun while watching. Trust me when I say this, this won't be the last time a Mel Brooks film will be reviewed here. While this film isn't as good as say, Blazing Saddles or The Producers, it is at least a decent Mel Brooks film, and that's usually enough.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: North.

Review #363: North.

Cast
Elijah Wood (North), Jon Lovitz (Arthur Belt), Matthew McCurley (Winchell), Alan Arkin (Judge Buckle), Jason Alexander, Julie-Louis Dreyfus, Dan Aykroyd, Reba McEntire, John Ritter, Abe Vigoda, and Bruce Willis. Directed by Rob Reiner (#108 - This Is Spinal Tap, #180 - Stand by Me, #232 - The Princess Bride)

Review
It's sad, a cast that looks recognizable, and a director with a good record on the reviews all got together to make this. The only reason I know about this film is due to Roger Ebert and his review of the film, absolutely destroying this film. But does the film have ANY respectable thing going for it? Does it have anything that makes it any better than something like, say The Room? Well........No. Kind of expected, actually. But hey, it-No wait, it really can't be that worse. The film starts and ends...with Bruce Willis. Seriously, he pops up seven times, and not one of them makes any sense. Is he his guardian or does he really just pop up for no reason? It's sad that that this is my first review of Elijah Wood (Okay second counting 9, but first live action film.), and he actually does a decent job, not annoying. That goes to Matthew McCurley, who oddly enough reminds me of Macaulay Culkin, but he's actually worse, not having one degree of subtleness or even a smudge of actual character.  What's sadder for me is that Rob Reiner directed this, a director who's last three films reviewed here got scores of 8, 9, and 10 respectively, and he churns out a painfully unfunny film. I wondered who they made this for, who would possibly like this. Kids? Maybe, but then they would grow older and hate this film and tell others to stay away. I figured this would be easy to watch, given it's scant 88 minute run time. I was wrong. While the film does boast showing locations from Alaska to...South Dakota, it practically has a checklist of what things to make "fun" of, none of them working. What's even stranger is that this was based off a novel named "North: The Tale of a 9-Year-Old Boy Who Becomes a Free Agent and Travels the World in Search of the Perfect Parents" by Alan Zweibel, and this film was even co-produced and screenwriten by the author. Clearly, this isn't a case of "Bad novel adaptation", this is a rare case of "Bad movie coming from possible bad novel", which is extremely rare. Clearly this film was made for the sole purpose of having exotic film locations to film in more for vacationing than actual good movie making. But to close this review, I will let a definite judgement of the film come from someone else more experienced for over 45 years sum it up: "I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. I hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it." Roger Ebert, everyone.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Rest in Peace - Roger Ebert.

    There was a time when people watched two crtics talk about movies, not on paper, but on television, and it originally had Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert as the two critics. After Siskel's death, Richard Roeper would replace him, but the main defining force was Roger Ebert. He reviewed films for over 45 years, and he was the first critic I ever watched on TV, and probably the first for other people as well.

Roger Ebert once said that "Being a film critic mean finding someone who's willing to pay you to do what you love."

In his last words on his blog, he said: "So on this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies."

Truly he was a great man, and from a reviewer to another reviewer, my thoughts are with him and his loved ones.

Roger Ebert: 1942-2013.

Movie Night: Mac and Me.

Review #362: Mac and Me.

Cast
Jade Calegory (Eric), Christine Ebersole (Janet), Jonathan Ward (Michael), Katrina Caspary (Courtney), MAC (MAC), Squire Fridell, and Ronald McDonald. Directed by Stewart Raffill.

Review
It just so happens this is nearly 25 years old, but hey, who's counting? Anyway, this was made for the sole purpose of...entertainment. Yeah, nothing else, nothing at all, and with a "purpose" like that, even Ronald McDonald decided to star, for the "honor", I suppose. I think this is actually my first review with a lead actor who uses a wheelchair, and he does a fine job, not really a bad actor, not memorable, but not annoying. Then there's our alien, named MAC, which stands for "Mysterious Alien Creature". What, it sound repetive and oddly familiar to some other alien with letters that form an acronym? Never noticed. The plot is essentially an alien who crashes down to the planet, getting into hilarious hijinks, and of course he is discovered by the kids, and even though we (the audience) know he exists, we must go through sequences where the parents don't believe the kids, until finally, they do. Oh and, let's not forget the scientists who try to capture the alien, even though they cause more damage, almost eliminating the purpose of the scientists. Almost, because clearly they aren't a cliche, nope, not at all. Oh, and there's a dance sequence at McDonalds, and it totally works into a plot like this. And naturally, everything works out well, because this was the 80's, so, yeah. What a happy film.

Overall I give it "10" out of 10 stars...


...APRIL FOOLS! (actual rating: 5)

Movie Night: The Producers (1968).

Review #361: The Producers.

Cast
Zero Mostel (Max Bialystock), Gene Wilder (Leo Bloom), Dick Shawn (Lorenzo St. DuBois), Kenneth Mars (Franz Liebkind), Lee Meredith (Ulla), Estelle Winwood, Christopher Hewett (Roger De Bris), and Andreas Voutsinas (Carmen Ghia) Directed by Mel Brooks (#061 - Blazing Saddles, #198 - Spaceballs and #248 - Robin Hood: Men In Tights)

Review
On March 18, 1968, a film was released, named The Producers, the first film directed by Mel Brooks, who I've reviewed before along with Zero Mostel (#300 - Watership Down) and Gene Wilder (Blazing Saddles and #131 - Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory), so this already has a familiarity for me. But the real question is this a good film? You bet your Springtime it is. The comedy is a riot, especially with the main two leads. Wilder has an impenetrable charm that combines with the manic energy of Mostel, which combines together with the rest of the cast and their lunacy. The plot is simple, yet actually creative, in an odd way. In a way, it's like if a producer wanted to remake Manos: The Hands of Fate with Tommy Wiseau directing in 3D, but...better? Anyway...What I like about the film is that it has a lot of spirit, it feels like something great, managing to have a lot of gags that aren't over the top, more toned down, something that isn't seen much now. After 45 years, this is a really good film, and if you can find the film (about 90 minutes), give it a watch, you won't regret it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Octopussy.

Review #360: Octopussy.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Maud Adams (Octopussy), Louis Jourdan (Kamal Khan), Steven Berkoff (General Orlov), Kabir Bedi (Gobinda), Kristina Wayborn (Magda), Vijay Amritraj (Vijay), David Meyer (Mischka), Anthony Meyer (Grischka), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Robert Brown (M), Geoffrey Keen (Fredrick Gray), Walter Gotell (General Gogol), Douglas Wilmer (Jim Fanning), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights, #290 - Licence to Kill, #296 - A View to a Kill, #358 - For Your Eyes Only)

Review
This was the 13th James Bond film, and Roger Moore's 6th overall. This is the last review of Roger Moore as James Bond, and his era (of 12 years) had its good films (The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only), its strangeness (Live and Let Die, Moonraker, A View to a Kill), and... well...(The Man with the Golden Gun)...yeah. But is this any good? Well...Let's get to the point. Moore does a fine job as usual, nothing really to pick at for acting per say. Maud Adams is our lady in the Bond franchise...again. She was in TMWTGG, a secondary leading lady, now she is the main lead. And she is okay, not really a great leading lady, but take her acting for what it's worth. Jourdan plays our...villain. He's kinda forgettable and his henchmen is sadly forgettable. The only memorable guy with a weapon is...the guy with a saw yo-yo. Seriously. Llewelyn gets a slightly bigger role and he is enjoyable, like usual. Robert Brown as the new M is alright, not as well as Bernard Lee, but still alright. He would be M for the next three films. The rest of the cast (Keen, Gotell, and Maxwell) do good as always. Of course the film seems like a good film, and it does have its moments, but it all bogs down due to a flaw: the plot. Maybe it's just me, but I really wonder what the plot was about exactly, something about smuggling, or about...Bond briefly as a clown? Yeah, it's a bit weird. Is it odd? Yes. Does it have moments of watchability? Sure. Is it that bad? Not really. It is alright, but take it for what's it worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Leprechaun.

Review #359: Leprechaun.

Cast
Warwick Davis (Leprechaun), Jennifer Aniston (Tory), Ken Olandt (Nathan), Mark Holton (Ozzie), Robert Hy Gorman (Alex Murphy), David Permenter (Deputy Tripet), William Newman (Sheriff Roy Cronin), and Shay Duffin (Daniel O'Grady) Directed by Mark Jones

Review
Ah yes, what better way to celebrate St. Patrick's Day than with a Leprechaun. Doesn't that sound fun? No? Then I wouldn't watch this film either. The main figment of the film is, well the leprechaun, played by former Ewok, Warwick Davis. And that is why the film fails as well. He really isn't that scary, maybe it's the purple pants or the fact that...it's a leprechaun, trying to eliminate people with a pogo stick, or...having his getaway vehicle being a tricycle and a go kart. Also, what is he going to do with the coins if he got them all? Actually, this film is a perfect checklist of horror films. It has a few characters, in a secluded place, where one stalks them (being something unpredictable), the phone goes out, the car never starts when needed, the comedy relief that either manages to escape or not, and a mediocre run time of 90 minutes. Is the acting good? Ha ha, no. Its acting is average, not really anything useful. And yes, this is an example of an actor having their debut in horror films. Why, I don't know. Is it any good? Are leprechauns scary? I think we both know the answer. Happy St. Patrick's Day I suppose.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: For Your Eyes Only.

Review #358: For Your Eyes Only.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Carole Bouquet (Melina Havelock), Julian Glover (Aristotle Kristatos), Chaim Topol (Milos Columbo), Lynn-Holly Johnson (Bibi Dahl), Michael Gothard (Emile Locque), Cassandra Harris (Lisl von Schlaf), John Wyman (Erich Kriegler), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Jill Bennett (Jacoba Brink), Jack Hedley (Timothy Havelock), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), Geoffrey Keen (Fredrick Gray), James Villiers (Bill Tanner), John Moreno (Luigi Ferrara), Walter Gotell (General Gogol), and Robert Rietti (Blofeld) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights, #290 - Licence to Kill, and #296 - A View to a Kill)

Review
This is the 12th Bond film and the fifth with Roger Moore. While Moonraker was indeed a success, the next film intended to be more serious, more down to earth. Does it work is the main question. And...it sort of works. Moore even at 52 still does a pretty good job. He still has his quips and an odd charm that only Moore can pull off as Bond. The leading lady is Carole Bouquet, and she does an alright job, not great but not bad. Then there's our villain, played by Julian Glover. I do admire the approach the writers went with for the character (which I won't spoil), but overall he isn't really villainous enough. I feel he doesn't really steal the show or even try to eliminate Bond like some would do (which is likely the point, considering some of the previous adversaries Bond has faced - Jaws being an easy example). Even dropping him into a pool of sharks would be better than "dragging him" in the water. Glover's scheme is not entirely bad though. The rest of the cast is alright, Chaim Topol (last seen in #215 - Flash Gordon) is good, and cast regulars like Desmond Llewelyn and Lois Maxwell do their usual best. It might be useful to note that Bernard Lee (and M) are absent from this film, but that is due to Lee dying before this film went into production, and M was left absent out of respect. The film doesn't exactly sputter, it kinda chugs and chugs a bit slowly to the finish line, where something is missing, it feels like it needed something unknown to make this a bit better, though it still is a fine experience; obviously this is an improvement over Moonraker. It has its moments (such as the scene at the beginning with Blofeld which sadly is better than the Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever), and director John Glen shows why he would direct the next four films of the franchise, he has good action scenes and it works when it needs to. Take it for when it works.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Last Boy Scout.

Review #357: The Last Boy Scout.

Cast
Bruce Willis (Joe Hallenbeck), Damon Wayans (James Dix), Noble Willingham (Sheldon Marcone), Taylor Negron (Milo), Danielle Harris (Darian Hallenbeck), Halle Berry (Cory), Chelsea Field (Sarah Hallenbeck), and Bruce McGill (Mike Matthews) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun and #253 - Unstoppable)

Review
This film is like a checklist for action films in some senses. Longtime action star? Check. Second cast member who helps out the first action star? Check. 80s-90s feel? Check. Writer of a previous action film? Check. Director of previous action films? Check. But the last question is: Is it any good? Ehhh...sure. Willis tries his best given the limited range for this character, but I'll certainly say he does better than he did in Hudson Hawk. Wayans does okay, nothing really that special. The rest of the cast is okay, either being over the top or just okay.The action isn't all that bad, it has its moments. The film reminds me of Lethal Weapon, with its small bits of comedy and action sequences, both sharing the same writer, Shane Black, who coincidentally is directing Iron Man 3. It has its moments despite not really being any different from other action films, but it isn't that bad.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lethal Weapon 2.

Review #356: Lethal Weapon 2.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Joe Pesci (Leo Getz), Joss Ackland (Arjen Rudd), Derrick O'Connor (Pieter Vorstedt), Patsy Kensit (Rika Van Den Haas), Darlene Love (Trish Murtaugh), Traci Wolfe (Rianne Murtaugh), Steve Kahan (Captain Murphy), Mark Rolston (Hans), and Jenette Goldstein (Meagan Shapiro) Directed by Richard Donner.

Review
Lethal Weapon 2 is a film that in the end manages to hold up to the first one in many ways, with twists of its own. To begin with, Gibson and Glover do well, but the twist to this is the addition of Joe Pesci (part of the "Sequel-Character" Rule, where a film's sequel has added a new character to affect or help out in the story.), who..does a fine job. Maybe it's because I can handle his aspects of acting in the film better than Chris Tucker in Rush Hour. Come to think of it, this is more entertaining than the Rush Hour films, with a better to story to boot. This story is allright, weaving the good parts of the first with unusually more comedy aspects that make this an entertaining flick that keeps the magic of the first film alive.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lethal Weapon.

Review #355: Lethal Weapon.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Gary Busey (Mr. Joshua), Mitchell Ryan (Peter McAllister), Tom Atkins (Michael Hunsaker), Darlene Love (Trish Murtaugh), Jackie Swanson (Amanda Hunsaker), Traci Wolfe (Rianne Murtaugh), Damon Hines (Nick Murtaugh), and Ebonie Smith (Carrie Murtaugh) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged)

Review
This has a lot going for it, especially with the two main characters and the villain. Gibson and Glover work especially well, as a duo for some laughs and as a double team, which is magnified by the action. Oddly enough, Gary Busey does a fine job as...a villain. Last I reviewed him he was Buddy Holly, so its a bit of a change. But it works. The rest of the cast is good as well, keeping the pace going. The film manages to have some gags that do manage to not get in the way of the action. It's a strange, but good feeling. The story is fine, and the directing is effective. After all these years and some sequels, this hangs well, managing to live on and on. I'm not getting too old for this stuff...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: You Only Live Twice.

Review #354: You Only Live Twice.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Akiko Wakabayashi (Aki), Mie Hama (Kissy Suzuki), Donald Pleasence (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Tetsurō Tamba (Tiger Tanaka), Teru Shimada (Mr. Osato), Karin Dor (Helga Brandt), Bernard Lee (M), Charles Gray (Dikko Henderson), Burt Kwouk (Spectre 3), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), and Ronald Rich (Hans) Directed by Lewis Gilbert (#292 - The Spy Who Loved Me and #338 - Moonraker)

Review
This was the fifth James Bond film, two years after Thunderball, and Sean Connery's first "retirement" from the role. I already talked about Diamonds Are Forever and how it failed to give Connery a proper swan song. But is this film any better nonetheless? Sort of. Connery is improved from Thunderball, and the action and setting do indeed work compared to the last one, especially the scenery. The plot is strange-ish, I don't know what it is, maybe it's the rockets that get swallowed or something. It baffles me if that makes any sense. Then there's our leading ladies, which...are all right. Wakabayashi does a fine job, being memorable enough. Hama is okay; she's not a bad Bond girl, but she's also not entirely memorable. It is admirable that the film has some culture, with the setting being good for a Bond film. Then there's Donald Pleasence as Blofeld, a villain that had been built up in the previous films, where we see his face. And...it is creepy, but I don't know how you could've revealed him without someone being disappointed. He doesn't get much to do, but I suppose it makes sense, its about Bond, not the villain. Pleasence does okay, but I find myself to prefer Telly Savalas' portrayal in the next film. The film does have its merits, though it sets the beginnings for the silly aspects of the next few films (thankfully not with OHMSS), which may or may not be a good thing. This probably would've been a good end for Connery's Bond, but oh no, it wasn't. But oh well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Monsieur Verdoux.

Review #353: Monsieur Verdoux.

Cast
Charlie Chaplin (Henri Verdoux), Martha Raye (Annabella Bonheur), Isobel Elsom (Marie Grosnay), Margaret Hoffman (Lydia Floray), Marilyn Nash (The Girl), Barbara Slater (The Florist), Irving Bacon (Pierre Couvais), Edwin Mills (Jean Couvais), Virginia Brissac (Carlotta Couvais), Almira Sessions (Lena Couvais), Eula Morgan (Phoebe Couvais), and William Frawley (Jean La Salle) Directed by Charlie Chaplin.

Review
I thought it might've been a good idea to review a 40s film, especially for March 1st. And what do you know, it stars none other than Charlie Chaplin. Chaplin is a legend whose career spanned over four decades, directing, starring, writing, and composing his own films, and this film is one of them. A fun fact is that Orson Welles suggested the idea of the film. So how is the film is the actual question. And...it's real good. Its dark humor seems to hit a chord with me, and Chaplin manages get some laughs here and there. The writing works, it certainly feels fun and strangely it is kinda sad when it ends, because you kinda don't want it to end, it has a feel that grows on you after a while, where you keep watching for Chaplin and for the fun. That, and it is very well made.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Superceded by Redux Review: https://movienightcentral.blogspot.com/2023/06/redux-who-framed-roger-rabbit.html

 
Review #352: Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Cast
Bob Hoskins (Eddie Valiant), Charles Fleischer (Roger Rabbit, Benny the Cab, Psycho, Greasy), Christopher Lloyd (Judge Doom), Kathleen Turner (Jessica Rabbit), Joanna Cassidy (Dolores), Alan Tilvern (R. K. Maroon), Stubby Kaye (Marvin Acme), and Lou Hirsch (Baby Herman) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express)

Review
Well, well, what can I say. I've heard so much about this film and its new techniques it used all those years ago, directed by none other than Robert Zemeckis. While the Polar Express wasn't exactly great per se, it was okay. This film...is so much better. The animation works really well, especially when it interacts with the live action characters, obviously made with skill and care. The acting works too, especially from Bob Hoskins. I love the way he acts with Roger, managing to get a laugh from me even when he is so hard boiled. Fleischer does well, emulating a classic cartoon character, not too annoying, which is fine. He also voices other characters who are just as memorable. But Lloyd steals the show, with the scenes that he is in, then again, he always gave me a sense of enjoyment, which stays around here. The rest of the cast, including Turner, do respectable jobs, keeping the tone of the film intact. This is a charming film that manages to keep itself going, weaving a creative story along with making me laugh, being a highlight of animation all in all.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Schindler's List.

Review #351: Schindler's List.

Cast
Liam Neeson (Oskar Schindler), Ben Kingsley (Itzhak Stern), Ralph Fiennes (Amon Göth), Caroline Goodall (Emilie Schindler), Jonathan Sagall (Poldek Pfefferberg), Embeth Davidtz (Helen Hirsch), Małgorzata Gebel (Wiktoria Klonowska), Mark Ivanir (Marcel Goldberg), Beatrice Macola (Ingrid), Andrzej Seweryn (Julian Scherner), Friedrich von Thun (Rolf Czurda), and Jerzy Nowak (Investor) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull)

Review
This is a polarizing film. This is a film that blends into any time period, managing to have shock and horror, but not disgusting you to the point of leaving. It keeps you in, managing to work for all with Spielberg obviously wanting to do this project, and to do it right, and for good reason. Films usually don't always touch us, some are for entertainment, some are for art, some are for others, but this is for many, many people, as a tribute, which works to the film and to the people. It is a reminder, it is a sad tale, with the black and white working especially well. The acting is good, especially from Neeson, who manages to leave an impact on you. It's been twenty years since this film, and even so it still works very well. It is what most call a masterpiece.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Manos: The Hands of Fate.

Review #350: Manos: The Hands of Fate.

Cast
Harold P. Warren (Michael), Diane Mahree (Margaret), Jackie Neyman (Debbie), John Reynolds (Torgo), and Tom Neyman (The Master) Directed by Harold P. Warren.

Review
If I ever regret watching a film, this would be it, along with Birdemic. What can I say about a film that has nothing going for it? The facts about the film are immensely better then the film itself. It has really bad choppy edits, with a camera that can't film more then half a minute and the quality being a copy of a copy of the original work print (which was recently found in 2011), which gives the impression of being filmed through a drain. The fact that this managed to be filmed in color (Eastman as said by the...poster of the film) and not in black and white astonishes me.

This was made on a bet to see if Harold P. Warren (a insurance and fertilizer salesman) could make a film all by himself on the budget of a shoestring ($19,000), with amateur acting (including himself). You might think that because he did a majority of the film making process, the is the 60s equivalent of Tommy Wiseau. He is not for only one reason: Wiseau had a budget ($7 million), and he still had a bad (if not laughable) film. This is an incoherent mess, with dubbing for all the voices, being shot at night (they couldn't film at daytime because the actors has jobs) an attracting moths, without much light for scene, including one scene where two cops go "investigate" by going three steps away from the car, then give up (this due to the fact the lights didn't illuminate much, if at at all), which is immensely noticeable. The only person that looked like they had some talent is John Reynolds, as Torgo (also known as that guy with big springs in his legs), giving a slightly creepy performance, even if sometimes it is undermined by the dubber (The dubber apparently thought repeating lines made sense. Oh well. The dubber apparently thought repeating lines made sense.) The fun fact is that "Manos" translates to Hands, making this literally Hands: The Hands of Fate.

Believe it or not, but this film actually had a grand premiere, at a theater, with a searchlight and the whole cast (Except for Reynolds who had died earlier) there to see the grand failure. Warren said that if was dubbed differently, it could be me made into a comedy, which is correct. The film faded from the critical eye for nearly 30 years, fading from laughter until Mystery Science Theater 3000 riffed on it, giving this film some level of recognition, good or bad is debatable (for about 5 seconds), but nonetheless, this is one of those films that you can suffer through AND still comment on, either as jokes, or at yourself if you manage to watch it. If you need to waste an hour, you could watch it and have some sort of critique...or just watch the MST3K version. Either way. Wow, great idea for Review #350, hmm? It's like I make a copy of a review, badly saturated, and with the same line writing months ago. I lived through the film, and if you can live through the film, you should get a medal. But hey, 350 Reviews, at least that's something. Now then...

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Wings (1927).

 Review #349: Wings.

Cast
Charles Rogers (Jack Powell), Clara Bow (Mary Preston), Richard Arlen (David Armstrong), Gary Cooper (Cadet White), Jobyna Ralston (Sylvia Lewis), El Brendel (Herman Schwimpf), Richard Tucker (Air Commander), Gunboat Smith (Sergeant), and Roscoe Karns (Lieutenant Cameron) Directed by William A. Wellman.

Review
Wings is an unique film in some ways. It was the first film to win Best Picture (known as Outstanding Picture at the time) at the first Academy Awards, the only silent film to win the award, and it also includes aerial action from the yesteryear of 1927, over 85 years ago. But does this film still hold up? Yeah, pretty much. The actors do try to convey emotion, to convey message with expressions rather then voice (Obviously considering this is silent), which works decent. Clara Bow does a memorable job, though, having a certain zing which manages to make you interested in her character, which helps. The aerial action is understandably cool. It works really well, especially with the brief flash of color when the planes go down. The story isn't a whole lot, but the action and the relative enjoyment exceed overall. Is it great? Not precisely, but it is a fixture of importance in film and in history, which is more than enough. Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Poltergeist (1982).

Review #348: Poltergeist.

Cast
Craig T. Nelson (Steven Freeling), JoBeth Williams (Diane Freeling), Heather O'Rourke (Carol Freeling), Dominique Dunne (Dana Freeling), Oliver Robins (Robbie Freeling), Zelda Rubinstein (Tangina Barrons), Beatrice Straight (Dr. Lesh), Martin Casella (Marty), Richard Lawson (Ryan), James Karen (Mr. Teague) Directed by Tobe Hooper.

Review
When I think about it, there are some films I watch and have an expectation for, and with Steven Spielburg contributing to the story and screenplay and with Tobe Hooper directing, what could go wrong? The only thing that happen to be wrong was in my assumptions. The film frightfully exceeded my expectations and turns out to be one of the best film in the decade of the 1980s. The acting works very well, especially from Nelson and Williams, given that the pairing of them comes off strong, always keeping the tension going, along with O'Rourke. The best part though is the story and the effects. Oh boy, those effects. The story works well, and it even manages to pull a twist at the end. The effects do provide scares, especially in the middle and at the end as well. It's a film that provides all the perks of a classic with good atmosphere and chills to go with it. Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Planet of the Apes (1968).

Review #347: Planet of the Apes.

Cast
Charlton Heston (George Taylor), Roddy McDowall (Cornelius), Kim Hunter (Zira), Maurice Evans (Dr. Zaius), James Whitmore (Assembly President), James Daly (Honorious), Linda Harrison (Nova), and Robert Gunner (Landon) Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner.

Review
It figures that even though I happen to own the 2001 remake and the 2011 reboot Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the original, 1968 version is reviewed first. That or it was on, I suppose. And because Rod Serling wrote the screenplay along with having Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowall starring in their first times here, why the heck not, they can't pry this review from my cold, dead, hands. The story is good, I like how it doesn't try to veer into silliness, strangely resembling (for me anyway) a longer version of a Twilight Zone episode (BTW, you should really check out The Twilight Zone, it's a really great series. The 50's one, I mean), especially with the ending, which works well to this day. The acting works, it grows on you after a while or so (like Heston), especially with some memorable quotes. It is easy, however to tell what age this was made from as is sometimes has a dated look, but that doesn't hurt the film entirely. 45 years since, and it still is a recommended piece to watch, either before or after watching the remake. My goodness...You did it. You really did it. You maniacs! You remade it! Damn you! Damn you all to hell! Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: On the Town.

Review #346: On the Town.

Cast

Gene Kelly (Gabey), Frank Sinatra (Chip), Ann Miller (Claire Huddesen), Jules Munshin (Ozzie), Betty Garrett (Brunhilde Esterhazy), and Vera-Ellen (Ivy Smith) Directed by Stanley Donen (#137 - Bedazzled and #227 - Singin' in the Rain) and Gene Kelly (#227 - Singin' in the Rain)

Review

It's been a while since I reviewed a musical or even a film, and this just happens to be both. But look, Frank Sinatra happens to be in this (I wonder if anyone will be thinking to themselves "Who?"), so there's a small first. Gene Kelly pops up once again, always seeming to be impressive in either directing or starring. The film around Kelly does a respectable job, with singing and dancing right off the bat, mostly being useful. Kelly again does manage to carry a good portion of the film, which is useful, along with Sinatra and Garrett. The story may no be much, and it may seem strangely short (at about 100 minutes), but it works for the most part. It has a strange charm, keeping you watching for some odd reason. Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Happy Gilmore.

Review #345: Happy Gilmore.

Cast
Adam Sandler (Happy Gilmore), Christopher McDonald (Shooter McGavin), Julie Bowen (Virginia Venit), Frances Bay (Grandma Gilmore), Carl Weathers (Chubbs Peterson), Allen Covert (Otto), Kevin Nealon (Gary Potter), Richard Kiel (Mr. Larson), and Bob Barker. Directed by Dennis Dugan.

Review
It's unamazing how I've managed to not review a film starring Adam Sandler for over 300 reviews. The predicatble thing I would say would be "And after watching this, I probably won't review him for the next 300 reviews." Granted,  that might be true, but that word predictable does ring in for this film. Like some (or most) sports films, they have a formula, the loser who manages to break his way into a sport, who goes throught trouble and some major event happens to him, which motivates the person as they win a major event in the end. But hey, it could be worse, I could be watching The Waterboy. Sandler does okay, I suppose, not really funny, but...not really funny. The only things I can say are enjoyable for me is the fight with Bob Barker and...Richard Kiel (Gee, isn't that familiar...), oddly enough. If you want a golf movie...you'd be best off with Caddyshack. But I digress. The strange thing is that it gets a better rating than Twilight. Ouch.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Twilight.

Review #344: Twilight.

Cast
Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan), Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Peter Facinelli (Carlisle Cullen), Elizabeth Reaser (Esme Cullen), Ashley Greene (Alice Cullen), Kellan Lutz (Emmett Cullen), Nikki Reed (Rosalie Hale), Jackson Rathbone (Jasper Hale), Billy Burke (Charlie Swan), and Cam Gigandet (James Witherdale) Directed by Catherine Hardwicke.

Review
Ah, yes, Twilight. It has been nearly five years since this film had been inflicted on the sorry masses of people and nearly eight years since the novel by Stephanie Meyer was released. When I first heard of the film nearly two years ago, I had no idea of what it was...and I had the (now unfortunate) chance to watch it back then. It didn't leave much of an impression, but over time, I started to groan at the strange following for this film, so I decided to give this film a watch. And how is it? It is undoubtedly the most mind numbing film ever made. But not for its visuals, but for how the story manages to be so...stupid. How it manages to ignore logic and manages to annoy and depress you at the same time. Trying to compare the acting can be very easy simplified like this: Stale, weird, meh, forgettable, silly, ?, etc, etc. I also wonder why no one questions why when Bella is saved, no one other than the two notices a car door got crumpled and she hadn't had a scratch. But what bugs me the most is how anyone can be invested in the main character or the *spoiler?* vampire. She loves a being who 100 years old in a 17 year old body that creeps at her and "can't read her mind". She may monologue, but I don't think there's one moment where there's any interest for or by the character. Its not much of a love story, more a weird tale to...Trust a guy who follows you and is older than you? Pattinson does his weirdest, but sometimes it gets too laughable. Sometimes it gets to the point where the person who watches it has to chide it for being almost as silly as Batman & Robin, and when you do that, your film is doomed. But of course, not all films suffer for silliness and some get sequels. It's a sad film when you realize that no matter what, this "monster" of a film got sequels. Notice how I didn't mention the vampires, and that's only because if I did, this review would last nearly an hour. But oh- Never mind. Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night Redux: Licence to Kill.

Redux Review #290: Licence to Kill.

Cast
Timothy Dalton (James Bond), Carey Lowell (Pam Bouvier), Robert Davi (Franz Sanchez), Talisa Soto (Lupe Lamora), Anthony Zerbe (Milton Krest), Frank McRae (Sharkey), Everett McGill (Ed Killifer), Wayne Newton (Professor Joe Butcher), Benicio del Toro (Dario), Anthony Starke (Truman-Lodge), Pedro Armendáriz, Jr. (President Hector Lopez), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), David Hedison (Felix Leiter), Priscilla Barnes (Della Churchill), Robert Brown (M), and Caroline Bliss (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights)

Review
PART ONE: A Little History
I first reviewed this film back on November 23, 2012, having already reviewed The Living Daylights, Dalton's other Bond film. Was it good? It sure was memorable, and that was one of the main reason I decided to watch again more than two months later. I said a good deal of statements in my original review, such as this: "Honestly, the title Licence to Kill emphasizes the darker, edgier attempt at Bond. But another question is does that work? Yes...and no.", "The story is more back in reality, more then the last one, and even more then in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is admirable", "The violence is more prevalent, and it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It's a give and take kind of thing.", "Dalton is more improved here, more darker and yet still interesting" "While it isn't a great Bond film, it is still one of the stronger Bond films" Nevertheless, the film would be the last for six years, due to legal wrangling, with Dalton leaving during the hiatus. But does this rewatch help the film?

PART TWO: The Actors
Timothy Dalton once said this of the Bond films before him: "I think Roger was fine as Bond, but the films had become too much techno-pop and had lost track of their sense of story. I mean, every film seemed to have a villain who had to rule or destroy the world. If you want to believe in the fantasy on screen, then you have to believe in the characters and use them as a stepping-stone to lead you into this fantasy world. That's a demand I made, and Albert Broccoli agreed with me." Dalton was right, and it shows in his performance as James Bond, especially in this film. He read the books to try to more like the actual novel version of Bond, and I do like his efforts here. He is especially convincing in the action sequences, and he even did some of the stunts for this film. He sets his mark on the franchise, in a good way. Carey Lowell is our leading lady, and she is excellent. She manages to level with Bond and not being some lady to be rescued, which is a good thing, especially in this age. Then there's our villain, played none other by Robert Davi. He is a gem of a villain, and while he is evil, he manages to be memorable and very suave somehow. He works well with Dalton, which is a good thing. Talisa Soto is our other leading lady, and she is relatively okay. She has less to do than Lowell, but she does manages to work out well. But the actors I remember from this are David Hedison and Desmond Llewelyn. Hedison had already played Leiter in Live and Let Die, so he naturally has some experience than the other Leiters before him. He does convey the character more than just an ally of Bond. Llewelyn works here more than most of the films because his role is expanded a bit, which means more of Q, which is always fun. Zerbe and Newton aren't as great,but they manage to have enough skill to be passable. Robert Brown does a good job, reminding me of Bernard Lee's M, which is a good thing. McRae and del Toro are memorable in their own ways. The actors do a fine job overall.

PART THREE: Conclusion
John Glen directs his fifth and final Bond film, which he did from 1981 to 1989, the most by any director (the films being For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, and The Living Daylights). He had a style that conveyed action and an attempt to change Bond to fit the 80s. Previously, Glen was the editor for three previous films, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. The action works well, especially in the truck sequence, which manages to be triumphant in its approach. It is double edged sword on Bond film on whether you like brutal Bond films without as much silliness or slightly silly Bond films with more of a lighthearted tone. The former works mostly and the latter works most of the time. But oh well. It's a shame that this is the last Dalton film as Bond, but at least he comes out on top. The story works for what it's worth, Dalton is excellent, the villain is good and the leading ladies work well enough. Take it for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Tron: Legacy.

Review #343: Tron: Legacy.

Cast
Jeff Bridges (Kevin Flynn/CLU), Garrett Hedlund (Sam Flynn), Olivia Wilde (Quorra), Bruce Boxleitner (Alan Bradley/Tron), Michael Sheen (Castor/Zuse), James Frain (Jarvis), and Beau Garrett (Gem) Directed by Joseph Kosinski.

Review
I reviewed the original Tron over 200 reviews ago (#098), and I thought that it was a pretty good film with pretty good visuals. 28 years after the original film, there would be a sequel, with Bridges back, in new form...and in oldish form. What I mean that they try to generate a face 30 years ago onto Bridges' body, which is used in flashback sequences and in the main villain, CLU. Geez, you think that he would have a clue by now. The other main character is Flynn's son, and...he's kinda lame. I get what they're trying to do, make him a "rebel", to gain sympathy for him. The problem for me is that it really isn't necessary or...important. At least the film's name isn't "Tron: Son of Flynn", but oh well. How is the film? It's...Give or take. The visuals do have some amazement at times, kind of like the first film. But where liked the first for it having imagination that managed to keep the film running, this is what I like to call off the grid. The concepts are odd and sometimes head hurting. The acting is fine, I liked Bridges and he picks up just where he started all those years ago. The only actor I scratch my head is Michael Sheen. I don't know, maybe its intentional, but good grief, sometimes its just better to be subtle. Speaking of which, there isn't even that much of Tron in this film, which is odd considering half the title is...I don't know, Tron. This is a film that is depends on what you like. Some will go for some effects and some will go for the opportunity to see a long awaited sequel. It may be slightly disappointing as a sequel, but take it for what its worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night Redux: On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Review #279 - REDUX: On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Cast
George Lazenby (James Bond), Diana Rigg (Tracy di Vicenzo), Telly Savalas (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Gabriele Ferzetti (Marc-Ange Draco), Ilse Steppat (Irma Bunt), Bernard Lee (M), George Baker (Sir Hilary Bray), Yuri Borienko (Grunther), Bernard Horsfall (Shaun Campbell), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Angela Scoular (Ruby Bartlett) Directed by Peter Hunt.

Review
It has been three months since I reviewed this film, which I did on November 5, 2012. I stated a few things about it and its infamous star, George Lazenby, such as "Ah, George Lazenby. Who?", "As for Lazenby, he is..mild in his performance as Bond, not as great as Connery. But here's the thing. His name is not Connery. But this was expected." "Lazenby may not be a great Bond, but he at least makes an attempt to do something new with Bond. Not a great attempt, but still." After nearly three months, I bought the film so I could see if my judgement of 8 out of 10 stars was either accurate or maybe a bit harsh. Reviewing films can have its judgement of rightfulness and...its moments of regret. This is one I wanted to know that if I was right the second time around. So how was it the second time? First off, I won't try to say it all in this sentence, so let's do a bit of an analysis. First off, we have our history. Sean Connery had grown tired of the role of Bond after 5 films, leaving after You Only Live Twice had ended. So the search was on for a new Bond, with George Lazenby being selected. Peter Hunt, the editor of the last five Bond films, was picked to direct the film. Lazenby wasn't exactly an actor, more of a model, with not much experience. He certainly looks the part, and he does well in the fight scenes.

   With the acting, I believe that this is a rookie Bond, more of a novice, not as experienced as Connery's Bond, but Lazenby does indeed try. It's sad though when in the film he tries to impersonate another character...and he gets dubbed over by the person he's supposed to be impersonating. Now, Diana Rigg (of The Avenger fame) on the other hand, is great. She represents a rare type of Bond girl that manages to get to Bond's heart, with the exception being Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale. She manages to help Bond out, rescuing him at one point. It's amazing how it's not only just a spy film, but a bit of a romantic tale as well. But what makes it even better is that the romantic parts don't weigh the film down, it actually helps the tone of the film, being a tragic sort of tale. Then there's our villain, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He manages to be chilling yet very entertaining as a Bond villain, not being a slow megalomaniacal type of villain, more one Bond has a tough time defeating. To me, a Bond villain works better when he does manage to nearly be on the same level with Bond, representing the challenge Bond faces. His plot (which I won't spoil) chillingly makes some sort of sense. It works because it has some logic, which is a good trait for a film of its caliber. Ilse Steppat does a good job as Blofeld's henchwoman, sadly this was her last film role, as she died days after the film's release. One actor who seems to gain a bit of development is M, played by Bernard Lee, as we even get to see his house at one point, which provides a sliver of humanity.

Peter Hunt once said that he wanted the film to be different than any other Bond film would be. It was his film, not anyone else's. And...it makes sense. It is a far cry from Goldfinger (before it) or even Diamonds Are Forever (after it), and this film works in so any ways. Then there's the length, which I said in the original review "The film is a bit lengthy...". When I think about it now, it isn't that lengthy anymore. Honestly, I can take over two hours of film, as long as it provides entertainment and charm. This film does both. The action works well, but it probably works because of the location they used, which was in the Switzerlands, with Piz Gloria being the main location, and it looks great. The icy slopes work well, but the location for the last memorable scene looks even better. Speaking of which I have to admit that last scene is bitter and yet very fitting end to a film such like this. The film is its own realm, without the silly aspects or the gadgets, but it does have much more to compensate. It is a film that is better than what I originally thought in my original review. While Lazenby may not be up to par or as memorable as the other Bonds, the film is not hampered, with a great Bond girl, a great villain, and a good story to go with it.

Overall, I give it 9 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: Dr. Who and the Daleks.

Review #341: Dr. Who and the Daleks.

Cast
Peter Cushing (Dr. Who), Roy Castle (Ian), Jennie Linden (Barbara), Roberta Tovey (Susan), Barrie Ingham (Alydon), Michael Coles (Ganatus), and Yvonne Antrobus (Dyoni). Directed by Gordon Flemyng.

Review
2013 is the 50th anniversary year of Doctor Who, and to help commemorate, I decided to...review a Dr. Who film? When it comes to Dr. Who films, there aren't that many. And after watching this, I still doubt that this is a "Dr. Who" film. Our leading actor is not, William Hartnell, but...Peter Cushing. That might be a benefit until after watching it I realize he doesn't carry much of the charm or even the determination of the Doctor. And what's worse? His name in the film is...Dr. Who. I assume he came from Whoville, from Ma Who and Pa Who, but I digress. It's sad when the only thing the film managed to not change much are the Daleks. The companions are more cardboard cutouts of the real characters. It is amazing though in one grand thing, it's...slowness. It's amazing how a short film (about an hour and 20 minutes) can feel nauseously slow, and the Dalek voices don't really help. It feels boring and it doesn't capture any of the spirit that make Doctor Who great. Clearly the only thought process was like this: "Daleks!" "We need a story." "Daleks, dang it!" "We need a cast." "Get Peter Cushing in some makeup!" "Wh-" "DALEKS!", but again, I digress. You could be using your time more wisely by reading a book, or by, I don't know, watching some actual Doctor Who. But oh well. Happy....February everyone.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rocky III.

Review #340: Rocky III.

Cast
Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Mr. T (Clubber Lang), Talia Shire (Adrian), Burt Young (Paulie), Carl Weathers (Apollo Creed), Burgess Meredith (Mickey Goldmill), Tony Burton (Duke Evers), Ian Fried (Rocky Balboa, Jr), and Hulk Hogan (Thunderlips) Directed by Sylvester Stallone (#047 - The Expendables and #277 - Rocky II)

Review
The previous two Rocky films were like a two-parter, with the first being about Rocky's rise to the top and the second culminating with just that, but with heart and soul. The third is not as deep as the last two, but I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily. Third films do have some good as well, like Return of the Jedi, Die Hard 3, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, even Revenge of the Sith. Pardon for being off topic, but oh well. How is the film? It's...80's. 80's good. Stallone tries his best, and Shire and Young do a fine job as usual. Then there's Mr. T. I love the performance. It's so...fun in how simple it is, and it works well. I pity the fool. Weathers and Meredith also do a good job. It is weird at times (especially with Rocky fighting Thunderlips...) , and it may be the turning point of the franchise, but it does provide some good quality with effort. Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Dreamgirls.

Review #339: Dreamgirls.

Cast

Jamie Foxx (Curtis Taylor, Jr), Beyoncé Knowles (Deena Jones), Eddie Murphy (James Early), Jennifer Hudson (Effie White), Danny Glover (Marty Madison), Anika Noni Rose (Lorrell Robinson), Keith Robinson (C.C. White), Sharon Leal (Michelle Morris), and Hinton Battle (Wayne) Directed by Bill Condon.

Review

It's been a while since I've reviewed a musical, so I decided to watch this for hopefully some good entertainment. So how is it? It's fine. I'd mention that this was apparently based off a musical based on real events, but trying to review a film with that history never ends well for me, but oh well. Knowles does a fine job, bringing some good depth. Hudson does an excellent job, working very well, especially when paired with others in the cast. But strangely the two I seem to like for this film are Eddie Murphy and Danny Glover, as they seem to bring a lot of depth and a lot of excellence. That or the fact it's a good job by Murphy, which seems to be a bit rare in the 2000's. And then there is Jamie Foxx as our (spoiler alert) villain. I get it, he is one of the main contributors to the group's success...even though yea, he's the villain. He does a good job, but somehow I feel he is a bit off. There's something about having a villain in a musical that could work...most of the time. The songs are good, having some soul, though I find it to be a bit awkward to have the cast sing some of their lines when their is no people to listen to. While it does have some small flaws, this is not a bad film. It works well and it does have some use for the most part.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Movie Night: Moonraker.

Review #338: Moonraker.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Lois Chiles (Holly Goodhead), Michael Lonsdale (Hugo Drax), Richard Kiel (Jaws), Corinne Cléry (Corinne Dufour), Bernard Lee (M), Toshiro Suga (Chang), Geoffrey Keen (Frederick Gray), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Blanche Ravalec (Dolly) Directed by Lewis Gilbert (#292 - The Spy Who Loved Me)

Review:
Greetings, fellow reader who decided to click the link from the review of Kingsman: The Secret Service. Enjoy this (slightly fixed) review from 2013.

For Your-Woah, sorry, wrong film for a second. Moonraker is its own film in the Bond franchise, a different sort for only one reason, the obvious reason. James Bond goes to space. Actually, he doesn't get to it until the last half of the film. Moonraker comes off the heels of Star Wars (#113), and it shows. This was moved up to follow the last film instead of the planned For Your Eyes Only with the same director...and essentially the same plot. However they have different ways of going by it (Drax being the better villain over...Stromberg), with different sorts of actions...and Jaws. He was intimidating in the last film...and he kinda is in the film as well. I don't know, maybe its because the film shows his facial expressions too much. That and what he does at the end (namely by betraying the villain). Roger Moore does a fine job, delivering his wry lines as best as he can. Chiles does good too, not a downgrade from the last leading lady. Lonsdale actually exceeded my expectations (namely by not looking ridiculous with that beard and outfit), delivering his lines coldly, and skillfully. The rest of the cast do a fine job, including Bernard Lee in his last time portraying M, doing so with the class you would expect from him. The elements that work for the film work good, but when the elements don't...they really don't work great. Especially the sometimes silly nature that the film has (including an inflatable gondola), but the scenes in space...do work well, actually. Even after 34 years since its release, the effects still manage to look respectable. While it does have its odd moments, it is worthy enough to at least be watched. It's not horrible, and it does have some enjoyment. It may represent the pinnacle of silliness in the franchise, but hey, take it for what its worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

Review #337: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

Cast
William Shatner (James T. Kirk), DeForest Kelley (Leonard McCoy), James Doohan (Montgomery Scott), George Takei (Hikaru Sulu), Christopher Lloyd (Kruge), Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), Nichelle Nichols (Uhura), Judith Anderson (T'Lar), Robin Curtis (Saavik), Merritt Butrick (David Marcus), Mark Lenard (Sarek), John Larroquette (Maltz), Carl Stevens, Vadia Potenza, Stephen Manley, Joe W. Davis, and Leonard Nimoy (Spock) Directed by Leonard Nimoy.

Review
It has been a while since I've reviewed a Star Trek film (#299 - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan), and it was pretty good. This is (obviously) the sequel to that film, so how is it is the main question. It's...alright. The one thing that Star Trek II lacked was a battle between the villain and Kirk, so Star Trek III has one between Kirk and the villain (with Christopher Lloyd, no less). But does that help the film be a good send up? In some ways, it is. Shatner and the rest of the cast do a fine job, and while Lloyd may not match the last villain and its themes, he is enjoyable enough. The plot is reasonably balanced and the effects are good enough (especially when the Enterprise is destroyed) to leave some sort of impression. It may have some sort of weirdness, but compared to the other "weird" Star Trek film (#225 - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier), this is some good stuff with good directing done by none other than Dr. Spock (Heh). Definitely not a bad odd numbered Star Trek film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Broken Arrow (1996).

Review #336: Broken Arrow.

Cast
John Travolta (Vic Deakins), Christian Slater (Riley Hale), Samantha Mathis (Terry Carmichael), Delroy Lindo (Max Wilkins), Bob Gunton (Pritchett), Casey Biggs (Novacek), Frank Whaley (Giles Prentice), Shaun Toub (Max), Howie Long (Kelly), Vondie Curtis-Hall (Sam Rhodes), and Kurtwood Smith (Secretary of Defense) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off)

Review
It's almost amazing how an action film can feel so familiar, feeling like other films without even trying. There's something about this film that dooms it (for me) from the start. Our two leads. Maybe its just me, but Travolta is actually more interesting to go for. With Slater I just have this mild feel for, even with the leading actress. The acting is mediocre, not too bad, but not exactly anything either. I do like Delroy Lindo though, though it may be due to missing him and his performance in Get Shorty. Oh, and Kurtwood Smith. The film's action is okay, with the usual explosions of stuff one might expect. But honestly, I have absolutely no investment in the two main plot devices (Nuclear weapons) of the film. The timecodes get switched consistantly, giving not much time to care. While Woo does a fine job directing, it's obvious that his next film after this would be better (That would be Face/Off), and while it can have some fun by Travolta, it's not one of his best. If you have zero expectations of great quality that actions films wish they could do, you might get some enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Thunderball.

Review #335: Thunderball.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Adolfo Celi (Emilio Largo), Claudine Auger (Dominique "Domino" Derval), Luciana Paluzzi (Fiona Volpe), Rik Van Nutter (Felix Leiter), Bernard Lee (M), Guy Doleman (Count Lippe), Martine Beswick (Paula Caplan), Molly Peters (Patricia Fearing), Earl Cameron (Pinder), Paul Stassino (François Derval), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Roland Culver (Foreign Secretary), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by Terence Young (#150 - Dr. No, #278 - From Russia With Love)

Review
Thunderball was the fourth Bond film, released a year after Goldfinger, and...it's that film after Goldfinger. That film was a good, if not great film with good action and an even better villain. In a way, that was the high point of the Connery era. But how is this film is the main question. And it's...alright. Connery does a decent job, slightly suave and slightly Bond. Auger is a good leading lady, having a personality different from the last three of the Connery films, which is usually the best way to go. And then there is the villain played by Adolfo Celi. When I first saw him I thought I would be calling him "Captain Hook's Cousin, Captain Eyepatch", but he does have some sort of villainy that while not being entirely great, he does have some usefulness. Van Nutter is good, being a good pair with Connery when on screen. The rest of the cast is fine, doing what most supporting cast in Bond films do. But what sets this film apart from other Bond films is the use of aquatic action (Not so subtly told in the opening credits), rubbery suits and all. Half the time it does feel inventive and the other half I can barely tell who's who. The scenery is nice and the plot is useful enough. Is it a let down? Not really, it's a fine film, with enjoyable moments and all.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Iron Man 2.

Review #334: Iron Man 2.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff), Sam Rockwell (Justin Hammer), Mickey Rourke (Ivan Vanko), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson), John Slattery (Howard Stark), Garry Shandling (Stern), and Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.) Directed by Jon Favreau (#135 - Iron Man)

Review
This is the tenth Marvel film reviewed here (X-Men, X2, X-Men: The Last Stand, Fantastic Four, Rise of the Silver Surfer, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Avengers), the fifth in the Marvel film Universe that has been taking place the last few years. This is the sequel to Iron Man (Obviously), but does it hold up to its predecessor? In some ways, yes. Downey does a fine job once again, keeping that distinct, yet fun personality. Paltrow and Downey mesh well once again, and Cheadle (though not the same actor from the first film) works well into the film. And then there is the villain. Rourke is good, but I feel that the film doesn't focus on him enough. While the first film had a villain that gradually came to be only in the end, there was a feeling for that character. And yes there is another villain (sort of), but it's not exactly a feel of a villain. But oh well, the action is still entertaining and it doesn't really have other real big flaws. While it may not be as good as the first, it still is good enough to work out in the end.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: M.

Review #333: M.

Cast
Peter Lorre (Hans Beckert), Otto Wernicke (Inspector Karl Lohmann), Gustaf Gründgens (The Safecracker), Ellen Widmann (Frau Beckmann), Inge Landgut (Elsie Beckmann), Theodor Loos (Inspector Groeber), Friedrich Gnas (Franz) Directed by Fritz Lang.

Review
This is the eighth world cinema film reviewed here (#015 - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, #017 - A Fistful of Dollars, #019 - For a Few Dollars More, #167 - Gojira, #256 - Nosferatu, #261 - The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, #309 - Santa Claus), with this one coming from Germany. This happens to be the first review of Fritz Lang here, and the third of Peter Lorre, with this being his breakout role that would later garner him more roles. Like Gojira, I watched a version with subtitles (Thus I can't really discuss the level of acting in voices per say.), but even with subtitles the film is easy to follow, not really requiring dubbing (Fun fact: There would later be a dubbed version a few years after this with Lorre speaking English) to work. Lang's direction is good, having style yet a gritty feel to it. If there is one memorable person that is in this, it undeniably is Peter Lorre. He brings a recognizable, sinister tone, and the way his eyes shift along with his demeanor works effectively. The story works well, always managing to have some sort of raw energy that is efficient. Out of the the eight world cinema films reviewed here, this is one of the best, rivaling with Gojira, Dr. Caligari, and the Dollars Trilogy. Great stuff.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.