Deathtrap.

Review #1065: Deathtrap.

Cast: 
Michael Caine (Sidney Bruhl), Christopher Reeve (Clifford Anderson), Dyan Cannon (Myra Bruhl), Irene Worth (Helga Ten Dorp), Henry Jones (Porter Milgrim), and Joe Silver (Seymour Starger) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, and #404 - The Anderson Tapes)

Review: 
Deathtrap was adapted from the play of the same name by Ira Levin, which had run from 1978 to 1982 on Broadway, holding the record for the longest running comedy-thriller on Broadway. The original play comprised of two acts with one set and five characters. and it is easy to say that the transition to film went smoothly, with the only thing added being scenes set in the theater that bookend the movie - along with a few other small changes. Quite simply, this is an effective comedy-thriller, balancing its elements handily along with having a fine pair in Caine and Reeve. The film takes its time to get interesting, but it never comes off as boring nor stale, although I find that the second half of the movie is where it really gets itself into gear. Caine excels in his role, having the right kind of frantic and resourceful nature that makes him fun to watch on screen, particularly with the snappy dialogue that works with his dry tone. Reeve delivers an entertaining performance, managing to balance a boyish charm and unpredictability quite nicely. Cannon is the weak link in the main cast, coming off a bit annoying at points, with her shrieking being a bit tiresome to hear, although she can come off as endearing for others. Worth is fairly amusing in the parts that she is in, playing her eccentric nature with the right kind of conviction and energy that never rattles too much off the deep end. The movie doesn't elicit too much in terms of scares, but it does manage to elicit excitement from its main two actors in the finale to make up for it. The movie has often been compared to Sleuth (1972), which also featured Caine; I can't say how my opinion would've changed had I seen the other film before this one, but I would hope that the viewing experience for either film isn't bent too much because of any kind of comparison-making. The movie manages to run itself fairly well at 116 minutes, never becoming tedious with its twists nor lengthening itself to ridiculous heights, having fun with the ways it moves the pieces of its jigsaw puzzle kind of plot (which you should see for yourself) handily. This is a fine gem that has some dark humor to go along with its clever nature that works in the places it needs to the most with its cast and arrangements that is interesting enough to recommend.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Jumper (2008).

Review #1064: Jumper.

Cast: 
Hayden Christensen (David Rice), Rachel Bilson (Millie Harris), Samuel L. Jackson (Roland Cox), Jamie Bell (Griffin O'Connor), Diane Lane (Mary Rice), Teddy Dunn (Mark Kobold), and Michael Rooker (William Rice) Directed by Doug Liman.

Review: 
It is only fitting that a movie like this involve teleporting, since the film seems to like getting away from itself, constantly shuffling between two modes: erratic and plain. I can't say that the idea of teleporting wouldn't make for a good film (The Fly (#710), anybody?), but I can't say that this movie succeeds, mostly because there isn't much fun delivered with its story nor its contents. The film is based of the book of the same name by Steven Gould, who also contributed to the story (with a screenplay done by David S. Goyer, Jim Uhls & Simon Kinberg), and I imagine that the novel must've had some sort of energy and life to it that must've felt appealing to try and make a movie out of. To say the film feels jumbled is an overstatement, such as the "Paladins", the villains of the film that don't really have much development besides some vague reasoning, or "jump scars", since I guess jumping leaves a trail (or something like that). This is a stunted narrative that can't make us care about what is going on; it's not so much that the film's plot is insulting in a dumb way, it's just that the plot is bland and not particularly involving, with a lack of focus.

In a way, the flatness of the characters means that you can't put all of the blame on Christensen, who delivers a stiff performance that in no way helps the movie get any sort of life, although his character isn't even easy to go for. His character never does anything that makes you really want to root for him, and if it wasn't for the hunting by the paladins, you could re-write him into a villain, complete with a bratty nature and an even more boring amorality, complete with his first lines of the film that describes how he was a normal person, a "chump, just like you" (good start). He doesn't seem to be a terrible actor, but he definitely isn't good in this film. Bilson doesn't bring much energy to a role that feels stiffer than a board, complete with no real chemistry between her and Christensen. Jackson can't really make this villain character anything other than a cliche - where his grey hair is the most noteworthy thing about him. I'd say Bell is the highlight - but that isn't giving the movie any real favors. The rest of the small cast is fairly standard, not doing anything too particularly amusing. The effects aren't terrible, but they also aren't anything that'll make the film any prettier to look at, particularly since the action sequences seem muddled and ridiculous (combined with no real stakes). Even the climax is dull, and the fact that it ends so anti-climatically and so lazily makes for a perfect capstone in this mess. You could likely have a laugh with this if you're in the mood to make fun of a paperthin plot, a cast that can't elevate said material, and 88 minutes to kill, but even re-watching RoboCop 3 (#006) over this dreck seems preferable.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Blood Simple.

Review #1063: Blood Simple.

Cast: 
John Getz (Ray), Frances McDormand (Abby), Dan Hedaya (Julian Marty), M. Emmet Walsh (Private detective Lorren Visser), Samm-Art Williams (Meurice), and Deborah Neumann (Debra) Directed by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010) and #765 - Fargo)

Review: 
Blood Simple was the directorial debut of the Coen brothers (although due to guild rules Joel was the one credited as director while Ethan was credited as producer, with both also writing the film), with future director Barry Sonnenfield serving as cinematographer. The film has its edge of darkness and amusing nature, with a fine balance that never comes off as inconsistent nor endless. It's a twisted film that also serves as a good neo-noir that pulls its devious strings of paranoia and guilt with characters that certainly accompany the movie in their own particular ways. Easily the best part of the film is Walsh, who manages to elevate the character onto a sort of legal edge that can be both ruthless and amusing - never coming off as too much of one thing while also being an interesting person to watch on-screen. Getz and McDormand prove to be a fairly decent pairing, being adept at their situations that make this escape of a romance seem right and not out-of-place. Hedaya plays his slimy role comfortably well, doing his role with a sort of relish and emotion that seems right at home for a film like this. The film certainly has a good look to it, having a feel to it that is important to making such a tawdry tale come alive without being glitzy nor overtly muddled. The climax is tense and quick to the point, with a final line that certainly closes the film out on the right note. It is clear that the Coen brothers had a good vision that they wanted to tell on-screen, and they certainly achieve that, weaving a film that succeeds as a piece of noir that manages to hit more times than it misses. They manage to build tension without suffocating the audience in too many cuts or being too long, with this film lasting 96 minutes (with a director's cut that tightens the editing along with shortening certain shots that runs slightly shorter), which feels just right for this movie. Ultimately, this is a fine piece of film-making from the Coen brothers that certainly shows a kind of ingenuity and flair that makes for good entertainment if you're in the mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Strangers: Prey at Night.

Review #1062: The Strangers: Prey at Night.

Cast: 
Christina Hendricks (Cindy), Martin Henderson (Mike), Bailee Madison (Kinsey), Lewis Pullman (Luke), Emma Bellomy (Dollface), Damian Maffei (Man in the Mask), and Lea Enslin (Pin-Up Girl) Directed by Johannes Roberts.

Review: 
I will admit, this came out of left field. Spring Break means that random things can happen, such as friends deciding to want to see some scary - how can I get in the way of seeing some entertainment? This is likely the first ever time of having two consecutive reviews being part of the Theater Saga - hence why I try to make sure and watch new (interesting) films with a bit of space between them. I hope you enjoy this review. 

I knew nothing of this film nor the fact that it is a sequel to a film named (obviously) The Strangers (2008), with the director/writer of that film serving as writer for this movie. For what I looked up, that film was inspired by the Tate murders along with a series of break-ins that happened in Bertino's neighborhood as a kid, with the same inspirations applying to this film. Admittedly, the idea of random strangers committing crimes without much reason could make for an interesting film, and I imagine that the first film likely had at least some sort of success with that idea, because I didn't find too much to really enjoy with this movie. It is not so much that the film is exactly terrible or anything, but I didn't find it too particularly scary. Perhaps it is easy to admit that the story is thinner than a cracker when the film has a 85 minute run-time and a small cast, which makes for a relatively small body count, with the film not having much in terms of energy to respond with. The fact that there are a few dumb moments (that you might expect for horror or slasher films) doesn't help too much with getting the film to click. The killers are what they are, strangers with masks, which is somewhat creepy but not enough to really carry the movie to pure fright. The secluded setting is fine and quiet for what the movie wants, and the way it is shot is also alright (with no real resorting of jump scares or anything too ridiculous), but it never seems to really click to make something that I can get with. It doesn't feel like a cash-grab or something cynical (I was surprised to note that it was made for $5 million, however), which I suppose gives the film some sort of credit.

The fact that the first half of the film feels a tad dull doesn't particularly help; it isn't that the actors are terrible, it just seems that the material doesn't spark much, with Hendricks being a decent standout with her material. Madison isn't too terrible, but the material isn't too helpful. That's not to say that there aren't other films with exposition that isn't particularly interesting (along with the fact that a film doesn't need to have much in terms of story to work), but the half that follows doesn't make up for it. At times it can be a bit creepy, but it isn't anything that could also be made fun of (and at least one or two cliche action in the middle of the pursuit), with a climax that feels a bit too stretched and an ending that just feels like it is taunting you. The fact that the film is an R helps make sure the violence doesn't get washed out, so there's that at least. The film utilizes music that you might call "ironic" for what you might expect in a horror flick, such as "Kids in America" for the opening and other music choices - which I suppose will have an effect for some, although I didn't really get much from it in terms of chills. If you like slasher/horror flicks, you could like the film. If you were a fan of the original film, chances are you might get a kick out of seeing another film with these strangers. In any case, it's up to you to decide. This is the kind of movie that I can't hate nor give much credit to, falling in the middle that will find a place in some people's minds but will likely go down for me as something that just passes through in the annals of middle-of-the-road horror flicks.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Shape of Water.

Review #1061: The Shape of Water.

Cast: 
Sally Hawkins (Elisa Esposito), Michael Shannon (Colonel Richard Strickland), Richard Jenkins (Giles), Octavia Spencer (Zelda Delilah Fuller), Michael Stuhlbarg (Dimitri Mosenkov), Doug Jones ("Amphibian Man"), David Hewlett (Fleming), and Nick Searcy (General Frank Hoyt) Directed by Guillermo del Toro (#425 - Pacific Rim)

Review: 
Admittedly, I can't tell which was more surprising: the fact that this was the winner of Best Picture (beating such films as Get Out (#909) and Dunkirk (#980) while also winning Best Director, Best Original Score, and Best Production Design) or the fact that this came to my local theater in the middle of March, different from how I usually review films in the Theater Saga. In any case, enjoy a interesting case for Movie Night.

The world of fantasy can provide an outlet for creative movies on both a visual and story lervel that can have things just be what they are while dealing with subject that other genres can have shortcomings with. While this film may not be perfect with everything that it does, it is at the very least a fine achievement. It is interesting to note del Toro's level of involvement with this project, serving as director, co-writer, and producer, which makes the seem to be a clear passion project for him, and he projects that with an abundance of visual flair and imagination that works for what he intends - for the most part. I found that the film worked best when it showed off its characters and style more so than its story. Maybe it will go down as a great classic, maybe it will not, but I think it will at least find a place in the places of fantasy and romance people's hearts.

 It is evident that del Toro wanted his film to achieve a look that would sell his film as something to care for and appreciate, with Dan Lausten's cinematography along with Paul D. Austerberry, Shane Vieau and Jeff Melvin with production design and Alexandre Desplat's music, all striking at the chords for good effect. The main cast all do a fine job, with Hawkins shining in delivering a capable performance through the way she moves her face (since she communicates only through American Sign Language) and through her physicality that shines through and through. Shannon manages to turn what could've been just a cliche adversary and manages to make it feel interesting and useful to want to keep watching in a ruthlessly effective way. Jenkins does a fine job being the counterpart to Hawkins, being useful to watch. Spencer also provides a bit of levity along with sense to the film that helps give the film focus. Stuhlbarg also proves to be fairly nice in his role, and Jones does a decent job under all that makeup. The story by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor is a bit familiar in some of its notes, but it is at the least entertaining enough to make something worthwhile, having a fairy tale involving what is essentially inspired by movie monsters or arguably Beauty and the Beast. It falls into sentimentality at times, and perhaps it takes itself a bit too seriously, but there is enough drive and spirit to push itself over the finish line and succeed with elegance, which might've felt ridiculous or weirder in other hands. Are there moments in the film that seem a bit silly? Yes, particularly some parts with Hawkins and Jones, but also a bit in the climax (which I can't really spoil), but there also manages to be enough interesting moments too with the cast that makes up for it. I find the movie fine enough to recommend, provided that you are in the mood for what it tries to tell through its passion.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

National Lampoon's European Vacation.

Review #1060: National Lampoon's European Vacation.

Cast: 
Chevy Chase (Clark Griswald), Beverly D'Angelo (Ellen Griswald), Dana Hill (Audrey Griswald), Jason Lively (Russell "Rusty" Griswald), Victor Lanoux (The Thief), Eric Idle (The Bike Rider), John Astin (Kent Winkdale), Mel Smith (London Hotel Manager), Robbie Coltrane (Man in Bathroom), Maureen Lipman (Lady in the Bed), William Zabka (Jack), Willy Millowitsch (Fritz Spritz), and Erika Wackernagel (Helga Spritz) Directed by Amy Heckerling (#982 - Fast Times at Ridgemont High)

Review: 
It is interesting to note that I finally am getting to this film, the sequel to the original to National Lampoon's Vacation (#804) but paradoxically this serves as my third review of the Vacation series, since I also reviewed National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (#771). In any case, I hope at least some of you fellow readers are enjoying Spring Break, or any sort of vacation. 

There is a certain amount of charm and amusement that sprung from the situations and the cast from the first film that made for a fairly entertaining movie, with Chase and D'Angelo being key highlights. The latter part of my statement is still true, but I can't say that this is a particularly good film. I don't hate it, but I know without much doubt that this is a fairly average movie. The biggest problem is that the film gradually feels repetitive the longer it dwells in all of these locations that the film gets itself to, feeling episodic and not always consistent. There are some famous landmarks seen throughout the film (with a few of them used for gags), which are fairly interesting to look at, such as Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, and the Colosseum, so that's a fair highlight. Chase and D'Angelo manage to generate some amusement once again, being the best part of the film due to feeling the most adept for this material and the most familiar. Hill and Lively do okay, but some of the gags with them are a bit hit-and-miss, with the jokes involving the former binging on food seeming old after a while. Throughout the four locations (London, Paris, West Germany, Rome) is a bunch of different personalities and cast members that make for okay experiences to watch with the main four, with a bunch of cliches that one would expect. It doesn't really have anything too rip-roaring aside from a few moments involving visual gags and a bit of crass humor, but it isn't anything too particularly terrible, just being a bit silly (which I don't hate, actually). At least at 94 minutes it isn't particularly a big waste, but it doesn't too particularly well when compared to the original film. I don't find this to be anything too special, but sometimes that may very well just be enough on vacation.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Big Chill.

Review #1059: The Big Chill.

Cast: 
Tom Berenger (Sam Weber), Glenn Close (Sarah Cooper), Jeff Goldblum (Michael Gold), William Hurt (Nick Carlton), Kevin Kline (Harold Cooper), Mary Kay Place (Meg Jones), Meg Tilly (Chloe), JoBeth Williams (Karen Bowens), and Don Galloway (Richard Bowens) Directed by Lawrence Kasdan.

Review: 
Admittedly, recollections about the past can tend to make for an interesting subject for a film, so it is no surprise to see that Lawrence Kasdan, writer of films such as The Empire Strikes Back (#114), Raiders of the Lost Ark (#168), and Return of the Jedi (#115), directed and wrote a film involving the reunion of old friends from the baby boomer generation (with this film along with Return of the Secaucus 7 (1980) serving as influences for the creation of the show thirtysomething). It is strange to note that there were scenes cut out that had featured Alex, the one who had committed suicide (featuring a then-unknown Kevin Costner), and I do wonder what it would've done to the pace and tone of the film. In any case, it's not hard to say that this is neither a great nor terrible movie, falling in the middle fairly easily, for better or worse. The ensemble cast is fairly enjoyable, particularly Berenger, Hurt, Kline, and Tilly. Each of them has something that stands out, such as Berenger and his entertaining type of allure that contrasts with his thoughts on having fame (and memories from the past), or Hurt and his bitter but honest nature that clicks in some way with Tilly (the lone standout in the main ensemble not part of the main generation), with Kline being a fine straight man and pillar along with Close. Goldblum is also fairly entertaining and amusing, and Kay Place and Williams are also fine. The cast manages to make what could've been a bunch of cliches seem a bit more fruitful and watchable. The movie (shot in Beaufort, South Carolina) has a fine look to it that certainly clicks with uniting these people without looking too fake. The soundtrack of the film is pretty interesting, having highlights such as "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" by Marvin Gaye and Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Bad Moon Rising", so I'll give the film credit for having a fine pick of music.

The film has its serious moments of looking at the past, but it also has a few moments for some laughs that make for a good enjoyment for most of its running time of 105 minutes. I will admit that the ending is probably a bit too neat and probably a bit too convenient for someone looking for something a bit more, although that depends on what one is expecting. Do you want something that tries to say something about nostalgia? You'll get it with this movie, although you may not get everything with it. If you want something that tries to face nostalgia with reality, this could (or could not) be for you. I can't exactly fault someone for liking films that try to throw itself back with nostalgia (after all, I am writing this review in the same year that Ready Player One is coming out, so make of that what you will), but I find that the movie is fine (if not really anything too great) with weaving a story with some depth from its recollection. For lack of a better way to say it, The Big Chill is a finely packaged film if you're in the mood for what it offers you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Battling Butler.

Review #1058: Battling Butler.

Cast: 
Buster Keaton (Alfred Butler), Sally O'Neil (The Mountain Girl), Walter James (Her Father), Budd Fine (Her Brother), Francis McDonald (Alfred "Battling" Butler), Mary O'Brien (His Wife), Tom Wilson (His Trainer), Eddie Borden (His Manager), and Snitz Edwards (Alfred's Valet) Directed by Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, #805 - The Navigator, #877 - Three Ages, #908 - The General, #926 - Our Hospitality, #941 - Sherlock Jr, #1037 - Go West)

Review: 
Battling Butler was Keaton's eighth starring role in a feature film, and it was based on a stage play of the same name by Walter L. Rosemont and Ballard MacDonald, which had ran for 313 performances from 1923 to 1924. In any case, while I will give the film credit for having some amusing moments, I can't say that it is one of Keaton's finest pieces of work. Keaton is sharp as ever, particularly in the boxing sequences, which serve for some fine laughs along with showing his willingness to do rough stuff (such as stunts) in order to sell the scene, which works fairly well. O'Neil is fine, having the kind of energy and grace you'd expect. James and Fine prove to be fairly imposing figures, leading to a few laughs. The rest of the cast is okay; Edwards proves to be a fairly amusing character to follow throughout the film, having the kind of expressions and movements you'd expect from him. The movie goes at a fair pace of 71 minutes without any real slog, although the parts with boxing/training fare a bit better than the other parts, which are okay if not anything too special. It is fun to see Keaton play a pampered individual, and he does a decent job with making the character as likable as he can. The sequence at the end with Keaton boxing is pretty decent, serving as a good way to cap the film (that, and him walking off with the girl with a top hat and boxing shorts). The film doesn't stand out too great from Keaton's other films (such as his classics), but it is at the very least acceptable entertainment, compact with decent gags, a flowing story and just enough zip to come out a winner of sorts.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Lucy (2014).

Review #1057: Lucy.

Cast: 
Scarlett Johansson (Lucy), Morgan Freeman (Professor Norman), Choi Min-sik (Mr. Jang), Amr Waked (Pierre Del Rio), Julian Rhind-Tutt (The Limey), Pilou Asbæk (Richard), Analeigh Tipton (Caroline), and Nicolas Phongpheth (Jii) Directed by Luc Besson (#027 - The Fifth Element)

Review: 
It isn't hard to refute the film's use of the urban legend that we only use 10 percent of our brains, but I imagine you've already heard about the myth or figured that giving the movie heat for using this as a metaphor isn't worth much in the grand scheme of things. In any case, I will say that this isn't an insulting movie to watch, but I also can't say I enjoyed the film positively. It isn't an idiotic movie, but it also isn't a movie for ones looking for something too logical. It definitely doesn't ring too well as a science fiction film, but it is capable in some way as an action thriller, for better or for worse, with at least some sort of fine style to it. Johansson does okay in showing a bit of vulnerability with her character, but the other parts of the movie that involve some sort of philosophy don't click too well, although I can't imagine anyone making this feel any less wooden. Freeman serves as exposition (particularly in the beginning), with the film taking its time for him to intersect with Johansson. Although the cast is fairly decent, none of the characters are particularly worthy of investing in, since we are dealing with a person in the film that literally cannot be stopped, which means that there are no real stakes to the film. I wonder what would've happened if there had been another person who managed to obtain the same kind of abilities that Lucy had with the drug (after all, there were three others used as mules to transport it), maybe as some sort of contrast to her. It probably would've resulted in a murky and heavy-handed climax, but it might've made for something that would've made the movie seem more useful. It only makes sense that the film resembles (in small part) to 2001: A Space Odyssey, since Besson is quoted as stating that the his movie's last part resembles 2001, after having shifted from resembling Léon: The Professional (1994, which Besson directed and wrote) to Inception (2010) to 2001. I would add that his movie reminds me of what would happen if a student decided to try and learn more philosophy and science by rolling down a hill on a giant tire.

It is interesting to note that it took me over a thousand reviews to actually review another film done by Luc Besson, particularly one that is also a French film (with a primary use of English language along with some use of Korean and French), so make of that what you will. There is a certain mania that consumes the movie that can work to the film's advantage if one is the right mindset for it. The animal imagery (obviously intended as some sort of symbolism) utilized at times in the film is ridiculous, particularly when used for the opening sequences (interspliced with exposition from Freeman talking) that I suppose makes the philosophy of the film look less surprisingly ridiculous. The movie (which has a pace of 90 minutes) doesn't advocate for anything ridiculous or insulting (although I suppose one could take umbrage with some of the sequences and lines). While the climax has a decent fight sequence, it is the end that takes the cake in terms of being the capstone for such a ridiculous film, with my favorite line being "I AM EVERYWHERE", which you'd think would be something that a villain would say. At the end of the day, this is an off the wall kind of movie that I will give credit for trying to be ambitious, even if I find it to be just a bit off its mark of intent, although your mileage may vary. This is a film made to entertain, and on that it may very well succeed, but I can't say that I liked Lucy enough to really put a positive spin for.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Pearl of Death.

Review #1056: The Pearl of Death.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Evelyn Ankers (Naomi Drake), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Miles Mander (Giles Conover), Ian Wolfe (Amos Hodder), Charles Francis (Digby), Holmes Herbert (James Goodram), Richard Nugent (Bates), Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson), and Rondo Hatton (The Creeper) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, #1021 - The Spider Woman, and #1040 - The Scarlet Claw)

Review: 
The Pearl of Death (released less than three months after The Scarlet Claw) is the ninth film in the Sherlock Holmes series with Rathbone and Bruce, with this film involving the search of a valuable pearl that is linked to a series of murders. Given that previous plots have involved supernatural terrors, pyjama murders, house murders and wartime spy plots, I can't say that this plot is any stranger or weirder than the other films. As such, this film meets the standards for fans of the series, with no real detraction or distractions. Once again, Rathbone and Bruce do their jobs with the right kind of class and mannerisms that you would expect, although it is weird that the film has Holmes inadvertently starting the main plot by exposing the security system that protects the pearl. The supporting cast is acceptable, with Ankers and Mander playing capable adversaries without any bombast. Hoey does a fine job as expected, with a bit of entertaining banter between him and Rathbone. In any case, the rest of the movie is fairly suspenseful, moving along with all the right patterns and pace (69 minutes) that will satisfy people in the mindset for it that doesn't come off as an listless retread of any tricks utilized in the other films in the slightest.

The story took inspiration from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story "The Adventure of the Six Napoleons", with the additions of an accomplice to the villain and The Creeper, played by Hatton. He became an icon of sorts due to his unusual facial features that were caused by acromegaly, which distorted his head shape along with his face that happened to him gradually after he had been a soldier in World War I and a journalist. He had appeared in small roles in four other movies prior to this one. The reception of Hatton (who delivers a decent if not briefly sinister job in his time on screen) and his portrayal of the Creeper led to Universal Pictures casting him into two other films with his as "The Creeper" (albeit unrelated to this film): House of Horror and The Brute Man, both released in 1946, the same year of Hatton's death. In any case, this is a capable film that works just as well as most of the other Holmes films.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Porky's.

Review #1055: Porky's.

Cast: 
Dan Monahan (Edward "Pee Wee" Morris), Mark Herrier (Billy McCarty), Wyatt Knight (Tommy Turner), Roger Wilson (Mickey Jarvis), Cyril O'Reilly (Tim Cavanaugh), Tony Ganios (Anthony "Meat" Tuperello), Kaki Hunter (Wendy Williams), Kim Cattrall (Miss Lynn "Lassie" Honeywell), Nancy Parsons (Coach Beulah Balbricker), Scott Colomby (Brian Schwartz), Boyd Gaines (Coach Roy Brackett), Doug McGrath (Coach Fred Warren), and Chuck Mitchell (Porky Wallace) Directed by Bob Clark (#020 - A Christmas Story and #679 - Black Christmas)

Review: 
Admittedly, I am not the biggest watcher of teen comedies. Aside from a few exceptions (Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Superbad), this is generally a genre I'm not all too big with, although I'll say that at least I went into this film with an open mind, trying to not give this movie a hard time on purpose. In any case, this is a raunchy kind of teen flick that didn't really click with me all too well, although I can at least recognize its influence for other teen comedies, for better or for worse. The characters are vaguely memorable, but I didn't really find anybody to be really that funny, particularly since nobody looks/sounds like teenagers to begin with. The standout for me is Chuck Mitchell, who (despite being billed deep into the credits) plays Porky with the right kind of intimidation and sleazy nature that works in the short amount of time he's on screen, being the right kind of pig in a farm of mild-leveled ferrets trying to make you laugh. For me, the situations didn't really click for me, whether it was the main plot or the parts with other characters because the cliches feel smarmy this time around.

The film is vulgar and gross, but it isn't something that you would be surprised by, with one or two funny gags throughout. Director Bob Clark based off incidents from his time of growing up in high school and college for the film, and while I can't say they make for very funny instances, I will at least credit him for trying to make a film that looks like something a teenager could relate to. I can't get mad at something that is low bar if it aims for it intentionally. The film was shot in Florida, but it was produced by a Canadian company, Astral Bellevue Pathe Inc, with the success of the film meaning that it is the most successful "Canadian" film of all time. Like it or hate it, Porky's manages to both attract and repel audiences based on its content and weirdness. I can't really endorse it, but I also can't condemn it for being the film it wants to be, so I'd say it is something that could pique your interest if you're in the state of mind for it.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Great Dictator.

Review #1054: The Great Dictator.

Cast: 
Charlie Chaplin (Adenoid Hynkel - Dictator of Tomania / A Jewish Barber), Paulette Goddard (Hannah), Jack Oakie (Napaloni - Dictator of Bacteria), Henry Daniell (Garbitsch), Reginald Gardiner (Schultz), Billy Gilbert (Herring), Maurice Moscovitch (Mr. Jaeckel), Grace Hayle (Madame Napaloni), Carter DeHaven (Bacterian Ambassador), Emma Dunn (Mrs. Jaeckel), Bernard Gorcey (Mr. Mann), Paul Weigel (Mr. Agar), and Chester Conklin (Barber's Customer) Directed by Charlie Chaplin (#353 - Monsieur Verdoux, #599 - The Kid, #600 - City Lights, #759 - The Gold Rush, #775 - Shoulder Arms, #820 - Modern Times, #923 - The Pilgrim, #1025 - The Circus, and #1041 - A Woman of Paris)

Review: 
The Great Dictator was Charlie Chaplin's first true sound film, along with his first without his character of "The Tramp", which he had utilized for his silent films. In any case, the film was released a year after the beginning of World War II, with Chaplin playing a parody of Adolf Hitler and Oakie playing a parody of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, although it was noted by Chaplin in later years that had he knew about the horrors of the concentration camps, he wouldn't have made the film. The film manages to be brilliant in utilizing comedy, satire and drama without having either of its elements being lost in excess, being a funny but also brave movie that holds its principles together by finding a balance in its two environments, with credit going to Chaplin and his script. Chaplin also does a tremendous job in both of his roles, having a fine distinct nature that works well within the mistaken identity parts later on, with the dictator parts having numerous highlights with all of the gestures and posturing that definitely strikes a chord. The parts with the barber might remind you a bit of the Tramp, although he plays it more of a outsider type that certainly fits. Goddard does a fine job in her parts on screen, having fine chemistry with Chaplin at points. Oakie does a stand-out job, having the correct amount of bombast and stature that makes for amusing rapport with Chaplin when they are both on screen together, particularly one scene involving chairs. Daniell and Gardiner also do fine jobs in their parts, distinct in their roles within the dictatorship that leave room for amusement. The rest of the actors do fair jobs in their roles. There are numerous great sequences and gags involving both slapstick and language, with one of my favorites being the ballet with a globe, which is helped by the music by Meredith Willson and Charlie Chaplin, fairly brilliant in its own right that has a fine timing to them that helps contributes to the flow of the film effectively for several scenes. The cinematography by Karl Struss and Roland Totheroh (a regular for some of Chaplin's films) is acceptable for the movie and its look.

The film does run finely at 124 minutes, never feeling too long. I will state that the climax of the film feels a bit sudden, particularly since it ends with a speech, which is an inspiring piece at least, so I can't blame Chaplin for wanting to incorporate it in a film he had all control over. Since that serves as the last point for the film, it is strange to wonder what would've happened after that point in the film, although apparently a folk dance sequence was apparently going to serve as the finale, and there were also plans to include shots of people from all over the world that would accept the message of peace, but these were abandoned after a bit of shooting from Chaplin. In any case, the movie isn't ruined by the last part, so take his words for what you will. The film was nominated for five Academy Awards (Outstanding Production (now known as Best Picture), Best Actor, Writing (Original Screenplay), Best Supporting Actor (Oakie), & Best Music (Original Score), although it fell short each time. It has since been selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the National Film Registry, and it is easy to see why. This is a brilliantly made movie that serves as a fine piece of entertainment for all ages that belongs with the rest of Chaplin's classics for a look.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Bloodsport.

Review #1053: Bloodsport.

Cast: 
Jean-Claude Van Damme (Frank Dux), Bolo Yeung (Chong Li), Donald Gibb (Ray Jackson), Leah Ayres (Janice Kent), Norman Burton (Helmer), Forest Whitaker (Rawlins), Ken Siu (Victor Lin), Roy Chiao (Senzo Tanaka), Michel Qissi (Suan Paredes), and Philip Chan (Inspector Chen) Directed by Newt Arnold.

Review: 
This film was released 30 years ago on this day today. So why not do a review for it? That's my best justification for doing this movie. Hopefully you enjoy the review.

What can I say about this movie? What is there to write about a film starring "international martial arts sensation" Jean-Claude Van Damme that doesn't end in some sort of laughter or amazement that it exists (and naturally fitting for the 1980s)? The best thing to say is that at least it is a movie filled with some fair moments of action, although it is not accompanied by much in terms of story nor acting. This was the second feature role for Van Damme, who had appeared in No Retreat, No Surrender (1986) along with minor roles in other films (such as Breakin' in 1984), and while the easy thing to do would be to simply make fun of him for his performance (as one could do with the film), I will state that there is a certain level of intrigue that Van Damme inspires (for better or for worse) that keeps the movie from becoming a bore, mostly because he doesn't become a victim to the plot, as thin and preposterous as it gets. Gibb is enjoyably over-the-top, giving me a few chuckles (take that for what its worth). Yeung plays his adversary role with a fine polish that doesn't give him much dialogue but does manage to make him at least look the part of the big bad. Ayres does okay, although I can't say the romance subplot with her and Van Damme is anything too special. Burton and Whitaker prove to be an odd duo to pursue the main character that don't click too particularly well with the film, but at least they don't derail the movie. The rest of the cast isn't too noteworthy, but they do their parts reasonably fine.

When asked about the film (with relation to Frank Dux, whose exploits had been covered in the magazine Black Belt in 1980), co-writer Sheldon Lettich stated that he had known Dux months prior to thinking up the idea for the film, stating that he "told me a lot of tall tales, most of which turned out to be bullshit. But his stories about participating in this so-called "Kumite" event sounded like a great idea for a movie." It should be noted that Dux served as fighting coordinator for the film, putting Van Damme through a three month training program. I will state the action sequences (along with Van Damme's splits) are reasonably impressive at times, managing to have a good amount of spectacle that makes the movie seem worth it during its 92 minute run-time. Whether one puts much weight on Dux's "kumite experiences" is up to the viewer, but does it get in the way of enjoying the movie? No, partly because I doubt anyone watches the movie expecting this "true story" to be anything other than a tall tale that would likely make Paul Bunyan blush. Take this film for what it is: a ridiculous, but uninsulting piece of work that doesn't try to overextend itself beyond just attempting to be entertainment. Do I like it? No, but I can see why someone else would.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Miracle (2004).

Review #1052: Miracle.

Cast: 
Kurt Russell (Herb Brooks), Patricia Clarkson (Patti Brooks), Noah Emmerich (Craig Patrick), Sean McCann (Walter Bush), Kenneth Welsh (Doc Nagobads), Eddie Cahill (Jim Craig), Patrick O'Brien Demsey (Mike Eruzione), Michael Mantenuto (Jack O'Callahan), Nathan West (Rob McClanahan), Kenneth Mitchell (Ralph Cox), Eric Peter-Kaiser (Mark Johnson), and Bobby Hanson (Dave Silk) Directed by Gavin O'Connor.

Review: 
Congratulations to the United States women's national ice hockey team, who won the Olympic Gold medal over Canada earlier yesterday, which also served as the 38th anniversary of the Miracle of Ice. In any case, I hope you enjoy this review.

What is there to say about the Miracle on Ice that hasn't already been said over the past 38 years? Particularly for the people that weren't alive to watch on February 22, 1980? Admittedly, there was a television movie based on the events that was released the following year (with starring Karl Malden in the main role), utilizing footage and original commentary from the game itself. The story of how the United States managed to beat the mighty power of the Soviet Union for the first time since winning gold in 1960 is an interesting one for people who dig into sports (which I do from time to time, particularly Of Miracles and Men (2015), which told about the Miracle on Ice through the eyes of the Soviet team members), but can it make for an entertaining film? The answer is yes, in part because of Russell, but also because the movie is honest enough to tell its tale without embellishing itself in too many cliches or anything too fancy. The film focuses itself on Russell and his moments in trying to portray a coach as honest and yet complex man who we find to be an interesting person to watch throughout. He just fits in so naturally, without any doubt to the way he plays it. Oddly enough, the only thing that wasn't particularly accurate was Brooks being friendly with the players (shown by him being at the Christmas party), with one player saying: "We respected him, but I wouldn't say that we liked him". The film's 135 minute pace feels satisfactory enough without being suffocating, and the film certainly has a correct feel that never looks suspiciously off-putting nor distracting.

There is time given to show some of the twenty hockey players that made up the roster, with Cahill and Demsey being fine standouts among the bunch. The players certainly look the part, with the hockey action being quite energetic and intense, looking fairly convincing without any resorting to anything too flashy, with accompanying commentary from Al Michaels and Ken Dryden (who had done the commentary for the original game, with all but the final ten seconds being recreated by the two). Clarkson isn't given too much to do, but she does her part convincingly enough. Emmerich does a fine time with the part he has, feeling fairly useful along with right for the part. McCann and Welsh do alright with the small amount of time they have to speak, but they serve as fair pieces to the film. A slight bit of time is given to show the Soviets, but the movie doesn't resort to trying to make them out to be villainous, instead just showing them and their dominance simply and naturally (except for the final, of course). This is a fine piece of entertainment, striving for satisfaction and achieving its goal without straining itself too hard in part because of a satisfactory cast with Russell doing a highlight job and hockey action that serves as tools to showcase the Miracle on Ice, being as majestic as it must've felt back then that still works now. It isn't anything too great, but it satisfies everything required with flying colors and that is more than enough.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Cleopatra (1912).

Review #1051: Cleopatra.

Cast: 
Helen Gardner (Cleopatra - Queen of Egypt), Mr. Howard (Pharon), Charles Sindelar (Mark Antony), James R. Waite (Venditius - A Roman soldier), Mr. Osborne (Diomedes), Harry Knowles (Kephren - Captain of the Guards to the Queen), Mr. Paul (Octavius - A Triumvir and General), Mr. Brady (Serapian - An Egyptian priest), Mr. Corker (Ixias - Servant to Ventidius), Pearl Sindelar (Iras - An attendant), Miss Fielding (Charmian - An attendant), Miss Robson (Octavia - Wife of Antony), and Helene Costello (Nicola - Child) Directed by Charles L. Gaskill.

Review: 
You may notice that there is quite a bit of history citing in this review that I think helps give a bit of context to the film and its historic nature that I hope informs you without being detracting to the quality of the review. 

It is quite an achievement to note the age of a film like this, which as of this year is 106, with this being the oldest movie ever covered by me on Movie Night along with being the 11th from the 1910s. It is one of the earliest feature films, with examples of feature length movies (in this case being ones that lasted nearly or longer than a hour) including L'Inferno (1911) from Italy, Defence of Sevastopol (1911) from Russia, and Richard III (1912), a French-American production that had been released a month prior to this film (here is a fun fact: the first dramatic feature movie was The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906) that was made in Australia). This was produced by The Helen Gardner Picture Players (one of the first film production companies set up by a woman) that was adapted from the 1890 play Cléopâtre by Victorien Sardou, and the movie has a stagey feel to it that isn't surprising to say the least. Admittedly, this is more of a curiosity piece than anything, but is there anything wrong with wanting to see a capsule of something from an era long gone? Particularly one that has managed to survive to this very day, unlike the 1917 version of Cleopatra (which starred Theda Bara while being an adaptation of a novel of the same name), which was lost after the Fox studios vault fires of 1937, with Gardner's film being re-released the following year in order to compete with that edition, with two inter-titles being subjected to cuts by censorship boards: "If I let you live and love me ten days, will you then destroy yourself?" and "Suppose Anthony were told that she had just left the embraces of the slave Pharon", so make of that what you will.

In any case, this film begins with a title card that states that certain stage traditions haven't been considered when making this movie, as the director's goal is to insure naturalness while making a romantic atmosphere, with the Author's goal being to try and capture the qualities of the woman "devotedly loved by Julius Caesar", with freedom being taken in the adaptation. I can't say I've read that kind of title card before. Gardner is the most noteworthy person in the film, and she manages to do a good job in keeping our interest, and it should be noted that she designed her costume herself along with serving as editor (imagine an actor/actress doing that in this day and age), which is certainly interesting. The rest of the actors do the kind of job you'd expect, somewhat stagey but never too boring to watch on screen. The camerawork isn't any too special, but for the time it was made it is fairly respectable. The title cards (of which there are dozens of) lend a hand to telling the story that manages to feel useful without being too intrusive. If there is anything that can be said about this film, it can be that this is a fairly ambitious product of its time, being quite an achievement for the era that it was made in without becoming a relic not worth looking over. This was a movie that played in theatrical roadshows and even opera houses. It isn't a hard film to find due to being in the public domain, though I will state that it is best to make sure to watch one with a music score (obviously). Is it primitive? In some ways you could say that, but for 1912, I'm sure it must've been quite the charmer in terms of entertainment. I can't say that this is anything too great nor anything too awful, but I can definitely say that it is something that is worth checking out, even if only to see something that manages to have some appeal after a century since its release.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Black Panther.

Review #1050: Black Panther.

Cast: 
Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Michael B. Jordan (Erik Killmonger), Lupita Nyong'o (Nakia), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Martin Freeman (Everett K. Ross), Daniel Kaluuya (W'Kabi), Letitia Wright (Shuri), Winston Duke (M'Baku), Sterling K. Brown (N'Jobu), Angela Bassett (Ramonda), Forest Whitaker (Zuri), Andy Serkis (Ulysses Klaue), Florence Kasumba (Ayo), and John Kani (T'Chaka) Directed by Ryan Coogler (#760 - Creed)

Review: 
The Marvel Cinematic Universe films have had a scope and quality to them that make for a consistently entertaining series of movies, and it is hard to believe that it has been ten years since the release of the film that started it all, Iron Man (#135). While it can be argued that these comic book films do tend fall along traditional formulas, it is the tweaking of certain aspects that make for the successes that have occurred, whether with a tinge of humor or with a tinge of humanity to it. After all, this is the 18th film in the franchise, and while you could equate them to products in a line, at least they are fairly solid products. In the case of Black Panther, this is a good movie that pushes most of the right buttons to make for a solid winner. The best quote that can be said about the movie comes from itself: "Just because something works doesn’t mean it can’t be improved".

As mentioned in my review for Blade (1998), the film had originally been slated for development with Wesley Snipes in mind in the 1990s, although it languished in development for two decades, with Chadwick Boseman eventually being cast in the role in 2014. Black Panther (based off the comic book series of the same name that was originally created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby) had already been showed on the big screen prior to his own film, as he was introduced in Captain America: Civil War (#796) two years ago, and I remember he had made a fine impression on me. Obviously this film gives Boseman more time to show his character off, and he excels, managing to be an interesting hero with enough gravitas that manages to holds his own in a cast with a good deal of variety. Jordan does a great job, managing to show a good deal of charisma along with fury that makes for an interesting villain that stands out, particularly for a film universe that has not had the best of villain portrayals. Nyong'o and Gurira manage to provide capable performances that are fairly strong along with interesting to watch on screen, each having their own respective moments to shine. Freeman doesn't have much time on screen, but he does provide a satisfactory enough performance. Kaluuya doesn't have a lot to do with his character, but he does the best of what he can. Wright does a fine performance, having some clever charm along with characteristics reminding me of "Q" from the James Bond series while also having some amusing scenes with Boseman. Serkis manages to have a good scenery chewing time, for the time that he gets on screen anyway. The rest of the cast do a fine job in their respective roles and functions, such as Duke and his adversarial but crucial role or Whitaker and his mystical nature.

The themes of the film work to the film's advantage, presenting its arguments without being ham-handed in approach. There are other things deserving praise, such as Rachel Morrison and her cinematography and Ruth E. Carter's costume design, both working fairly well to complement the film, making for a worthy atmosphere to watch. The action sequences are fairly hit and miss; while I do appreciate some of the fight sequences, there are times when it feels a bit too standardized, with the climax serving as mild entertainment when not utilizing too much effects, and the resolution to the film is fairly satisfactory, with its 134 minute run-time being acceptable enough for me. I do appreciate that the movie doesn't try to tie itself to other films of the comic franchise too much (aside from a flashback or so), being a film that is interesting in just showing itself off without lingering too much on little details. Ultimately, this is a film that is a pretty good success, achieving its goals well without betraying its principles.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Blade.

Review #1049: Blade.

Cast: 
Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks / Blade), N'Bushe Wright (Dr. Karen Jenson), Stephen Dorff (Deacon Frost), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Donal Logue (Quinn), Udo Kier (Gitano Dragonetti), Sanaa Lathan (Vanessa Brooks), and Arly Jover (Mercury) Directed by Stephen Norrington.

Review: 
Blade was the sixth film that was based off a product from Marvel Comics (although it was only the second to be released widely in America, besides Howard the Duck in 1986), adapted off the comic book series created by Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan. The film began its development earlier in the decade, with LL Cool J expressing interest in playing the lead role before Snipes signed onto the role in 1996 (it is interesting to note that Snipes had plans to make a film about Black Panther, although that movie languished in development for over two decades until this year). In any case, this is an interesting take on the vampire film that generally hits more than it misses while notably being Marvel's first box office success.

There is just a certain level of excitement and style that makes the film ride consistently enough that comes in large part due to Snipes and his performance. He just manages to make the material feel believable and useful that might've sound silly with a lesser actor. Wright does a fine job, although I find that she doesn't particularly stand out too much. Dorff proves to be a quirky but fairly entertaining villain, having an unhinged manner to him that gels well on screen at times. Kristofferson manages to stand out pretty well with his rugged charm that clicks despite not having too much time on screen. The rest of the cast do their parts fairly well, not going too overboard nor too serious either. The action sequences are gripping and intense, managing to make for a quick tone that is fairly effective while not being disorientating. The plot isn't anything to be desired, but the film keeps itself entertaining enough to erase some of the nagging problems that would've become more noticeable for a film without as much enthusiasm or fun. The effects (with numerous sequences involving blood) look a bit wonky, but they don't distract too awfully as they probably could've been. The original cut (which lasted 140 minutes) had Dorff turn into a big mass of blood instead of the sword fight that does happen in the final cut, and upon seeing both versions of the fight, I can definitely say that they made the right decision in not using the big mass. At 120 minutes, the movie has a serviceable length that works without too much drag to it. On the whole, Blade is a strange mix of energy and slick filmmaking that works in the right places to make a solid piece of entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hostiles.

Review #1048: Hostiles.

Cast: 
Christian Bale (Captain Joseph J. Blocker), Rosamund Pike (Rosalie Quaid), Wes Studi (Yellow Hawk), Ben Foster (Sergeant Charles Wills), Stephen Lang (Colonel Abraham Biggs), Rory Cochrane (1st Sergeant Thomas Metz), Jesse Plemons (Lieutenant Rudy Kidder), Timothée Chalamet (Private Philippe DeJardin), Jonathan Majors (Corporal Henry Woodson), Adam Beach (Black Hawk), and Q'orianka Kilcher (Elk Woman) Directed by Scott Cooper.

Review: 
Admittedly, it is interesting watch a Western like this in our day and age, one that is brutal but fair in its approach that ultimately feels like a solid winner. The film (which premiered at the Telluride Film Festival in September of last year before going into limited release in December and general release on January 26th) is based off an manuscript from the late screenwriter Donald E. Stewart, who had written for numerous films such as Missing (1982) and The Hunt for Red October (1990 - #080), among others. Undeniably, the most appealing aspect of the film is Bale, who delivers a tremendous performance. There is just something about the way that he commands the movie and shows numerous layers within his character that makes for a hauntingly good role. That's not to say that the other actors don't go a great job, with Pike and Studi also standing out in their own ways. Pike manages to interact with the harrowing world that she is thrust into with the right sense of emotion and timing. Studi also provides a fine performance, managing to complement Bale and his character with his own actions that he conveys in a convincing manner. Notably, a good part of the film features the speaking of dialogue through the Cheyenne language, which comes off as satisfactory to the film's benefit. The other actors do their parts well enough, particularly Cochrane, who plays the weary solider in the film rather convincingly. Another highlight of the movie is its look, with cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi doing a fine job in capturing the locations utilized in the movie that give a crisp but useful feel. This is a redemption story through and through, and it manages to capture a feel of the Old West without feeling too hollow. The narrative isn't always the most consistent, but the parts that are manage to ring true enough, with the 133 minute run-time being forgivable. I'd recommend it, particularly if you are a fan of the genre and want something that is harsh but also arguably beautiful as well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

New Orleans.

Review #1047: New Orleans.

Cast: 
Arturo de Córdova (Nick Duquesne), Dorothy Patrick (Miralee Smith), Marjorie Lord (Grace Voiselle), Irene Rich (Mrs. Rutledge Smith), John Alexander (Col. McArdle), Billie Holiday (Endie), Louis Armstrong (Himself), Richard Hageman (Henry Ferber), Jack Lambert (Biff Lewis), Bert Conway (Tommy Lake), Joan Blair (Constance Vigil), with Woody Herman and His Orchestra, Zutty Singleton (Drums), Barney Bigard (Clarinet), Kid Ory (Trombone), Bud Scott (Guitar), Red Callender (Bass), Charlie Beal (Piano), Meade Lux Lewis (Piano), and Mutt Carey (Trumpet) Directed by Arthur Lubin.

Review: 
A film with Louis Armstrong and Billie Holliday? Admittedly, that is a pretty good way to attract interest in a film, particularly one that titles itself after the city that help create jazz. However, if you are looking for a good musical showcase, you may find yourself a bit disappointed. The film is a love story - between a high society girl and a casino owner, while being a fictionalized version of the rise of blues. The biggest problem with the movie is that it falls prey to relying on its conventional story parts more than its musical talents. It's not so much that the main two leads (de Cordova and Patrick) are awful or anything, it's just that they aren't particularly inspiring people for the energy that the movie looks like it should have. Holiday (in her only film role) and Armstrong (who had appeared in numerous films prior to this one) prove to be more entertaining than the duo in part because they aren't bound down to the plot-line so heavily.

I'm reminded of Stormy Weather (1943, #841), which also featured African American performers. In that film, the plot wasn't anything too particularly inspiring, but it also never managed to find itself in the way of showing the musical talents. One could also cite other musicals that featured numerous talents with plots that weren't as flimsy as what New Orleans does. It could've been a love letter to jazz, but it instead feels like a half-hearted note. For a film that is as mediocre as it gets, the musical parts with Armstrong and Holiday are top-notch, being quite beautiful and engaging. The film runs at 90 minutes, which isn't a bad length. Would I recommend it? I suppose that if one can recommend watching awful movies in order to see it to believe it, I guess that recommending this for its musical bits and not much else is okay. It won't garner a positive review, but it will merit a honorable mention at least.

Happy Mardi Gras folks.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Barry Lyndon.

Review #1046: Barry Lyndon.

Cast: 
Ryan O'Neal (Redmond Barry), Marisa Berenson (Lady Lyndon), Patrick Magee (Chevalier du Balibari), Hardy Krüger (Captain Potzdorf), Gay Hamilton (Nora Brady), Godfrey Quigley (Captain Grogan), Steven Berkoff (Lord Ludd), Wolf Kahler (Prince of Tubingen), Marie Kean (Belle), Murray Melvin (Reverend Samuel Runt), Frank Middlemass (Sir Charles Reginald Lyndon), Leon Vitali (Lord Bullingdon), and Michael Hordern (Narrator) Directed by Stanley Kubrick (#044 - Full Metal Jacket, #065 - The Shining, #093 - 2001: A Space Odyssey)

Review: 
The film was based off the 1844 novel The Luck of Barry Lyndon by William Makepeace Thackeray, with a few significant changes from the novel, such as utilizing a narrator over having Lyndon narrating. Barry Lyndon was Stanley Kubrick's tenth feature film, being released between A Clockwork Orange (1971) and The Shining (1980). It could be argued that this film isn't as well known as other films directed by Kubrick, with the film not being too much of a success on general release, although it has had a rise in reputation in recent years. When asked about his favorite Kubrick film, director Martin Scorsese said this about the film: "I'm not sure if I can have a favorite Kubrick picture, but somehow I keep coming back to Barry Lyndon." I can't say that this is my favorite film of his, but I will admit that this is a fairly neat gem that merits some respect. The best aspects of this film is its technical qualities and its finely constructed narrative, although it likely isn't the film for everyone. I can't say that O'Neal doesn't do a great job in the main role, but I also can't say that his performance isn't one of the weaker ones in the film, and it stems from his arc in the film. I think he does a fine job when it comes to trying (and failing) to fit in to the social ladder, but there are certain moments when he comes off a bit wooden, although he is never awful to watch on screen nor frustrating to see, capturing a nonredeemable man fairly well. Berenson does a fine job in her role, having a stillness and convincing nature to her that works to her advantage. Magee is a fair standout. The rest of the cast do their parts fairly satisfactory, fitting in with the look of the film without being distracting, like portraits in a museum. The narration by Michael Hordern is a key highlight, being quite fitting when he speaks that fits the moment quite well. This was a departure from the novel, which tells the events in first person through Barry. When asked about why he made the change, Kubrick stated that "[it] worked extremely well in the novel but, of course, in a film you have objective reality in front of you all of the time, so the effect of Thackeray's first-person story-teller could not be repeated on the screen." In any case, the narration works well for the mood and pace of the film.

The film won four Academy Awards, winning for Best Art Direction (given to Ken Adam, Roy Walker, Vernon Dixon), Best Cinematography (done by John Alcott), Best Costume Design (Milena Canonero, Ulla-Britt Söderlund) and for Best Original Song Score or Adaptation Score to Leonard Rosenman, for his arrangements of music of Franz Schubert and George Frideric Handel. Of note is that there are sequences in the film that were shot without resorting to simply using electric light, with special lenses being utilized for the film that had been developed for use in the Apollo moon landings, allowing scenes to be lit with actual candles, with other shots using certain lighting to try and mimic natural light. There are also numerous lengthy wide angle long shots that assist in the film having a static but fitting quality. The 187 minute run-time could be a bit of a deal breaker for someone looking for something a bit less slow, but others will find it to be a fine price to pay to appreciate the beauty in the film. On the whole, this is a magnificent film in its scope and its scale, having a certain quality to it that merits a watch.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Shaft's Big Score!

Review #1045: Shaft's Big Score!

Cast: 
Richard Roundtree (John Shaft), Moses Gunn (Bumpy Jonas), Drew Bundini Brown (Willy), Joseph Mascolo (Gus Mascola), Kathy Imrie (Rita), Wally Taylor (Johnny Kelly), Julius Harris (Capt. Bollin), Rosalind Miles (Arna Asby), and Joe Santos (Pascal) Directed by Gordon Parks (#610 - Shaft (1971))

Review: 
The original Shaft movie was described by me as one with an "epitome of cool", in part due to its title character, action sequences, and its music. It had a style to it that is hard to beat and even harder to replicate, although that doesn't mean the sequel isn't any good. Shaft's Big Score! is fairly entertaining fare, with a cast that does its job with flying colors and some interesting action sequences to push this over the top for the most. Admittedly, the story is a bit sketchy at times with its execution and the pacing isn't as rip-roaring, mostly because the film seems a bit muddy with its motivations (even the title seems to be a bit strange considering what occurs in the film), but it's not a terribly boring movie. Roundtree is the key standout, retaining the confident charisma from the original while also being fairly hip and fairly consistent, resembling James Bond but without the gadgets.

Gunn also returns, although he isn't given too much to do. Taylor also does a pretty fine job in an adversarial role that doesn't go too over the top. Mascolo is the main villain (with Taylor also serving as an adversary), but it takes probably a bit too much time to introduce him and thus his performance is merely just okay. The rest of the cast do their jobs fairly well. The film retains the same director from the original, Gordon Parks (who also provides the music due to Issac Hayes being unavailable) along with Ernest Tidman, writer (along with producer) who had written the book that Shaft was based off of and cinematographer Urs Furrer. The climax scene, which goes from land to sea to air, manages to stand out fairly well due to having a gritty but riveting feel that is executed pretty well. This is the kind of film that has a certain energy and click that is absorbing for a blockbuster like this. On the whole, the movie is a bit uneven at times, but it also is an entertaining kind of action flick that makes for a useful good time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Kid Brother.

Review #1044: The Kid Brother.

Cast: 
Harold Lloyd (Harold Hickory), Jobyna Ralston (Mary Powers), Walter James (Jim Hickory), Leo Willis (Leo Hickory), Olin Francis (Olin Hickory), Constantine Romanoff (Sandoni), Eddie Boland ("Flash" Farrell), Frank Lanning (Sam Hooper), and Ralph Yearsley (Hank Hooper) Directed by Ted Wilde and J.A. Howe.

Review: 
The Kid Brother was the tenth feature film to star Harold Lloyd, released nearly nine months after For Heaven's Sake (#727). The film attempts to carry numerous elements together, such as comedy, romance, and drama, and it manages to do fairly decent while being consistent with its gags. The basic story isn't too particularly deep, but it is one that makes for good entertainment (much like the other Lloyd films) that is more than enough. The film credits two directors (Wilde and Howe, with the latter given a "co-director" credit), although apparently there was also uncredited work done by Lloyd and Lewis Milestone (previously reviewed on Movie Night for his direction of The Racket (1928) - #901). In any case, there is quite a good amount of gags and intertitles to go around, such as the laundry shuffling sequence, or the climax involving a massive ship and one mischievous monkey. The cast all do a fine job in the roles they are assigned to play. Lloyd plays his role with a bit of bashfulness as the youngest Hickory yet he also doesn't underplay his cleverness either, with Lloyd being adept at rolling with the situations that go on in the film. Ralston is charming as ever, doing an acceptable job in her final film with Lloyd. The rest of the Hickorys are brimming with confidence and stature, and each of the three (James, Willis, and Francis) do a good job in their scenes, especially with Lloyd. Romanoff, Boland and Yearsley prove to be fairly decent adversaries as well. This is a movie that comes and goes with amusement and a bit of sharpness that you'd expect from a film with Lloyd, but it is done in a way that it doesn't come off as standard fare or repetitive. There is a certain enjoyment to the situations and how it is executed that make this a fair winner. At 84 minutes long, the movie is just the right kind of length for reasonable enjoyment for most fans of silent films or ones looking for a good laugh.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Naked City.

Review #1043: The Naked City.

Cast: 
Barry Fitzgerald (Detective Lt. Dan Muldoon), Howard Duff (Frank Niles), Dorothy Hart (Ruth Morrison), Don Taylor (Detective Jimmy Halloran), Frank Conroy (Captain Donahue), Ted de Corsia (Willie Garzah), House Jameson (Dr. Lawrence Stoneman), Anne Sargent (Mrs. Halloran), Adelaide Klein (Mrs. Paula Batory), Grover Burgess (Mr. Batory), and Mark Hellinger (Narrator) Directed by Jules Dassin.

Review: 
It is interesting to see a film noir like this, one with a semi documentary kind of style that depicts an investigation of a murder case step by step. In an interesting coincidence, I had already reviewed a police procedural film that has the same kind of semi-documentary style that also happened to be released in 1948, He Walked by Night (#947). Both movies stand on their own when it comes to detailing crime investigation, so it's hard to say which is the better of the two. Admittedly, the film has aged a substantial bit due to time along with the countless amounts of crime dramas that have followed (and continue to follow) after the film's release 70 years ago, although that doesn't mean the film isn't fairly well packaged. The film was produced and narrated by Mark Hellinger, who served as a journalist prior to becoming a producer, and he certainly contributes to making the film feel particularly effective in the story it wants to weave. The film was filmed on location in New York City, and there is certainly an interesting atmosphere that the film makes interesting to watch. The cinematography was done by William H. Daniels and the editing was done by Paul Weatherwax, with both receiving Academy Awards for their respective work in the film, and they certainly have standout moments, with Daniels' shots looking particularly good with action sequences or nighttime shots. The acting is acceptable for the movie and what it's going for, particularly from Fitzgerald and Taylor, who work fairly well together as the police leads, clicking without much struggle. The other cast members are a bit subdued, but they do their parts well, such as de Corsia in his adversarial role that doesn't come off as too forced. The best quality the movie has is that the movie seems comfortable with what it wants to tell, being a capable thriller without adhering to going through all of the cliches for noirs, going straight-forward with a straight shot. This film has a good deal of entertainment value along with staying power even after all of these decades. I would check it out, particularly if you are interested in a good crime yarn.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

War of the Satellites.

Review #1042: War of the Satellites.

Cast: 
Dick Miller (Dave Boyer), Susan Cabot (Sybil Carrington), Richard Devon (Dr. Pol Van Ponder), Eric Sinclair (Dr. Howard Lazar), Michael Fox (Jason ibn Akad), Robert Shayne (Cole Hotchkiss), and Jered Barclay (John Compo) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, and #1039 - Five Guns West)

Review: 
Today happens to be the 60th Anniversary of the launch of Explorer 1, the first satellite launched by the United States. As such, I figured that it would make sense to a science fiction film involving space from that year, and thus this came up for viewing. Enjoy!

It is interesting to see how many space films one can encounter that attempted to benefit from the Space Age, with this one being an independent film (distributed by Allied Artist) from Roger Corman (who also has a small part in the film as a Ground Control member), who certainly makes films worth talking about, for better or worse. This was released on May 18, 1958, four months after the launch of Explorer 1 and seven months after the launch of Sputnik 1. This time around, the plot revolves around a mysterious group of aliens trying to stop humans from exploring space through exploding their satellites by some sort of space barrier. The title of the film is a bit strange considering that the film doesn't have any sort of war between satellites, but I digress. As a science fiction film, it isn't anything too special for the genre, but it isn't anything too patronizing nor anything too ridiculous, with a villain that has a few interesting moments. The characters aren't anything too developed, although the actors at least make them see fairly passable and useful to watch. Miller and Cabot make for a decent pairing, but a good part of the film utilizes Devon to a satisfactory effect. There isn't too much with the special effects, but they are fairly passable when on screen, such as the effect that is utilized for the healing of a hand wound that seems fairly clever. The sets (such as the ship's interior) are also fairly serviceable, making for something that doesn't come off as anything too cheap. The film doesn't go for anything too ridiculous or too schlocky, having a concentrated feel that is somewhat intriguing. It may have some of the cliches you might see in other sci-fi movies, but it at least makes an effort to gel those together to make something worth watching at least once. At 66 minutes, this is a fairly quick movie that will certainly satisfy anyone with tastes for some science fiction or something with a bit of entertainment to it, which this one does fairly well. If you're a fan of Roger Corman movies, or a fan of sci-fi in any kind of form (low budget or not), this one will fit fairly well for your standards.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.