Krull.

Review #927: Krull.

Cast:
Ken Marshall (Colwyn), Lysette Anthony (Princess Lyssa), Freddie Jones (Ynyr, the Old One), David Battley (Ergo the Magnificent), Bernard Bresslaw (Rell the Cyclops), Alun Armstrong (Torquil), Liam Neeson (Kegan), Robbie Coltrane (Rhun), Dicken Ashworth (Bardolph), Todd Carty (Oswyn), and Bronco McLoughlin (Nennog) Directed by Peter Yates (#506 - Bullitt)

Review:
Remember Battle Beyond the Stars (#819)? That 1980 movie that tried to be Magnificent Seven in space? Or Starcrash (#755)? That movie with more absurdity than dancing on a trampoline? Or The Man Who Saved the World (#371)? (same question still applies). These movies obviously had some influence from the original Star Wars film, but they also managed to have a strange sense of fun within themselves. So naturally, I figured it was time to take on a movie that meshes science and fantasy genres while also having its inklings of Star Wars in it. I also figured that since I would be going to my first Comic Con (in my home county) on Saturday, this would serve as something to accompany all of the fun along with giving you a review to help close out the month. So how is this movie? Stranger than you think.

Marshall is the main lead, but he doesn't really have much prsence besides just being a formula kind of hero, and he isn't really too unique. Anthony (with her voice dubbed by Lindsay Crouse) doesn't really have much to do, in part due to her spending a good deal of the movie captured. It's strange how the two leads really don't have too much presence nor too much time for romance, while the supporting cast manages to quite fun. Battley (and his character) serve as comic relief, and he does have the right kind of presence to make his character enjoyable. Jones plays the "wise man" role fairly comfortably, and he shares a fine scene with "The Widow in the Web" as well. Bresslaw and Armstrong are also pretty fine as well.  The effects for his change to animals is a bit murky, but it works fine for 1983. One of my favorite parts is him turning into a puppy for the kid character to play around with (for one scene, anyway), because that's what he wished for. There is a general feel of adventure and high strung design, with lines like "power is fleeting, love is eternal" seemingly accompanying it that make for a strange watch. The set design (such as with the Black Fortress) is quite nice. I do like how the main weapon is some sort of five point throwing weapon of "magic". It's almost as amusing as the evil bad guy moving his fortress every sunrise (clearly he likes travel, though he seems to forget how to deal with humans in combat). There's even a prophecy stated in the beginning, talking about how there will be a queen who will choose their king and rule their world while their son will rule the galaxy (cosmic difference, clearly). It's not every day that a movie basically tells you that the hero and the heroine will win in the beginning, so good on you I guess. The music by James Horner is pretty good, working for the adventurous spectacle that the movie attempts to pull quite well. Is the movie corny? Sure, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. There really is something different when there's a scene involving the characters trying to ride horses (called "fire mares", who do indeed fly). It meshes its sword and sorcery along with laser guns with the mending skills of someone with a lot of imagination just sparking out. I found this to be a fairly enjoyable (if not somewhat amusing) movie that works on its own kind of level.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Our Hospitality.

Review #926: Our Hospitality.

Cast:
Buster Keaton (Willie McKay), Joe Roberts (Joseph Canfield), Natalie Talmadge (Virginia Canfield), Ralph Bushman (Clayton Canfield), Craig Ward (Lee Canfield), Monte Collins (The Parson), Joe Keaton (The Locomotive Engineer), Jack Duffy (The Locomotive Leader), and Kitty Bradbury (Aunt Mary) Directed by Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, #805 - The Navigator, and #877 - Three Ages, and #908 - The General) and John G. Blystone.

Review:
This was Keaton's third starring role in a feature film (along with his second that he directed), and it was the second film of his released in 1923, the first being Three Ages, previously reviewed just last November by me. In that movie, there were good moments, but it was moderate entertinament that benefited from Keaton being himself. In this movie, the plot is much more focused, feeling well-rounded and working with the gags (instead of a movie with just gags and some sort of plot cobble) to make for a cohesive film. Inspired by (or better yet, satirizing) the Hatfield-McCoy feud (though the time period is decades prior to the feud), the film has a fine attention to set design, with some wonderful cinematography by Gordon Jennings and Elgin Lessley along with a good use of the locations (such as the Truckee River in California) and sets. The film is also pretty funny, too. The sight gags are present, but there is also a sense of adventure and madcap thrill that make the film stand out. The climax is a good sign of the fun present, with Keaton and Talmadge (her last film) having an easily charming kind of chemistry together along with a finale that allows the former to engage in rip roaring fun. The rest of the cast is also well put-together, with Roberts (who died a month prior to the release of the film) being a capable adversary for Keaton. One particularly interesting note is that there were three generations of Keatons in this film: Buster Keaton plays the starring character, while his father plays the locomotive engineer and his son plays a 1 year old version of the main character in the beginning of the film. On the whole, this is a fine piece of film that strives to entertain along with inspire some laughs, succeeding in both quite well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Sherlock Holmes in Washington.

Review #925: Sherlock Holmes in Washington.

Cast:
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Marjorie Lord (Nancy Partridge), Henry Daniell (William Easter), George Zucco (Heinrich Hinkel), John Archer (Lt. Pete Merriam), Gavin Muir (Mr. Lang, government agent), and Edmund MacDonald (Detective Lt. Grogan) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man and #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon)

Review:
This is the fifth film to star Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes (#583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles, #721: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, #798: Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror, #873: Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon). This was released in April of 1943, barely a few months after the previous film was released (having gone into general release in February after premiering in December). At 71 minutes, this runs a bit longer than the previous two films, with a fine climax involving Rathbone and Zucco, who exchange a good amount of dialogue with each other that is nifty while helping the movie get some sort of momentum. Much like the last film, it goes through the motions of a spy flick made during the war with some sort of coherence and logic. The parts in the beginning (on a train) do have some cleverness to them in watching how it is executed, though the middle edges (with occasional use of stock footage) don't compare as well. Rathbone and Bruce are up to their usual level of class, with the latter having brief moments of amusement, such as drinking milkshakes (after all, they are in America). Lord is decent as the innocent, with some degree of entertaining nature. Here's a brief summary of the film: Secret info gets turned into microfilm that is hidden into a certain type of object that falls in innocent hands. Obviously this isn't something too new (nor something that wasn't done after this film), but it works in some part to see how far the thrills try to go. There is at least some sort of effort by the others to make it seem tolerable. Notably, the movie ends with the main two characters having an exchange about America and a quote by Winston Churchill about justice and peace. It's a feel good kind of movie that will work for anyone looking for some more Sherlock things. Is it good? Not particularly (for me, anyway), but I'm sure that it'll work for others looking for some form of entertainment.

Footnote: At least this film isn't The Boy Next Door.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Boy Next Door.

Review #924: The Boy Next Door.

Cast:
Jennifer Lopez (Claire Peterson), Ryan Guzman (Noah Sandborn), Ian Nelson (Kevin Peterson), John Corbett (Garrett Peterson), Kristin Chenoweth (Vicky Lansing), Lexi Atkins (Allie Callahan), and Hill Harper (Principal Edward Warren) Directed by Rob Cohen (#043 - The Fast and the Furious)

Review:
Simply put, this is the equivalent of a Lifetime movie, with the "saucy" details turned slightly up, with the range of cheesy acting intact. This isn't an awful movie, but it isn't a movie worth caring too much about. There are things to laugh about (Guzman, looking at least five years older than the 19 year old he is supposed to be playing), but it isn't exactly a "so bad its good" kind of film, because it is simply just a dull flick. As a thriller, it doesn't have much in terms of excitement, and it definitely doesn't have any sort of passion present in any of these characters. Lopez is probably the best  actor in the film, merely because she has the most presence (Corbett comes second, at least for me anyway), though she can't save the movie from being a dry sponge. Guzman isn't much of a villain, nor much of any kind of presence. Apparently, the original screenplay by Barbara Curry was about a neighborhood boy making conflict between a family. Naturally, this was change, where the age of the boy next door being changed along with her being separated from her husband. I do wonder if the dialogue was as bland in that screenplay as it is on screen, where atmosphere and any sense of engaging in anything that these characters say and do is completely washed out. One easy low-light is Guzman's character giving Lopez's character a first edition of The Iliad. I can't tell which part is sillier, the idea that this would seem convincing, the cleanliness of the "book", or this "bond" that they share for the book. The climax (in which it is three versus one) is just as bland, in part because there is no real sense of energy. In any case, this is clearly not a movie made for me, but it is also does not seem to be a movie for people looking for something beyond their Lifetime products. If you want to waste 90 minutes, this is probably a bit high on the list, but even schlocky sci-fi films (#755 - Starcrash, for example) work better than this.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

The Pilgrim (1923).

Review #923: The Pilgrim.

Cast:
Charlie Chaplin (The Pilgrim), Edna Purviance (Miss Brown), Sydney Chaplin (Eloper / Train Conductor / Little Boy's Father), Mack Swain (Deacon Jones), Loyal Underwood (Small Deacon), Dean Riesner (Little Boy), Charles Reisner (Howard Huntington), and Tom Murray (Sheriff Bryan) Directed by Charlie Chaplin (#353 - Monsieur Verdoux, #599 - The Kid, #600 - City Lights, #759 - The Gold Rush, #775 - Shoulder Arms, and #820 - Modern Times)

Review:
At just under 47 minutes, this was Chaplin's second shortest feature length film (next to Shoulder Arms, which is just a few minutes less than this film), and this was also the last film he made for First National Pictures (which he had done since 1918). It definitely isn't one of his finest pieces of works, but The Pilgrim is at least a serviceable good time. Chaplin does a fine job as usual, playing a crafty convict who impersonates a preacher. One particular highlight is when he delivers an improvised sermon revolving around "David and Goliath", which goes as well as you'd expect. Chaplin can do any sort of stranger role (whether it be a stranger in military action or as The Tramp) with an easy kind of finesse. Purviance (in her last appearance with Chaplin in a feature film) is fairly decent, and the rest of the cast (some familiar to anyone who sees enough silent film) is pretty satisfactory in the roles that they play; Murray is part of a particular good part during the end of the film, with Chaplin "escaping" near the border. The movie goes at a fine pace, owing to its short length, but it is a decent enough movie to recommend because of the serviceable amount of gags it uses, with Chaplin being the key link. In a sea of great Chaplin films, this is a little gem that is fairly useful at being entertainment and sometimes that's all that matters.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Himiko.

Review #922: Himiko.

Cast:
Shima Iwashita (Himiko), Masao Kusakari (Takehiko), Rie Yokoyama (Adahime), Choichiro Kawarazaki (Mimaki), Kenzo Kawarazaki (Ikume), Yoshi Kato (Ohkimi), Jun Hamamura (Narrator), Tatsumi Hijikata (Dancer), and Rentarō Mikuni (Nashime) Directed by Masahiro Shinoda.

Review:
Ah yes, another world cinema film, this time from Japan. What is it about? Well...it's a movie about a shaman queen who falls in love with her half-brother and how this love jeopardizes her powers. When it comes to fantasy-dramas, this certainly stands out as something different. There is a good deal of surreal nature to everything, with blends of myth and passion. Obviously this is not a movie striving for too much historical accuracy (seemingly reminding me of a soap opera at times), but Shinoda seems to know what he is doing with his vision for the movie with regards to mood. It's not always easy to solve the cipher that is this movie, but it is at least somewhat compelling enough to at least see how it plays itself out. There definitely is a good deal of style with regards to how the movie looks (along with how it is shot), with numerous shots having a black background among the set pieces.The score is also pretty eerie and striking for the movie and deservingly so. Iwashita is pretty decent in the title role, expressing numerous moods and expressions usefully enough, with some strange chemistry with Kusakari. Speaking of which, Kuraskari is okay, even if he doesn't give too much expressions at points, though his passion is evident at times. Yokoyama is also pretty alright in the film. Mikuni is also fairly adequate. The movie is likely more entertaining to watch for what it shows rather than the performances, but there is enough spectacle and other-worldly nature to make for a useful watch. What other movie can have its climax include a sword fight in the middle of a mountainside after having one of its characters get tortured (along with a twist that isn't as strange as the movie is)? The experimental nature of the film may not be for everyone, but if one can find this I'm sure that you'll get something out of it.

When it came time for April Fool's Day to come about, I wanted to review something a bit on the weird side (previous April 1st reviews include #033 - Smokey and the Bandit, #115 - Return of the Jedi and its Redux Review, #362 - Mac & Me, #788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, with the latter two ending up as jokes on myself), so I decided to do a bit of searching and this one had come up as a choice. Strange how it had been six months since the last world cinema film. In any case, I hope for a happy month of April for all of you at home.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Haunting (1963).

Review #921: The Haunting.

Cast:
Julie Harris (Eleanor "Nell" Lance), Claire Bloom (Theodora), Richard Johnson (Dr. John Markway), Russ Tamblyn (Luke Sanderson), Fay Compton (Mrs. Sanderson), Rosalie Crutchley (Mrs. Dudley), Lois Maxwell (Grace Markway), and Valentine Dyall (Mr. Dudley) Directed by Robert Wise (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture and #725 - The Day the Earth Stood Still)

Review:
The Haunting (based of the novel The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson) is a psychological horror film that uses its atmosphere and settings to make a a cohesively made movie with a good degree of terror over horror. Wise's direction, along with production design by Elliot Scott and cinematography by Davis Boulton, are the easiest standouts of the movie, all being good at letting the mood be chilling along with cleverly crafted. One of my favorites is the spiral staircase, which is used in numerous shots to great effect. The acting is also good, with Harris making this fragile character easy to root for along with useful to watch. There is just something about her and how she moves and how she talks to the others that really make this character readily compelling. Bloom is interesting, with a good deal of entertainment and alluring nature to her. The rest of the cast is also pretty good at their roles, whether it be scientific (Johnson) or slightly strange (Crutchley). The way that they interact with each other goes with the mood, where numerous characters talk at the same each other, with later scenes having the benefit of sound effects when it is required. The movie is as scary as one lets it be; it doesn't rely on any real horror, but it works on a psychological kind of level of terror that works for the most part. The climax is a fairly interesting one (using some of the aforementioned set pieces), though admittedly Maxwell's character almost derails it (though obviously it matters to the plot), before an ending that closes acceptably enough. It isn't a quick burn to get some chills, but it definitely has enough moments to make it all worth it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956).

Review #920: Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Cast:
Kevin McCarthy (Dr. Miles Bennell), Dana Wynter (Becky Driscoll), Larry Gates (Dr. Dan Kauffman), King Donovan (Jack Belicec), Carolyn Jones (Theodora "Teddy" Belicec), Jean Willes (Nurse Sally Withers), Ralph Dumke (Police Chief Nick Grivett), Virginia Christine (Wilma Lentz), and Tom Fadden (Uncle Ira Lentz) Directed by Don Siegel (#893 - Dirty Harry)

Review:
What is it about science fiction that entertains us so much? What is it about horror and and aliens that lure us so much to watch? The 1950s definitely had a great deal of entertainment with these things, but this film (based of the novel "The Body Snatcher" by Jack Finney) manages to shine on its own, becoming a film worth discussing in part because of how it constructs himself. Even if one treats it as just a horror flick (as what the director and writers have stated they were intending), It's an interesting horror film in how it invokes fear and fright from how little you really see of the terror. The film also has decent cinematography by Ellsworth Fredericks, with the shadows and lighting working nicely with the sets. McCarthy is a good lead, fitting as a storyteller and hero like a glove. Wynter is also pretty decent, having some chemistry with McCarthy while also proving to be capable for some scenes. Donovan and Jones do a pretty fine job as well in accompanying the others in a movie that always seems doing something beneath the surface. Nobody is killed on screen, nor is there much in terms of what the pod people are (aside from a part near the climax), but it has a great degree of layers within this thriller. Numerous things have been written about it being an allegory for things in the 1950s (this was the Cold War era after all), but the easiest one can be the way that people can act towards cultural things with a sense of unfeeling. While the nature of how the narrative is set up may be a bit clunky (in short, it's a flashback narrative), the movie is at least swift enough to never cop itself out too much. There is something really interesting about the way it speaks about conformity and autonomy in this film, and it doesn't bash you over the head with any sort of overwrought kind of nature. On the whole, this is an entertaining film that inspires fear along with thought in part due to a fine cast and fine direction that work together to make a critical film from the 1950s.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Kong: Skull Island.

Review #919: Kong: Skull Island.

Cast:
Tom Hiddleston (James Conrad), Samuel L. Jackson (Preston Packard), John Goodman (Bill Randa), Brie Larson (Mason Weaver), John C. Reilly (Hank Marlow), Corey Hawkins (Houston Brooks), John Ortiz (Victor Nieves), Tian Jing (San Lin), Toby Kebbell (Jack Chapman), John Ortiz (Victor Nieves), Corey Hawkins (Houston Brooks), Jason Mitchell (Glenn Mills), Shea Whigham (Earl Cole), Thomas Mann (Reg Slivko), and Terry Notary (King Kong, motion capture performance) Directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts.

Review:
It's easy to admit that the idea of doing a Kong reboot could be regarded as unneeded, if put in the wrong hands. Having the film be set in 1973 (one could almost nickname the movie "VietKong", actually) is certainly an interesting choice. For me, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and everything that it wanted to be: a fun good time. It's easy to admit that this is a popcorn movie, with a great amount of entertainment and characters that would be right at home in a explorer movie. For me, this might've been just a bit better than the 2014 Godzilla film (#582), as this film definitely lets one see more of Kong - right from the beginning, in fact. Obviously there is more to the movie than just Kong (with some fine CGI and some fine motion capture from Notary), there's also the fine effects of the Skullcrawlers and enough eye-candy (with regards to how the movie is shot) and cinematography that I appreciated. There isn't any kind of cop-outs nor teasing, it flat out goes for the thrill and chills - and it succeeds. Hiddleston is a fair enough lead, but obviously the big standout is Jackson, who just hams it up in such an adversarial manner that just clicks. Larson is also a fair lead as well, with Goodman being as gruff and relatable as ever. Reilly is also pretty fun, having an eccentric but likable presence. The rest of the cast does a fine job, being useful enough. Honestly the best kind of lead are leads who act and move convincingly without just being screamers/stilted glory hogs. They aren't too developed, but they also aren't too one dimensional either. There is a good mode of pace and design, with monster fights that manage to be riveting. Obviously this is a movie that works as fun entertainment (and something to try and get one ready for a Godzilla/Kong matchup a few years down the line), and there's nothing wrong with that. It achieves what it wants to accomplish without derailing itself at any point, while letting Kong be Kong.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Why Worry?

Review #918: Why Worry?

Cast:
Harold Lloyd (Harold Van Pelham), Jobyna Ralston (The Nurse), John Aasen (Colosso), Wallace Howe (Mr. Pipps), Jim Mason (James H. Blake), Leo White (The Mighty Herculeo), Gaylord Lloyd (Man), and Mark Jones (Mounted Captain) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman, #674 - Grandma's Boy, #758 - Safety Last!, #864 - Hot Water, and #889 - A Sailor-Made Man, #903 - Dr. Jack) and Sam Taylor (The Freshman, #727 - For Heaven's Sake, Safety Last!, Hot Water, Dr. Jack)

Review:
This was the fifth feature film featuring Harold Lloyd, and it was the first film with Jobyna Ralston as the leading lady, with Lloyd having married previous leading lady Mildred Davis during production of this film. At any rate, this is a film with a good amount of visual humor and an enjoyable cast along with a quick pace for a movie filled with gags. This time around, Lloyd plays a wealthy hypochondriac who goes on vacation on a small island in the Pacific - only to encounter a revolution, and a 7'2 giant played by John Aasen, one of the tallest actors in history. Aasen (along with the foreign setting) is used to make some clever enough gags, with one of my favorites being when Colosso knocks over some of the soldiers (standing in bowling formation) all over with a cannonball. Naturally there are some gags involving the unassuming nature Lloyd conveys, and some language gags that go by quickly enough. Lloyd and Ralston are fair enough together, doing all the cues you'd expect from these films, even if they spend a good chunk of the film apart from each other. Mason is a okay villain, not much of a bully but not too bad and pretty much what you'd expect from a dude wanting to just take over a country. On the whole, it's another good Lloyd film, and with a runtime of barely over an hour it's an easy one to recommend as a likely good time for someone looking for a good silent film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Incredible Journey.

Review #917: The Incredible Journey.

Cast: 

Muffy the Bull Terrier (Bodger), Syn Cat the Siamese cat (Tao), Rink the Labrador Retriever (Luath), Rex Allen (Narrator), Emile Genest (John Longridge), Sandra Scott (Nancy Hunter), John Drainie (Professor James Hunter), Marion Finlayson (Elizabeth Hunter), Ronald Cohoon (Peter Hunter), Tommy Tweed (The Hermit), Robert Christie (James MacKenzie), Beth Lockerbie (Nell MacKenzie), Beth Amos (Mrs. Oakes), Eric Clavering (Bert Oakes), Jan Rubeš (Carl Nurmi), and Syme Jago (Helvi Numi) Directed by Fletcher Markle.

Review: 

When I reviewed Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (#186) in June of 2012, I had noted (in a review typical of my writing for Season Two - not like the writing of today) that it was a remake of the 1963 film that was also made by Disney based off the novel of the same name by Sheila Burnford. The two films do depart in terms of the animals used for the film, with this film using a Bull Terrier, a Labrador Retriever, and a Siamsese cat with the remake using an American Bulldog, a Golden Retriever, and a Himalayan Cat. It's hard to say which of the two films is better, because they use different ways of telling the stories of the animals. Allen's narration of the journey does a fine job of toeing the line between telling the story and letting us see the animals interact with each other and the environments (some shots being filmed in Canada but other parts filmed in Sequim, Washington) around them, which are gorgeous to look at. The animals are clearly the star of the show, and they certainly make it easy to find them "cute", but also easy to root for. There's one scene where they encounter a bear, and it's an interesting scene to watch in part because of how it plays itself out. The human characters don't exactly have much in terms of personality, but they don't derail the movie too much. Tweed has a scene as a hermit that is pretty quirky (he has a crow who rests on his hat), but he is respectably entertaining. The family in the movie is mostly prevalent in the climax of the film, and while it is disappointing that they get the chunk of what is a pretty heartwarming return, it doesn't distract too much from a movie that is on the whole a good time. Both films are good flicks for children along with adults, with this one having its own sense of the wilderness.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Bride's Play.

Review #916: The Bride's Play.

Cast:
Marion Davies (Enid of Cashell / Aileen Barrett), Jack O'Brien (Marquis of Muckross), Frank Shannon (Sir John Mansfield), Wyndham Standing (Sir Fergus Cassidy), Carl Miller (Bulmer Meade), Richard Cummings (John Barrett), Eleanor Middleton (Bridget), and Thea Talbot (Sybil) Directed by George Terwilliger.

Review:
Well, it's St. Patrick's Day, so why not a movie that has a main Irish character? (even if its plot device is likely not an Irish custom). This was a film meant as a starring vehicle for Marion Davies by producer by William Randolph Hearst, her lover. Davies is fairly interesting, doing her part with enough effort and competency. At 72 minutes, there is a mildly decent pace, though it feels like it will slog around the middle, and it certainly is a bit weird seeing Davies play her ancestor role (though it makes some sense). Standing and Miller are decent enough romantic leads (with O'Brien and Shannon being fairly tolerable supporting castmates) to carry their weight along with Davies. Simply put, the romance scenes are what you'd expect, being useful to watch if not too special. The love triangle is somewhat entertaining if you've never seen one of these before, but the real star of the show is the set design, with lavish costumes and a fine amount of flair to boot that helps give the movie some extra entertainment. It isn't so much that the movie is bland as it is just a movie with the similar kind of edges that you'd expect in other films, just with a supposed tradition of Irish "origin". In case you're wondering, here's how it goes: So the bride goes around and asks the round of the guests and asking each man he is the one she loves best (with all of them saying no), until the bride is left to say yes. Obviously this could be manipulated by a jilted guest, which to the credit of the movie does happen (albeit unsuccessfully for him), so whoopee for traditions. The bottom line: If you're a fan of these kind of romance movies (I don't dislike it, it's just I try to spread these out) or even a fan of silent films with a standout design and mostly standout cast, this might be the one for you.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, folks. How did I start the day off? Donating blood. See, you really can do something productive on this day.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Red Mill.

Review #915: The Red Mill.

Cast:
Marion Davies (Tina), Owen Moore (Dennis), Louise Fazenda (Gretchen), George Siegmann (Willem), Karl Dane (Capt. Jacop Van Goop), Russ Powell (Burgomaster), Snitz Edwards (Caesar Rinkle), William Orlamond (Governor), Fred Gamble (Innkeeper), and Ignatz (Himself) Directed by Roscoe Arbuckle.

Review:
Fear not, folks. Spring Break does not mean that Movie Night is on break. Reviews will pick up in the next few days, do not fear. 

The Red Mill was the first feature-length film directed by Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, who was working under the alias of William Goodrich due to the Virginia Rappe scandal, in which despite being found not guilty (after two hung juries), his reputation (and his name) had been tarnished. In any case, here's a movie set in Holland. It's not too terribly interesting, but it does have some decent moments, when it lets the players have fun and not go too slapsticky. Davies does a decent enough jobs with reaction shots, even when having to deal with a haunted mill. That, and an ice race. Seeing someone try to ice-skate (albeit with a little bit of help) is a nice little highlight. Moore is tolerable, though Fazenda and Siegmann stand out a bit more, seeming to have a little more chemistry with each other than the main two. The supporting cast is tolerable, with people that you'll recognize if you watch enough silent films, like Snitz Edwards, who hams it up as usual. The plot (adapted from a 1906 musical) gets itself tangled up a bit with romance between numerous characters, but it mostly handles itself without going overlong. Like a good deal of silent films covered on this show, the run-time (70 minutes) helps the film as this could've been a chore if it had been 90 minutes or longer. Honestly, there are better silent films, but at least this one has its moments and scenery along with moderately entertaining inter-titles that make it worth a glance.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Son of Kong.

Review #914: Son of Kong.

Cast:
Robert Armstrong (Carl Denham), Helen Mack (Hilda Petersen), Frank Reicher (Captain Englehorn), John Marston (Nils Helstrom), Victor Wong (Charlie), and Ed Brady (Red) Directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack (#283 - King Kong, #604 - Mighty Joe Young, and #709 - The Most Dangerous Game)

Review:
I will watch Kong: Skull Island next week, and as such it makes sense to do a review of a Kong movie. Enjoy, and I would encourage checking out the other Kong reviews done over the years: #283, #604 (made with the same creative team), and #726 - King Kong (1976).

Released just nine months after the first film had been released into theaters, Son of Kong is a sequel that isn't as well known (nor well-liked) as the original film. The movie begins with a brief recap of the first film (in dialogue), with the premise being set up by the time 10 minutes pass by. At least they didn't just take footage from the end of the movie. Some of the cast from the first film (Armstrong, Reicher, and Wong) appear in this one, and this is certainly one that gives Armstrong a bit more in terms of characterization. The tight budget and shooting schedule (screenwriter Ruby Rose described doing the movie as this: "If you can't make it bigger, make it funnier") meant that several models from the first film were reused, though Willis O'Brien does contribute stop-motion animation once again. It isn't until around 43 minutes that the Son of Kong appears in the movie, looking noticeably lighter skinned than his larger father, with facial expressions that seem to go with any sort of comedic moments the movie tries to do. The best thing I can say about the movie is that it isn't just a simple repeat of the first film, with semblances of romance and adventure taking the mantle this time. Unfortunately, it doesn't really have much of the tension nor importance the first film. Simply put, it's obviously not as good as the first one. It doesn't have too much spectacle and is quite rushed, giving a product that could have had potential had there been more time and length (this is only 69 minutes long) given to the movie. By releasing the movie quickly in order to ride off the memories people had of the original film, Son of Kong manages to be a middling sequel that could have been so much better.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Hamlet (1990).

Review #913: Hamlet (1990).

Cast:
Mel Gibson (Prince Hamlet), Glenn Close (Queen Gertrude), Alan Bates (King Claudius), Paul Scofield (Ghost of Hamlet's Father), Ian Holm (Polonius), Helena Bonham Carter (Ophelia), Stephen Dillane (Horatio), Nathaniel Parker (Laertes), and Michael Maloney and Sean Murray (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) Directed by Franco Zeffirelli.

Review:
I had read this play when I was in senior year of high school (are you surprised?), and I felt that it was a great play, though (naturally) I read it just once. Around two years later, it only made sense that I get around to seeing the 1990 version of Hamlet, compliments of my British Literature class. Whether one interprets the play as one dominated by an inability to act or one of revenge, the movie Obviously the movie takes liberties with the play (after all, it only lasts 134 minutes), but the best thing I can say about the movie is that it is competent enough in the right areas to overcome any doubt of feeling not needed. I will admit, the first half of the movie did not exactly give too much hope; it wasn't a terrible half, but it didn't exactly inspire too much confidence in Gibson (nor the film) having the right kind of passion. However, the second half of the movie does bring itself some well needed tension, where Gibson, Close, and Bates get their chance to show their talents in the climax. It's a swift and satisfying one, where the fencing sequence with Gibson and Parker being a key highlight, obviously.

This is the kind of movie that may vary heavily depending on how one views Gibson in the role of Hamlet. It took me a while to really get invested in Gibson, but he manages to excel at times when having to make madness feel mad. His take on the famed "To be, or not to be" soliloquy has a degree of raw sincerity that works with the carnal nature of the film. Close and Bates are acceptable, with the former being good at showing the motherly love that creeps into the psyche and provides for a particularly interesting scene in the last half of the film. Bates does a decent performance, managing to balance a demeanor of power and sinister nature pretty well. The sets and costumes look well made, looking deft without being too distracting. For me, the movie is well crafted and slick enough with its energy that work in the right places. But I can't find myself wanting to watch this film again, and I think it's because it would be like trying to read Hamlet again; sometimes you just have to let things lie where they are. It is a movie worth recommending for at least one viewing, though I should note there are numerous adaptations of the play as well. There is the 1948 version with Laurence Olivier (which won Best Picture and three other Oscars that year) or the 1996 version by Kenneth Branagh that was the first unabridged theatrical film version of the play (which runs at just over four hours). Of course there's also the 2000 version that updates the setting to the modern day...or the story done with lions in The Lion King. Whatever the case, this is a decent enough film.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Logan.

Review #912: Logan.

Cast:
Hugh Jackman (Logan / X-24), Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier / Professor X), Dafne Keen (Laura / X-23), Boyd Holbrook (Donald Pierce), Stephen Merchant (Caliban), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Zander Rice), Elizabeth Rodriguez (Gabriela), Eriq La Salle (Will Munson), Elise Neal (Kathryn Munson), and Quincy Fouse (Nate Munson) Directed by James Mangold.

Review:
In the films that I have watched where Hugh Jackman played the Wolverine (X-Men (#008), X2 (#010), X-Men: The Last Stand (#012), X-Men: First Class (#042), X-Men: Days of Future Past (#584); I haven't seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and X-Men: Apocalypse), it's evident to say that Logan stands out as the best of the bunch. Seeing this film in a packed theater certainly helped make for a homelier atmosphere, and the first five minutes certainly make for an intense if not riveting start to a movie that never really relents on entertainment. That's not to say that the movie is only full of action and language (after all, this is an R-rated film), as the film also has a good deal of emotional depth along with good performances from Jackman, Stewart, and Keen. Jackman and Stewart have already been in enough X-Men films together to make for fine chemistry already, but the road trip nature of this movie manages to give these two a good amount of highlights. Jackman and Keen have great chemistry together, just clicking immediately, with good writing also being helpful. Keen (in her first ever film) does a neat job, managing to bring out the humanity in what could've been either too sentimental or the opposite, and I hope to see more films revolving around this character. Jackman plays this withered role with the right kind of humility and timing, being entertaining as ever. Stewart certainly does a fine job once again, conveying the unstable and aged nature of the character in an emotionally satisfying way. Probably the only real flaw is that the villains aren't too great, though they do have a useful presence. Holbrook is pretty decent, managing to be arrogant enough to root against. Grant doesn't have too much screen time until the last half, but he is somewhat serviceable as a puppet master, just not very distinguishable from other mad scientists, minus hammy overacting at least. The action in the movie is thrilling, never managing to become too stale or rely on egregious killing just for killing. There is also a fairly competent story along with this movie, having a good time with a premise that could've been dreary with a lesser director/cast. On the whole, it's an excellent film that has both excitement and competency while being a good film for Wolverine to go out on.

On a sadder note, Robert Osborne, film historian and primary host for Turner Classic Movies (one of my favorite places to watch movies) died today at the age of 84. It is sad to see him pass on, particularly someone as knowledgeable and passionate about movies as he was. Rest in peace, Mr. Osborne.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Woman of the Year.

Review #911: Woman of the Year.

Cast:
Spencer Tracy (Sam Craig), Katharine Hepburn (Tess Harding), Fay Bainter (Ellen Whitcomb), Reginald Owen (Clayton), Minor Watson (William J. Harding), William Bendix ("Pinkie" Peters), Gladys Blake (Flo Peters), Dan Tobin (Gerald Howe), Roscoe Karns (Phil Whittaker), William Tannen (Ellis), and Ludwig Stössel (Dr. Lubbeck) Directed by George Stevens.

Review:
It has been a long time since I covered a Tracy-Hepburn film. In fact, the one I covered (#139 - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) was the last one, so it only seems fitting that after over 800 reviews, I cover the first movie to pair the two actors together. As it turned out, the two would make nine films together in 25 years of work, while this film won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, and it is easy to see why. Almost immediately, the chemistry between Tracy and Hepburn comes out beautifully on screen, with Tracy's no-nonsense attitude and levelheadedness meshing with Hepburn's wit and tenderness that is always interesting. Whether by acting or how it was written (done by Ring Lardner Jr. and Michael Kanin), they just click. There's a good amount of lines (both romantic and comedic), in part due to the execution by Stevens and a pretty good cast as well. Bainter and Watson are pretty good together, and Bendix provides a good chuckle or two along with Blake. This is just a movie that has a good time with its main two actors controlling the show with grace and charm, with an acceptable pace of 114 minutes. The movie earns a good payoff, and it does that for the most part, with the conflicts being believable, and the climax being somewhat serviceable. The ending was one that came about due to the reaction to the original ending shown to test audiences, in order to give Tess her "comeuppance". The ending (done over the objection of the screenwriters along with Hepburn) doesn't derail the movie, though this bit of irony (if you want to call it that, though I can't make waffles either) I guess makes the movie go full circle in a weird way. Regardless, the movie is a fine classic that I can recommend without any doubt in my mind due to the way that it is crafted.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Notorious (1946).

Review #910: Notorious.

Cast:
Cary Grant (T. R. Devlin), Ingrid Bergman (Alicia Huberman), Claude Rains (Alexander Sebastian), Leopoldine Konstantin (Madame Anna Sebastian), Louis Calhern (Captain Paul Prescott), Moroni Olsen (Walter Beardsley), Ricardo Costa (Dr. Julio Barbosa), Reinhold Schünzel (Dr. Anderson), Ivan Triesault (Eric Mathis), and Eberhard Krumschmidt (Emil Hupka) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, and #800 - Shadow of a Doubt)

Review:
It has been a while since I covered a Hitchcock film on Movie Night, but I figured that it was time to do one that I had been thinking of doing for quite a while now, which is a brilliant spy film noir. The easiest benefit (aside from Hitchcock's direction, which I'll get to) is the trio of Grant, Bergman, and Rains. All three shine in their respective roles, with Grant and Bergman having great chemistry together, particularly during one stretch where the two engage in kissing alongside dialogue and looking at each other, and the sequence (lasting two-and-a-half minutes) is not only one of the most famous sequences in film but also a passionate one to watch. The production code of the time prevented kisses longer than 3 seconds, but the sequence works better than a scene that would've been allowed to linger on that kiss, in part because of the tension one can see between the two being framed better. Rains is also a good villain, being carefully crafted while also having his own kind of chemistry with Bergman, with the right kind of pace and movements.  Konstantin (an Austrian actress popular during the pre-war times in Germany in her only American film performance) is also pretty good. The rest of the cast is also pretty good in their roles. The camera shots are also a key standout, from the shots that introduce Grant's character to the shots from a character's point of view during the climax, with every shot having a key element of finesse to it. The story is crafted excellently, with love and duty being a strong theme that makes for a riveting movie that also has moments of suspense that deliver a great payoff. The climax is a fairly good one, utilizing the characters and story to conclude itself without resorting to a big battle or anything that wouldn't have worked for this movie; this is the kind of a movie where it ends on a character going back to their own house (resigned to their fate), and it's just a neat way to end both that arc and the movie. At 101 minutes, it certainly is a movie with a good pace, and I can definitely recommend checking out this movie, especially if you are a fan of Hitchcock and his work.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Get Out.

Review #909: Get Out.

Cast:
Daniel Kaluuya (Chris Washington), Allison Williams (Rose Armitage), Bradley Whitford (Dean Armitage), Catherine Keener (Missy Armitage), Erika Alexander (Detective Latoya), Caleb Landry Jones (Jeremy Armitage), Lil Rel Howery (Rod Williams), Keith Stanfield (Andre "Logan" Hayworth), Stephen Root (Jim Hudson), Lakeith Stanfield (Andre Hayworth / Logan King), Erika Alexander (Detective Latoya), Marcus Henderson (Walter / Roman Armitage), and Betty Gabriel (Georgina / Marianne Armitage) Directed by Jordan Peele.

Review:
Get Out is certainly a movie that interested me when I first saw the trailers for it a few months ago, in part because of how strange and alluring it looked, without reminding me too much of the tropes that plague horror films (overuse of fading to black, premises that inspire laughter over fear, etc). In any case, I wanted to see this on opening weekend because I figured that it was the best chance I would get to see it, and I guess seeing it with a crowd helps. At the end of the day, Get Out excels at how it is crafted by writer-director Jordan Peele, who makes a movie that is thrilling along with being funny.

It never comes off as boring, with every scene having a purpose while also being crafted in terms of the acting and pacing. Kaluuya and Williams have fine chemistry together, having some charming lines together along with being good at adapting to the tension the movie builds over time. The characters are introduced neatly, with every character having a purpose and no sense of irritating factor to them (okay, maybe Jones' character, but it makes sense). Whitford and Keener are also pretty good as well, giving off the right kind of vibes that don't border on ridiculousness nor unbelievability. Howery is fun to watch, having good timing along with being more than just a comic relief, with an edge of casualness along with competence. Root doesn't get much time on screen, but he certainly helps in making an already tense mood a little bit weirder. The movie presents itself and its themes well, with everything crisply lit and crisply set up. There isn't a time when the movie is being unintentionally hilarious when dealing with horror nor un-entertaining when having humorous lines. I don't want to spoil the plot away. especially a climax that is rich in delivering a great payoff along with irony. The ideas the movie presents have a degree of familiarity and inspiration, but inside this movie is a careful sense of precision, where the plot does not bend to any sort of cliche (such as dream sequence fake-outs). However, I can definitely say that while it may have a bit of a reliance on jump scares, it certainly has a good enough of chills and thought-provoking ideas to make for a really entertaining film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The General (1926).

Review #908: The General.

Cast:
Buster Keaton (Johnnie Gray), Marion Mack (Annabelle Lee), Glen Cavender (Union Captain Anderson), Jim Farley (General Thatcher), Frederick Vroom (Confederate General), Charles Henry Smith (Annabelle's Father), Frank Barnes (Annabelle's Brother), Joe Keaton (Union General), Mike Donlin (Union General), and Tom Nawn (Union General) Directed by Clyde Bruckman and Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, #805- The Navigator, and #877 - Three Ages)

Review:
The General (distributed by United Artists - released on December 31, 1926 in Tokyo) was the 8th feature length film with Buster Keaton as the star, with the silent action-adventure-comedy inspired by the Great Locomotive Chase, a true story that occurred in the Civil War, involving a military raid of a train. The stuntwork that Keaton did himself at personal risk is played to great effect, with him jumping from engines to other parts of the train along with sitting on the front of the train along with sitting on a coupling rod, which is a particularly good gag to watch. The easiest positive one will notice early is the beautiful photography, which has the look and feel of the time it is supposed to portray, where the atmosphere doesn't look fake because of the technical design, all done to good detail. One could almost get lost in how great it looks, but the film is also filled with its share of gags that manage to keep the eyes on screen. There is a good deal of action and entertainment, with Keaton reacting as only he can, with his typical straight-laced reaction wrapping well with the tone of the film. Mack is a fairly decent romantic lead, doing fine in the scenes with Keaton. The rest of the cast isn't given too much time to standout, but they are fine in their roles. The train collapsing off the bridge is a wonderful way to end the movie, along with the last scene with the two leads, which goes off without much of a hitch (narrative wise anyway). Though the movie was later recognized for its brilliance in later years, it was not a success at the box office, in part due to the budget ($750,000, which was big for the time). Keaton soon had his creative freedom taken away from him for future films (with his deal to join MGM in 1928 being described by him as the worst business decision he ever made), but The General manages to live on as one of his great pieces of work in film due to how adventurous and ambitious it goes, with enough spectacle and charm for everyone.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

White Heat.

Review #907: White Heat.

Cast:
James Cagney (Arthur "Cody" Jarrett), Virginia Mayo (Verna Jarrett), Edmond O'Brien (Hank Fallon / Vic Pardo), Margaret Wycherly ("Ma" Jarrett), Steve Cochran ("Big Ed" Somers), Ford Rainey (Zuckie Hommel), John Archer (Philip Evans), Wally Cassell ("Cotton" Valletti), Fred Clark (Daniel "The Trader" Winston), Ian MacDonald ("Bo" Creel), and Paul Guilfoyle (Roy Parker) Directed by Raoul Walsh (#399 - The Thief of Bagdad (1924))

Review:
This review has been in the making for a long time, if you can believe that. Ever since I bought the film from my local Blockbuster over two years ago, this movie has been on the backburner of things I wanted to cover, but its time hadn't quite aligned with me, until now. When it comes to film noirs and gangster movies, White Heat certainly does not disappoint, being one of the seminal movies of its time. Cagney is a good chunk of why the movie works so well, portraying the instability of this villain without any sort of fakery nor too much overblown nature to him. The scene with him on his screen mother Wycherly's lap is also a good scene in showing the strange nature and dynamic of the two that plays off well with a movie that doesn't play to easiest gangster types. The scene where he reacts to a death personal to him is also quite exceptional in how he conveys the agony of that moment without stock elements in any way. Mayo does a fine job as the femme fatale, having good chemistry with Cagney along with being respectable with her charms. O'Brien is quite exceptional in his role by managing to size up well with Cagney without being overwrought with too much hero hokeyness. The rest of the cast does a good job in their roles, serving their purposes with the right kind of competency. The cinematography is good, having the right balances of color (for a black-and-white film) and picture. This is a movie with the right kind of tension and action, where even though you know how movies of the time might roll you still manage to really invest in how the movie plays itself out, owing to its great cast, all starting with James Cagney. I highly recommend this movie.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

John Wick: Chapter 2.

Review #906: John Wick: Chapter 2.

Cast:
Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Common (Cassian), Laurence Fishburne (The Bowery King), Riccardo Scamarcio (Santino D’Antonio), Ruby Rose (Ares), John Leguizamo (Aurelio), Ian McShane (Winston), Bridget Moynahan (Helen Wick), Lance Reddick (Charon), and Thomas Sadoski (Jimmy) Directed by Chad Stahelski (#905 - John Wick)

Review:
For #32 in the Theater Saga (and the first film reviewed of a movie released in 2017), it only makes sense to the sequel to John Wick...considering I just did the first one four days ago. I had planned to do this ever since this film had come out last week, and I'm happy to say it worked out well. While this sequel may not be as gripping with emotional depth as the first film, this film certainly has enough top-notch action and fine work by the cast to make for an exceptional sequel. The film doesn't fall to the trap of trying to emulate the previous film nor try to settle itself in a familiar hole. Reeves does a fine job once again, being a capable action hero in part because he once again manages to make Wick a compelling character (who isn't merely a killing machine) again. Common and Fishburne show up around the second half of the film, but they both are entertaining in how professional they are, with the former having two great action scenes with Reeves and the latter being enjoyable to watch interact with Reeves, with pigeons included. Scamarcio is a decent villain in part due to being realistic while being capable in action scenes. Rose is also a pretty good standout, a wordless but efficient performance with good timing for her action scenes. The rest of the cast is also pretty good when the movie needs them (such as with McShane), much like how the action shines when required. It's hard to say what is the best part, but the scenes in the subway and the final fight in the art museum are pretty good highlights, with a good deal of brightness and high paced fun. Even within the blood is a bit of lightheartedness, and it's always nice to see that pitbull dog (when you own a dog, you love seeing dogs on screen a bit more) on screen. The action and story work well with each other to make for an entertaining sequel that will surely open the door for another installment of Wick that I wholeheartedly approve of.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

John Wick.

Review #905: John Wick.

Cast:
Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Michael Nyqvist (Viggo Tarasov), Alfie Allen (Iosef Tarasov), Willem Dafoe (Marcus), Dean Winters (Avi), Adrianne Palicki (Ms. Perkins), Omer Barnea (Gregori), Toby Leonard Moore (Victor), Daniel Bernhardt (Kirill), Bridget Moynahan (Helen), John Leguizamo (Aurelio), Ian McShane (Winston), Bridget Regan (Addy), and Lance Reddick (Hotel Manager / Charon) Directed by Chad Stahelski and David Leitch.

Review:
On Valentine's Day, what better way to celebrate the day of passion with...a pretty good action thriller film. From the execution to the quick action to a wonderful cast, John Wick is an excellent movie in part because it doesn't take the easy way out nor cheat its audience while having a fairly engaging story. This isn't the kind of action film that seems reliant on CGI, with fine cinematography by Jonathan Sela. Reeves does a great job in part because of how realistic he is. Though the character is talented when it comes to being a hit man, Reeves manages to make the character stand out and not just be an unstoppable killing machine, where you can see the emotion and tension with the character, even among all the action, which is plentiful without being too gratuitous. There is a good story within the film as well, revolving around a legend that isn't built up to ridiculously over-the-top levels. Nyqvist is also good in the movie (as the de facto villain), having the right sense of gravitas and charm that elevate a role beyond what could've been a cliche big bad. Allen plays the rich kid punk with the right sense of arrogance as well. Dafoe does a fine job playing a hardened role as this, with a good deal of mentoring. Winters has the right kind of smarminess (and humor) to sell the role, and Palicki is stone cold cool. The rest of the cast is quirky in the way they stand out in a strange world of assassins, excluding Monyahan, who does fine in the time she has on screen. The movie flows at a great pace, never losing steam while also never letting go of the fun and logic. There are a good deal of highlights, with the church scene and the nightclub scenes being particularly good standouts, each using the right tone of color and dialogue to move through nicely with everything. This is a neat movie that kicks enough keister and tells a good story at the same time, shining on a good deal of effort.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Cabaret (1972).

Review #904: Cabaret.

Cast:
Liza Minnelli (Sally Bowles), Michael York (Brian Roberts), Helmut Griem (Maximilian von Heune), Joel Grey (Master of Ceremonies), Fritz Wepper (Fritz Wendel), Marisa Berenson (Natalia Landauer), Elisabeth Neumann-Viertel (Fräulein Schneider), Helen Vita (Fräulein Kost), Sigrid von Richthofen (Fräulein Mayr), Gerd Vespermann (Bobby), and Ralf Wolter (Herr Ludwig) Directed by Bob Fosse.

Review:
This has been a review in the making for quite awhile. I had originally bought this film from my local Blockbuster in November of 2014, but I had held off doing this film until the right kind of time came up. As it turned out, today (February 13) is that day, in part because it is 45 years to the day that the film was originally released. When it comes to musicals, Cabaret certainly stands out on its own, with a sense of cynicism and sharpness in its tone and songs, where style ans substance work together to make for something unique in every sense of the word. It's a daring movie that juggles itself perfectly, riding the line of seediness and sinister under-goings within such strange and extraordinary characters.

Minnelli does an exquisite job at making such a strange character work so perfectly, with singing that is as razzle-dazzle as the film is. She has a great range of voice and talent that makes for a performance for the ages in part because of how far it goes. York does a fine job, being clever and easy to relate to while also going through noticeable (and welcome) changes throughout the film. Griem also does a fine job, being so alluringly strange with every movement and word. Grey is a key standout, matching the moods of the cabaret while also being talented at showcasing the fine qualities of the show and some of the songs, such as "Money", which is a decadently wonderful song by Grey and Minnelli. Wepper and Berenson are also pretty good together, having the kind of understated chemistry that works in a movie all with bigness. There are other songs that stand out, such as "Maybe This Time" with its own kind of hope, "Tomorrow Belongs to Me", with key tones of irony, and "If You Could See Her", which works on a good subtle level. This is a wonderfully staged film, with every movement and action done at such a key pace that works marvelously, such as the final shot with the reveal of the crowd, with the movie ending as it began: in place, moving with the times.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Dr. Jack.

Review #903: Dr. Jack.

Cast: 

Harold Lloyd (Dr. "Jack" Jackson), Mildred Davis (The Sick-Little-Well-Girl), John T. Prince (Her Father), Eric Mayne (Dr. Ludwig von Saulsbourg), C. Norman Hammond (Jamison, the Lawyer), and Charles Stevenson (Asylum Guard) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman, #674 - Grandma's Boy, #758 - Safety Last!, #864 - Hot Water, and #889 - A Sailor-Made Man) and Sam Taylor (The Freshman, #727 - For Heaven's Sake, Safety Last!, and Hot Water)

Review:

Dr. Jack was the third feature length film starring Harold Lloyd, released two months after Grandma's Boy had come out. Unlike that film, this is a more gag focused movie that runs at a length of just an hour long. Lloyd is once again good at his element, always managing to be likable and easy to see in nearly any sort of heroic role. The gags are par for the course (the card game one is a good one, taking its sweet time to work), and Mayne is a fine foil for Lloyd in part because of how easy he sells this antagonistic role, with the climax being a satisfying conclusion for the main characters. Davis and Lloyd (who married each other the following year) are a good pair once again, doing the staring at each other bits well enough. Prince also does a decent job as the father. On the whole, if you've seen one Lloyd film, you'll probably think this has some sort of familiarity (hence why it is best to spread out the schedule), but there is always enough charm and a sense of believability within the madcap fun that goes on at times to make for a fun time, which is the case for this film. The structure may seem familiar, but it's a structure that works just as well in part due to its nature of enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Split (2016).

Review #902: Split.

Cast:
James McAvoy (Dennis / Patricia / Hedwig / The Beast / Kevin Wendell Crumb / Barry / Orwell / Jade), Anya Taylor-Joy (Casey Cooke), Betty Buckley (Dr. Karen Fletcher), Haley Lu Richardson (Claire Benoit), Jessica Sula (Marcia), Brad William Henke (John), Sebastian Arcelus (Mr. Cooke), Neal Huff (Mr. Benoit) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense)

Review:

It's been two weeks since it came out in theaters (as it premiered at festivals earlier last year such as Fantastic Fest), but I figured that Split would be interesting enough to watch on the big screen, and it has been over five years since I saw a Shyamalan film. Ultimately, it is a nifty horror film in how creepy it raises itself while managing to save its trump card of horror for a pretty satisfactory climax, at least for me anyway, and it does that on a PG-13 rating. While it can be argued that the premise is somewhat strange, it can also be argued that it is also somewhat interesting to make a film out of, and it is executed fairly well, not being just an run-of-the-mill escape film with teens. It is undeniable to say that the best part of the movie is McAvoy, who delivers on showing numerous personalities with the right kind of off-putting terror, where even him dancing to music (as one of his...odder personalities) is creepy. Taylor-Joy does a pretty decent job as well, having a quiet but useful type of cleverness that works better than the other two captives, probably because she isn't so focused on escaping so quickly. The movie thankfully does have scenes outside the cellar, and Buckley does a decent job in making her character a bit more than just a doctor with a patient going crazy. It is true that the characters are a bit odd with their decisions at time (with the doctor qualifying for this near the end as well), but Split manages to keep itself going on the idea of seeing what McAvoy is going to show up next. The climax, as mentioned before, is satisfactory in how it manages to not resort to too much CGI or over-screaming, working on its own terms. The Beast is a fairly decent effect, not being too ridiculous (in terms of voice or look) while managing to work in the short amount of time it gets on screen. On the whole, this is a satisfying (along with creepy) film, with Shyamalan doing a good job in making an entertaining film like this.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Racket (1928).

Review #901: The Racket.

Cast:
Thomas Meighan (Captain James McQuigg), Louis Wolheim (Nick Scarsi), Marie Prevost (Helen Hayes), G. Pat Collins (Patrolman Johnson), Henry Sedley (Spike), George E. Stone (Joe Scarsi), John Darrow (Dave Ames - Cub Reporter), and Sam De Grasse (District Attorney Welch) Directed by Lewis Milestone.

Review:
It only took until February to cover a silent film for the new year, but it's good to get back into the voiceless spirit, especially with a movie that was lost for years until it was found in the collection of producer Howard Hughes' after his death.This was one of the films nominated at the 1st Academy Awards for "Outstanding Picture", though it lost to Wings (#349. Fun fact, that year also had a category named Unique and Artistic Picture (which #499 - Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans won), while also having Best Director for both Comedy and Dramatic Pictures). The Racket was based off the play of the same name (which like the film was banned in Chicago), and it certainly feels like a play at times, using only a few sets (such as the police station), but the film manages to have snappy action and efficient characters, moving at an efficient pace. Wolheim certainly has the look of a villain (due to a football injury to his nose in college), and he does a fine job at making this gangster a decent counterpart to Meighan, who also does pretty good as the authority figure, having a stern but workable attitude that certainly looks the part. The rest of the cast is also pretty good at their roles, not doing anything too over-the-top and Prevost being a fine player who doesn't get involved in romance scenes (though her chemistry with Darrow is serviceable at least). At 84 minutes, The Racket runs at a fine pace while also being the kind of crime drama that pulls all the right buttons and moves the right motions in its nifty cast and action at the right times, made just before gangster films became more prevalent. On the whole, it's a efficient film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Nashville.

Review #900: Nashville.

Cast:
David Arkin (Norman), Barbara Baxley (Lady Pearl), Ned Beatty (Delbert Reese), Karen Black (Connie White), Ronee Blakley (Barbara Jean), Timothy Brown (Tommy Brown), Keith Carradine (Tom Frank), Geraldine Chaplin (Opal), Robert DoQui (Wade), Shelley Duvall (L. A. Joan), Allen Garfield (Barnett), Henry Gibson (Haven Hamilton), Scott Glenn (Pfc. Glenn Kelly), Jeff Goldblum (Tricycle Man), Barbara Harris (Albuquerque), David Hayward (Kenny Frasier), Michael Murphy (John Triplette), Allan F. Nicholls (Bill), Dave Peel (Bud Hamilton), Cristina Raines (Mary), Bert Remsen (Star), Lily Tomlin (Linnea Reese), Gwen Welles (Sueleen Gay), Keenan Wynn (Mr. Green), and Thomas Hal Phillips (Hal Phillip Walker) Directed by Robert Altman

Review:
Nashville is quite an experience, that much is for sure. It takes place over the course of five days, and yet it still manages to have one of the biggest assemblages of cast that work together to make for such an interesting movie of expression. There is no real main character, nor is there ever a moment where the film loses balance over what it wants to be: a film with people as diverse in nature and as interesting as the city it sets itself in. Even some of the settings (such as the Grand Ole Opry and the Parthenon in Nashville that is used for the climax) seem to reach out as their own character, with their own kind of blemishes just like these characters. For me, my favorites in the film were not so much because of likable they were, but because of how interesting they managed to be, with Beatty, Blakley, Chaplin, Gibson, and Tomlin being the big standouts who really have their own noticeable traits and flaws that one can see in themselves or others. The scene where Tomlin and Beatty are with their (deaf) children is especially telling in making these characters significant with a good degree of subtlety. The characters don't veer too much into cliches in part because they seem so real and seem so authentic to the vision of the film.

Even minor characters (like Welles or Black) are ones that we can still relate to, even if they aren't as high up on the success trail. Goldblum (in a voiceless but constant role) is also pretty memorable, in part because of the tricycle he rides throughout the film. DoQui and Welles certainly make a good pair together in the time they share together on screen. Phillips (and the dialogue that his voice is heard from for a good part of the film) is good in conveying the reach of his character without having to show him. There are so many scenes with their own range of emotion and feeling, where even a scene where Chaplin is talking poetic about buses in a junkyard is great. The film has a great deal of quality music (all done live, and by the actors themselves), all of the songs working intricately with the scene it goes with, such as with "I'm Easy"a key standout, sung by Keith Carradine, who carries the song with the right sense of tension and emotion (fun fact: this song won the Oscar for Best Original Song that year). The film doesn't try to resolve the plot threads in a concise manner, letting it up to the viewer to see where the path of these characters go from there, especially with a climax that is great in its surprise and its final beat with the last song ("It Don't Worry Me"). Nashville is a movie that does not try to bait and switch the realities of the time it was made in, and its impact can still be felt and related to over four decades after its release.

I hope you enjoyed this review, the 900th review done since this show began 2,234 days (over six years) ago. It is obvious (to me anyway) that Movie Night has progressed significantly in terms of quality and the kind of film that gets a shot at being covered. Though the show has gone on its own kind of pace, I hope that Movie Night continues to evolve in a positive way and that you all continue to enjoy this, even if in a small way. This is still a good hobby of mine, but it is also an excellent hobby to do every so often. Thank you all.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

A Shot in the Dark.

Review #899: A Shot in the Dark.

Cast:
Peter Sellers (Jacques Clouseau), Elke Sommer (Maria Gambrelli), George Sanders (Benjamin Ballon), Herbert Lom (Charles Dreyfus), Tracy Reed (Dominique Ballon), Graham Stark (Hercule Lajoy), Moira Redmond (Simone), Vanda Godsell (Madame LaFarge), Maurice Kaufmann (Pierre), Ann Lynn (Dudu), David Lodge (Georges), André Maranne (François), Martin Benson (Maurice), and Burt Kwouk (Kato) Directed by Blake Edwards (#329 - The Pink Panther and #481 - The Party)

Review:
One thing that definitely can be said about this is that it certainly continues the laughs from The Pink Panther (released less with Sellers in control this time around as the main lead, with a more peculiar accent that became the hallmark of the character. With a great deal of slapstick and gags that combine with an engaging cast willing to have fun, A Shot in the Dark is also a fine sequel, while introducing newcomers that would become mainstays in the franchise, such as Lom as the long-suffering Dreyfus and Kwouk as Cato, the skilled servant used to "help" Clouseau in keeping his skills. Both are prime in their roles, with the latter getting especially more compelling the more the film goes on. It's also a pretty decent mystery as well, where the facts and allure balance handily with a movie that never veers too seriously but also never veers too ridiculously off-point, where every scene has something worth watching. Sellers and Sommer have a fair balance of chemistry together, right from their opening scene, where Clouseau catches on fire. Sellers seems at ease doing this role, with the right sense of bumbling incompetence that never ceases to entertain nor overstay its welcome, even when it repeats a gag or two a few times. I'd say some of the situations, but that just spoils the fun of what is a good romp. The movie gets wild, but it never goes completely off the rails, always having a sense of responsibility, with a fairly concocted climax as well.  At 102 minutes, A Shot in the Dark is also pretty well paced, having the right amount of gags and characters to make for a fun movie for anyone.

Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Tomorrow night: Number Nine Hundred.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Larceny, Inc.

Review #898: Larceny, Inc.

Cast:
Edward G. Robinson (J. Chalmers "Pressure" Maxwell), Jane Wyman (Denny Costello), Broderick Crawford (Jug Martin), Jack Carson (Jeff Randolph), Anthony Quinn (Leo Dexter), Edward Brophy (Weepy Davis), Harry Davenport (Homer Bigelow), John Qualen (Sam Bachrach), and Barbara Jo Allen (Mademoiselle Gloria) Directed by Lloyd Bacon (#562 - It Happens Every Spring)

Review:
A mix of comedy and gangster films, Larceny, Inc. manages to be a fine combination of the two genres by being itself with enough snappy charm from its cast along with some fine lines as well to make for a fine little gem. Easily the best part of the movie is Robinson, in part because of his great screen presence, in a movie all about timing and straight-laced fun. Crawford and Brophy are good accomplices to Robinson, with their own quirks and lines that make them so endearing. One fun scene is their exchange about one of them having a walk onto moving traffic as part of a quick scam...and having him show them how he would bounce off a bumper. Wyman and Carson have some bit of chemistry, but they aren't given too much to do (outside of contributing to the plot), though they certainly don't hurt the movie. Quinn proves to be a decent little villain. Davenport is also pretty decent in a small but key role as a shop owner, with one good little scene where he keep reminiscing over and over as he leaves the store after selling it. Jackie Gleason (of "The Honeymooners" fame and other things) makes a brief appearance as a soda shop clerk, getting a bit of time to be involved in the background. There is something so interesting about seeing how the plot threads of the heist and the business wrap themselves so cohesively, where the laughs never seem to cease up (and even when they do, not for very long). This is an easy movie to have a good time with, in part because even when the movie isn't about getting laughs it still manages to have its own kind of talent and sort of finesse. This is a fine little spoof of gangster films with the right kind of fun and sensible writing that surely delivers on its premise.

Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Sweet Smell of Success.

Review #897: Sweet Smell of Success.

Cast: 
Burt Lancaster (J. J. Hunsecker), Tony Curtis (Sidney Falco), Susan Harrison (Susan Hunsecker), Martin Milner (Steve Dallas), Sam Levene (Frank D'Angelo), Barbara Nichols (Rita), Jeff Donnell (Sally), Joe Frisco (Herbie Temple), and Emile Meyer (Lt. Harry Kello) Directed by Alexander Mackendrick (#567 - The Ladykillers)

Review:
This is the kind of movie (often put under the category of film noir) that lures you and never seems to let go of your interest, even with character such as these and dialogue spoken in ways that are still as sharp as they were nearly 60 years after its release. Lancaster and Curtis are the perfect pair of leads that will make you recoil at their actions and how they convey them with the right sinister touch, where it's hard to tell who is more villainous and who is more pathetic. The way that the movie is shot is also another positive, where the lighting (particularly on Lancaster) really give the movie a certain feel that mike make one a bit squeamish, and for good reason. Harrison doesn't get much to do, but she certainly does a fine job at portraying a pawn in a movie all about schemes. Milner is also pretty decent at playing such a headstrong character that contrasts well enough with the rest of the characters. The supporting cast is also pretty good in making the atmosphere even more seedy. There is certainly a good degree of wit and pacing where you can be uncomfortable with the implications (read: actions) brought by the movie and still find the movie an achievement in film-making, with a good run time at 96 minutes as well. Mackendrick certainly manages to make a movie (based off a novelette by Ernest Lehman with the film written by Clifford Odets) worth watching, thick in its own layers of darkness within its cleverness. It's not a movie for anyone, but it is a movie worth watching, in part because of how well crafted it is, from the production values to the cast.

Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

A Patch of Blue.

Review #896: A Patch of Blue.

Cast:
Sidney Poitier (Gordon Ralfe), Shelley Winters (Rose-Ann D'Arcey), Elizabeth Hartman (Selina D'Arcey), Wallace Ford (Ole Pa), Ivan Dixon (Mark Ralfe), Elisabeth Fraser (Sadie), and John Qualen (Mr. Faber) Directed by Guy Green.

Review:
There is something interesting about how the movie paces itself with elements of romance and a touch of good natured humanity. It's not a movie mired in being dated or only relevant for the time, in part because this is still a film that could be made today. Sure, one could be cynical and rail against the literal nature of "love is blind" the movie takes, but I find it to be an entertaining movie in part because of the two leads. There is just something magical and charming about their scenes, where Poitier and Hartman (in her debut performance) simply just click on screen. Hartman makes this naive but charming girl one to care about. Poitier is entertaining as well, showing the right kind of depth and humanity. It's not an innocent movie either, with Winters portraying her character with the right kind of toxic nature that accompanies a movie that has enough punch to be quite effective. Ford (in his last performance) is also quite good in his role, portraying this sad old man without any hint of fakery. You can have scenes where the two are enjoying themselves buying groceries, and other scenes where she tries to navigate herself to the park on her own without help. There is enough emotion and heart that it never feels manipulative nor too sentimental. The movie flows well at 105 minutes, never dragging itself too much while also managing to have a ending that fits the film well in being itself and not going for the easy out. It certainly is a film that leaves itself open to discussion over a good deal of subjects, and it makes the mark of a fairly good movie. While it may not be as influential as Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (#139) was when released two years after this film, A Patch of Blue still manages to leave its mark with the way it presents itself and its characters. Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day, folks.

Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rocky V.

Review #895: Rocky V.

Cast:
Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Talia Shire (Adrian Balboa), Burt Young (Paulie Pennino), Sage Stallone (Robert "Rocky" Balboa, Jr), Richard Gant (George Washington Duke), Tommy Morrison (Tommy "The Machine" Gunn), Burgess Meredith (Mickey Goldmill), Tony Burton (Tony Evers), and Paul J. Micale (Father Carmine) Directed by John G. Avildsen (#003 - Rocky)

Review:
Ah yes, this one. It has been a while since I talked about the Rocky franchise (#003, #277 - Rocky II, #340 - Rocky III, #597 - Rocky IV, #760 - Creed), so it only makes sense that I review the one that attempted to return Rocky to his roots...and does so with minimal results. It's not the fact that it inverts the formula as it the fact that it's just not that entertaining. Neither Rocky IV or V are good, for varying reasons, with one being ludicrous and the other feeling hollow. The way that the film resets Rocky's status seems cheap, with the brain damage part somehow not clicking, in part because Rocky seems the same anyway, and the climax is a fight in the streets (which goes down the way you expect, sans any idea of Rocky getting more damage). Probably the easiest problem with the movie is the fact that it tries too hard to return to the grit of the first film (while doing an inverse of the rags-to-riches story), without much of the heart of what made that movie entertaining. Obviously this is a movie that tries to end the series with some sort of dignity that the fourth film didn't have, but it all comes off as a throwback with some mold on it. The two stories (Rocky training Tommy and his family drama) don't mesh well, in part because they just feel unfocused.

It only makes sense that Stallone cast his son to play (are you ready for this): his son, ignoring the age difference from previous films. Obviously the two have father-son chemistry, but I didn't really find the son's narrative to be particularly interesting enough to care about. Of course the solution to his problems is fighting (literally every problem in these movies can be solved by fighting), but it just feels superficial. Heck, he even befriends the dude he beats up, because I guess that's how things work in Philadelphia in the 90's. As for the main Stallone, he does a fine job as always, continuing to make Rocky a likable character, though he does have some moments where he experiences some sort of depth, like when he is talking to Adrian about having meaning in his life again by training Tommy. Relating to that, Morrison (an actual boxer) doesn't have much screen presence, never really seeming like someone to care about, with Gant taking most of the villainous role...while playing it as over-the-top as one could do it. I didn't find him to be that great a villain (in part because half the time his pleas for Rocky to fight are rejected by Adrian), and his scenes with Morrison aren't anything special. He definitely doesn't help when the movie is trying to return to its roots. Young is fine as usual, with a bit more importance this time around (for better or worse). It is somewhat nice to see Meredith (playing Mickey again in a flashback) again, even if his scene is there mainly to speed the plot up.

There is a climax, culminating in a street fight...and some messy editing, where it flashes back at times to Rocky's other fights (which occurred numerous times already), which just makes me want to watch any of the other films instead. There really isn't a way to end the movie without the status quo (Rocky still being broke) still being the same unless you kill off Rocky, which apparently was the original plan, before it was changed...and it's easy to see why. Seeing Rocky die would be the ultimate downer in a series all about perseverance and heart. Sure, he wins the fight. So what? The movie's ending can be questioned with that phrase, and there really is no answer. The previous films had some sort of meaning with the way the fights go (even the fourth one, with Rocky's speech at the end), but this one just doesn't feel right. The last scene with the two Stallones (and a credit sequence that takes images from the previous films) is somewhat good, but by then it's too late to make any real kind of impact. At the end of the day, Rocky V just doesn't click right. There's no real punch to it, and it certainly doesn't feel like a proper finale to the series.

Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

College Road Trip.

Review #894: College Road Trip.

Cast: 
Martin Lawrence (Chief James Porter), Raven-Symoné (Melanie Porter), Eshaya Draper (Trey Porter), Donny Osmond (Doug Greenhut), Molly Ephraim (Wendy Greenhut), Kym Whitley (Michelle Porter), Brenda Song (Nancy Carter), Margo Harshman (Katie Crazyman), Arnetia Walker (Grandma Porter), Vincent Pastore (Freddy), and Lucas Grabeel (Scooter) Directed by Roger Kumble (#838 - Just Friends)

Review: 
Of course this movie is terrible. What do you expect? This is the kind of fare meant for younger audiences than I (a 20 year old college student who clearly should be doing better things on break), and while it is easy to admit that some could get a kick out of this movie, it is also evident that this was a dull thing to watch. It even lasts less than 90 minutes (of course), which means this isn't a movie I can't say I wasted too much time on. Lawrence seems more interested in seeing the film end than actually making his character anything other than just a weird dad with typical issues with his daughter, with one of his stunts being to sneak over to a dorm her and her friends are sleeping over to see if there are any boys there (writing this whole sentence made my head hurt)...and he ends up trapped under one of the beds. Raven is fine, but she seems to go through the motions much like the people who end up watching the movie. The only sort of interest was seeing Donny Osmond (of all people) be in the movie for about five minutes (oh, and at the end), if only because it reminded me that the only other time I ever saw Osmond in anything was when he hosted the game show Pyramid (remember that? That was over a decade ago. Oh, and the song "White & Nerdy". You know, these sentences are almost more interesting than talking about the movie...but I digress). Granted, it's him playing an overly energetic character, but it's probably the only thing about the movie worth discussing (that, and him attacking the fiance of his daughter.). Not even a pig (one of those smart ones, because that's a thing) can contribute to any real gags. This just feels like a television movie that was put into theaters, in part because of bland it is. There's nothing terribly offensive (not that there would be), nor anything that you wouldn't find in TV movies. I'd care more, but at least I never had to make a college road trip of my own.

Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Dirty Harry.

Review #893: Dirty Harry.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Andy Robinson (Scorpio), Harry Guardino (Lt. Al Bressler), Reni Santoni (Inspector Chico Gonzalez), John Vernon (The Mayor of San Francisco), John Larch (Chief of Police), John Mitchum (Frank "Fatso" DiGiorgio), Woodrow Parfrey (Jaffe), and Josef Sommer (District Attorney William T. Rothko) Directed by Don Siegel.

Review: 
I decided to use this film as the beginning point in part because the 45th anniversary (in late December) had passed on without notice, and it also seemed right to do this film, a hallmark of police films. This is certainly an excellently crafted film, right down from the style and action but also the way it presents its main character. Eastwood is excellent at conveying this loose cannon type of cop with the sort of cynicism and blunt edge without any kind of insincerity nor too overblown. The movie is at its best when showcasing the action (or in some cases, the sets used, such as Kezar Stadium), with a particularly excellent climax in a rock quarry. Besides the grit (and catchphrases) is a movie that does not try to hide its loyalties or thoughts on certain manners, especially with scenes regarding Vernon. Guardino and Santoni are serviceable, doing their roles without any kind of distraction. Robinson does a good job as the villain in part because of his mannerisms and how unassuming he seems. There is a perfect kind of imbalance that he conveys that work within the manners of the film. The movie seems to slow itself a bit around the middle, but it manages to have a good enough beginning and end that it doesn't really account for too much slog. It's obvious to say this isn't the kind of movie for anyone (especially for ones that aren't fans of violence), but it's also obvious to say this is a film that uses everything given to it (fine directing and a fine enough cast along with well conveyed action) and makes it a worth while time at 102 minutes. It isn't a standard kind of procedural and that's just the way it likes it to be.

Welcome to Season 7 (2017), folks: Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Right Stuff.

Review #892: The Right Stuff.

Cast: 
Fred Ward (Gus Grissom), Dennis Quaid (Gordon Cooper), Ed Harris (John Glenn), Scott Glenn (Alan Shepard), Sam Shepard (Chuck Yeager), Lance Henriksen (Wally Schirra), Scott Paulin (Deke Slayton), Barbara Hershey (Glennis Yeager), Veronica Cartwright (Betty Grissom), Jane Dornacker (Nurse Murch), Harry Shearer and Jeff Goldblum (NASA recruiters), Kim Stanley (Pancho Barnes), Pamela Reed (Trudy Cooper), Charles Frank (Scott Carpenter), Donald Moffat (Lyndon B. Johnson), Levon Helm (Jack Ridley and Narrator), and Mary Jo Deschanel (Annie Glenn) Directed by Philip Kaufman.

Review: 
Watching epic movies (especially historical ones) can be interesting, provided that that the pacing and the subject matter make for good entertainment, with this being adapted from the non-fiction book of the same name by Tom Wolfe, which covered both the story of the Project Mercury astronauts (also known as the Mercury Seven) along with the pilots dealing with high-speed aircraft such as Chuck Yeager, ranging from his breaking of the sound barrier in 1947 to the launch of Mercury-Atlas 9 in 1963. Even with a 192 minute (over three hour) run time, obviously some liberties had to be taken in order to tell a story like this, and the end result is certainly satisfying enough, with spectacle and cast to boot. Even after Project Mercury is introduced by the first hour, it doesn't merely become about the crew, as it also continues to give time to Yeager, while also not being just a technical story. The two stories run parallel with each other very smoothly, while showing some wonderful effects and costumes. By the time Yeager's story ends, there is a sense of triumph that carries on to the end of the other narrative that make for exquisite viewing and an ambitious movie.

Ward does a fine job, along with Quaid, who make for entertaining scenes together. Harris (playing the recently departed John Glenn) stands out amongst the crew, likely due to his charm but also the determination he manages to show in someone as interesting as John Glenn was. Glenn (playing Alan Shepard) is pretty entertaining, having some quips along with some sort of charm. Shepard (playing Chuck Yeager) plays the role with a straight laced but ultimately interesting way.  The rest of the cast is also pretty good, with Moffat being quite entertaining as LBJ. As said earlier, the film takes liberties with certain events (such as the Mercury-Redstone 4's hatch cover blowing, with some implication toward Grissom being the cause and Jack Ridley being shown talking to Yeager after the former had died in 1957), but it does not detract too much from the story's flow. It never feels too long, nor out of its element in regards to showing these astronauts and their lives. One of the best scenes is them discussing with the scientists over installing a window, in part because you see how they see themselves more than just test subjects. On the whole, this is a movie that inspires curiosity along with excitement over an age long gone but not forgotten, with enough depth and skill to make for a tremendously entertaining experience.

On that note, I wish all of you readers at home a Happy New Year as we approach 2017, and in effect Season 7 of Movie Night. Season 6 had 116 reviews (with only one review in January to begin the season), as compared to the 90 in the previous season (2014). With any luck, Movie Night will keep trying to push the limit of the standard I hold myself when writing these reviews, along with trying to cover a diverse amount of movies, the good and the bad.

Thank you for reading, and I will see you in the new year. 10, 9, 8...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Beauty and the Beast (1991).

Review #891: Beauty and the Beast.

Cast:
Paige O'Hara (Belle), Robby Benson (The Prince/Beast), Richard White (Gaston), Jerry Orbach (Lumière), David Ogden Stiers (Cogsworth), Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Potts), Bradley Pierce (Chip), Rex Everhart (Maurice), Jesse Corti (LeFou), Hal Smith (Philippe), and Jo Anne Worley (the Wardrobe) Directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise.

Review:
What is there to say about Beauty and the Beast that countless others haven't said over the past 25 years since it was released? Especially from someone who had never seen it before? I'll try to keep my words around the usual level of babbling for a movie like this. In any case, it's easy to like Beauty and the Beast. It's also easy to love it. Why is it so easy? Maybe it's the gorgeous animation, or maybe it's the wonderful songs, or maybe it's the characters that give the movie its depth. There is a certain kind of grace the film has, from the opening scene narrating the tale of the Prince's turn into the Beast, to a climax that is executed neatly. The ballroom dance sequence is a particular scene that stands out, from the waltz to the animation (with the background animated in CGI mixing with the traditional animated characters) to just how delicate everything is handled, which makes for a fantastic scene. There is never a dull moment in the movie, and it certainly looks like great care was taken in terms of how everything flows from scene to scene. The characters are enjoyable as well, exuding their own fair kinds of charm and depth. O'Hara does a fine job at portraying this main character with a good deal of wit and grace, and her scenes with Benson are as entertaining as one would expect, with the latter giving the character the right amount of conflict and presence. White is a fun villain (with his look certainly helping), conveying the right amount of arrogance and some form of charm within an enemy as delightfully evil as this. Orbach and Stiers certainly go well together, and they (along with Lansbury) contribute to making these songs so catchy and so enjoyable, especially "Be Our Guest", with the rest of the cast also doing a fine job. On the whole, this is a great film, complete with everything anyone of any age could enjoy, from animation to characters. At 84 minutes, it's an easy film to recommend to anyone, especially if you're in the Disney mood.

Countdown to 900 Reviews: 10, 9...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.