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.

Surviving Christmas.

Review #890: Surviving Christmas.

Cast:

Ben Affleck (Drew Latham), James Gandolfini (Tom Valco), Christina Applegate (Alicia Valco), Catherine O'Hara (Christine Valco), Josh Zuckerman (Brian Valco), Bill Macy (Doo-Dah/Saul), Jennifer Morrison (Missy Vangilder), and Udo Kier (Heinrich) Directed by Mike Mitchell (#209 - Shrek Forever After)

Review:

Here's a quick description of how the movie is: It's terrible. It is easy to say this movie is terrible, because it is terrible on a massive scale. The majority of the jokes do not land. The characters aren't ones to root for in any capacity, nor ones we should be following. The story trudges at such a bland pace that borders on being tedious that it makes for not only an unfunny movie but also a boring movie. It isn't so much Affleck's fault as it is the script's fault for being bad. Never once does his character come off as anything other than pathetic or flat out creepy. His pursuit of trying to spend time with people so he isn't alone on Christmas (which means bribing a family, naturally) never really rises to a level where I should actually care. It just comes off as sad, not something to inspire laughs, which is a problem in a movie trying desperately (or for a lack of a better word, lamely) to make you laugh. Gandolfini is somewhat better, in the sense that his character seems easier to go along with. It doesn't mean he's likable, but it does mean that it seems more easier to accept. Applegate doesn't have a bad edge to her either, but she also doesn't really have much characterization either. Her chemistry with Affleck seems more basic than anything else, with no real sort of impact. It's nice to see O'Hara, but her character also isn't really anything of note. When one of the quips of the movie is a Sonny Bono reference (to his skiing accident, no less), it really does say something about just how this movie wants to take itself.

Perhaps it is easy to make a cynical kind of Christmas movie, which this film falls under. These are movies that try to be festive by completely taking the spirit out of what makes movies, and in effect the holiday being covered. There are movies like Elves (#680), which are dumb, but harmless in its attempt at cheer, even with killer elves. Then there are movies like Christmas with the Kranks (#082) and Just Friends (#838), ones with the bare minimum of cheer along with a lack of laughs. But then there are movies like Santa Claus (1959, #309) Jingle All the Way (#491), The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause (#496), Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (#507), Four Christmases (#772) and A Madea Christmas (#872), where it seems that cheer has been replaced with some form of misery, intentional or not. There aren't really any sort of laughs because of the movie, though it can inspire laughs at its expense. And then of course there is Deck the Halls (#497), the ultimate in terrible Christmas movies (for this show), a movie that sucks out the holiday spirit completely with a baseless plot and even more baseless characters. But with all of this, where does Saving Christmas stand? I'd say it falls around the bottom, managing to be a movie bereft of fun while also tremendously tedious as well.

Most of the examples listed actually sound like they could've been made into dramas, in part because they aren't really funny enough to be anything other than sad ideas. In fact, this film actually does have some attempt at drama, particularly at the end, but of course the movies doesn't actually have any sort of buildup nor does it earn any sort of pity. Most of these movies (except Santa Claus Conquers the Martians) deserve pity for being terrible. Here's the bottom line: Skip this movie.

Countdown to 900 Reviews: 10...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

A Sailor-Made Man.

Review #889: A Sailor-Made Man.

Cast: 
Harold Lloyd (The Boy), Mildred Davis (The Girl), Noah Young (The Rowdy Element), and Dick Sutherland (Maharajah of Khairpura-Bhandanna) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman, #674 - Grandma's Boy, #758 - Safety Last!, and #864 - Hot Water)

Review: 
Given that this film was released on December 25, 1921, it only makes sense to honor the film on its 95th anniversary. This was Harold Lloyd' first feature film, though it came purely by accident. The excessive amount of gags written for the film meant a length not seen for shorts (also known as two-reelers) of the time, which amounted to a cut that lasted 47 minutes. Lloyd decided to preview this film to audiences (custom at the time), and the positive reception to the film led to its length being kept as is. With a cast like this (and a film length like this), it certainly makes for a passable film up to the standards that other Lloyd films had, with enough entertaining gags. Lloyd is affable as ever, always managing to do an everyman task like this with his own edge of charm. Davis is servicable as the love interest, and Young is fairly entertaining in his rowdiness. On the whole, it's not the best Lloyd film in terms of story or gags, but it is still a fine piece of entertainment that is readily available for people curious about Lloyd or yearning for more fun.

On a side note, Happy Hanukkah (which began yesterday), Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa and Boxing Day (beginning tomorrow), but most of all, have a Happy New Year.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rogue One.

Review #888: Rogue One.

Cast:
Felicity Jones (Jyn Erso), Diego Luna (Cassian Andor), Ben Mendelsohn (Orson Krennic), Donnie Yen (Chirrut Îmwe), Mads Mikkelsen (Galen Erso), Alan Tudyk (K-2SO), Riz Ahmed (Bodhi Rook), Jiang Wen (Baze Malbus), Forest Whitaker (Saw Gerrera), Jimmy Smits (Bail Organa), Alistair Petrie (General Draven), Genevieve O'Reilly (Mon Mothma), and Ben Daniels (General Merrick) Directed by Gareth Edwards (#582 - Godzilla)

Review:
If you are wondering why I didn't review this film earlier, it's because I didn't feel the need to go to another opening night premiere of a Star Wars film (done one year earlier - #769) without letting some of the talk about the movie come and go. Was I excited? Of course. It's not so much that it's easy to get me excited about certain films, the fact remained that I wanted to install some sort of thought process that would keep a balanced system of bias, where I didn't put too much weight on it being a prequel (good and bad) with characters of a different cloth from the rest.

At any rate, how is the movie? It is easy to say this is the best Star Wars prequel, and it is also easy to say this is the first of the franchise that's really like a war film. I'm not saying it's the first war film of the franchise (look at the title of the franchise after all), but it's the first one to really show its effects on a true scale, with a varying degree of grit. It is a dark movie at times, but it also manages to have its moments of charm one would expect from this franchise. Jones does a fine job at making this character relatable and someone easy to root for, while having a fair amount of chemistry with Luna, who also has his own qualities that work for the film. Mendelsohn is an adequate enough villain, not too smarmy nor too out of the way. Yen and Wen are pretty good together, having a good enough repertoire when it is needed. The rest of the cast is serviceable, with Tudyk being a good source for quips.

The effects are pretty good, in the sense that they do not feel too distracting. There are some excellent shots (such as the Star Destroyer coming out of the dark, just before the Death Star does as well) in a movie that also has a good deal of grit that works with the tone really well. The effects also have an impact when it comes to certain character such as Tarkin. I have to admit, I was curious to see how the effect would look, with Peter Cushing's likeness being inserted over someone else' body, with Stephen Stanton voicing Tarkin. The effect is a bit jarring, but at least it doesn't entirely distract from the movie too much, with there being some use to Tarkin being there. The same could be said for Darth Vader, who plays a significant role that Jones does well. There are other links to the original film, but the movie doesn't smother itself too much in nostalgia. It has a look that works for the intent of the movie, but it doesn't entirely forget to have its own vision as well. I didn't find it as good as The Force Awakens (#769, in part because I felt a bit more for the characters in that one), but I did find to be as consistent as the other film. On the whole, the movie is fairly good at establishing quick atmosphere and characters, with a consistent tone. It's not a great film nor is entirely without flaws, but it is at the very least an enjoyable if not bittersweet movie.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Billy Madison.

Review #887: Billy Madison.

Cast:
Adam Sandler (Billy Madison), Darren McGavin (Brian Madison), Bridgette Wilson (Veronica Vaughn), Bradley Whitford (Eric Gordon), Josh Mostel (Principal Max Anderson), Norm Macdonald (Frank), Mark Beltzman (Jack), Larry Hankin (Carl Alphonse), and Theresa Merritt (Juanita) Directed by Tamra Davis.

Review:
Let me get this out of the way early: I don't like this movie. And yet somehow, this manages to be the kind of movie that is digestible, even if it is made of some sort of junk. Much like the other Sandler films done on this show (#045 - Just Go With It and #345 - Happy Gilmore), the gags miss more than they hit (at least for me anyway), though at least this one (like the latter listed) is watchable at 89 minutes. Sandler plays a character with some sort of idiocy that can be endearing, I suppose. I'm just not a fan of his kind of shtick, which just feels tired after a few minutes. McGavin is pretty endearing, probably more than Sandler, despite not having too much screen time. Whitford is somewhat enjoyable as the villain (in a snarky way), because it's like seeing a race for weirdest character, though he loses that to Mostel, playing a school principal...and a wrestler. They are occasionally funny, somehow. Sandler and Wilson have a chemistry (in that it is a word) that sort of helps the movie have some sort of human element. It isn't charming, but it is something. There is a plot, and at least it's one that doesn't hurt the senses. Obviously this isn't a movie for me (or anybody looking for some comedy without easy gags with varying levels of body humor), but I can't really get too worked up about it. Who am I to judge a movie about people who act like fools? The movie flows the way you'd expect, with lame gags and being about as harmless as someone with too much caffeine. Would I recommend it? Of course not. But I can't stop you.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

A Thousand Words.

Review #886: A Thousand Words.

Cast:
Eddie Murphy (Jack McCall), Kerry Washington (Caroline McCall), Clark Duke (Aaron Wiseberger), Cliff Curtis (Dr. Sinja), Steve Little (Co-Worker), Allison Janney (Samantha Davis), John Witherspoon (Blind Old Man), Jack McBrayer (Starbucks Coffee Employee), Kayla Blake (Emily), Lennie Loftin (Robert Gilmore), and Ruby Dee (Annie McCall) Directed by Brian Robbins (#147 - Norbit and #221 - Good Burger)

Review:
Simply put, this movie is bad. Really, really bad. It is the kind of a movie that exists in a void of nothingness, a void of absolute garbage that isn't really worth getting angry over. There are movies that are blandly terrible (#236 - Mr. Popper's Penguins), movies that are insufferable (#772 - Four Christmases), and movies like this. It's not so much a comedy-drama as it is a movie lacking in any kind of enthusiasm. It is obvious to see the biggest flaw for the film right away: Taking away Eddie Murphy's voice. Granted, he still talks throughout the movie (along with a strange bit of voice-over that feels off-putting), but Murphy just isn't very good at miming. I wonder how this would have been as a silent film, actually. There is never a moment where you feel for anything that is going on, where anything really matters. It also doesn't help that the characters in the movie act like idiots, where simply gestures are interpreted wildly, and other ones are just weird. I fail to see how trying to order coffee (with gestures, of course) can lead to wanting Paul McCartney music (also, who sells that in a Starbucks shop?). Murphy and Washington have little to no chemistry, with no sort of spark of excitement or literally any sort of life. Duke isn't particularly funny (how many times have we seen dweeby characters like this), but I guess him putting duct tape on Murphy is interesting...in that it should have happened earlier in the film. The rest of the nondescript cast is about as bland as you expect, in a movie filled with cliches and dead ends. There's a scene where Murphy is telling a character about his condition (it's a dream sequence, naturally), with the two of them laughing...and he suddenly has leaves flying out of his mouth. Yup, leaves. That's probably the only surprising thing in this movie. Think about that.

Somehow, this movie's release was delayed numerous times. Apparently it was filmed in 2008, but it didn't get released until 2012 (remember those days?) due to being caught up in the split from Dreamworks and Paramount, with re-shoots occurring in 2011. You could've released this as a TV special, or literally any medium that isn't film, because this isn't something you put in theaters. So how does the plot work? Apparently getting a splinter from Bodhi Tree and some sort of handshake between Murphy and a guru (played quite blandly by Curtis), with the tree appearing outside his place that night. Okay, so leaves fall out every time he talks, I get that. But why does it happen when he write notes? Or when he gives it a certain gesture but not other gestures he uses? Why only a thousand? Do tree have so little leaves, or is it the universe giving him a raw deal? Heck, why not just write a note down and carry it with you? I doubt you could lose more words that way considering you're showing the same note around to people. Obviously this is a movie...but who needed this film? Who wanted this? What interested the people who made this into doing a film bereft of any kind of spirit? How did Murphy think this was a good idea? It isn't even a movie with an exploitative kind of spirituality or drama aspect, it's a movie that flat out stinks. When my mom asked about the movie, she wondered why he didn't just use sign language. My response (which pretty much epitomizes the film) was that I don't think any of these characters would even know what sign language is. This does have one benefit: it's a brilliant time waster.

I can't believe I actually wrote so many words about this pile of minutes compiled into a film that crashed and burned without any kind of fire to it. It's actually quite funny. I've done essays for college that had more words, but this is far more strange to do (plus this isn't up to the kind of quality junk I write). To reward you, let me present some things you can do around this holiday month (if there's more than one holiday in the month, it's a holiday month, okay) that are better than this movie. In the holiday spirit, here's twelve:

1. Write your own text show! (I hear you can make it a hobby)
2. Survey ideas for Christmas gifts (no, your social media posts to them count)
3. Try weird food combinations and show your friends (my personal favorite: ketchup on anything)
4. Play a bunch of music choices and literally never break out of the pattern for weeks (no joke)
5. Try wearing two ties (it'll really impress your friends)
6. Try passing a semester (or three) of college (done, without much fear by me)
7. Hang out with friends (who else would you hang out with, a date?)
8. Somehow write reviews for over 100 films in a calendar year for the first time in two years (yup)
9. Make references to cities you have a soft spot for (hello, Buffalo!)
10. Make lists in order to try and be funny (is it working?)
11. Use spell check more often, especially when trying to convey what movie to see
12. Run parallel to an 5K run (been there, done that. Why pay money to wear a Santa suit?)

Literally any of these things would be better than seeing this film. The final word count (including the rating listed after this count): 1000 words. Seriously.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Purple Rain.

Review #885: Purple Rain.

Cast:
Prince (The Kid), Apollonia Kotero (Apollonia), Morris Day (Morris), Olga Karlatos (Mother), Clarence Williams III (Francis L), Jerome Benton (Jerome), Billy Sparks (Billy), Jill Jones (Jill), Dez Dickerson (Dez), Wendy Melvoin (Wendy), and Lisa Coleman (Lisa) Directed by Albert Magnoli.

Review:
Purple Rain is certainly an interesting movie, that is for sure. It's not campy, but it isn't entirely a drama. This was the film debut of Prince, in a movie that has semblances of autobiography but is more about showcasing his talents, with songs such as "Let's Go Crazy" and "Purple Rain", naturally.  The film does have some sort of plot, though the way the tone can simply just go wild is certainly interesting. There's a line between laughing on purpose and laughing without regard to what's going on...this is a movie where the lines become a bit blurred. One scene you could have the main lead tricking someone into diving into a cold lake and leaving them there (briefly), and another scene you can have him bump his rival with his motorcycle. Trying to figure the movie out is like trying to remember the lyrics of a song...played in reverse. The characters are about as strangely constructed as the film is, but they certainly are interesting, even if there is no real sort of emotional depth to anything other than the songs (for the most part). Day (as the de facto villain) is pretty enjoyable, however. His expressions and the way he conducts this character (oozing with sleaze) is pretty enjoyable. Even a scene mimicking "Who's on First" with Day and Benton is pretty funny. Kotero and Prince have some sort of chemistry (with a romance that literally develops overnight), though they certainly fit with the movie. There is a strange charisma to everything that keeps you watching a movie that isn't quite as vain as it could have been. It's like fast food that is admittedly a bit wrought with sauce but is still enjoyable. The songs are certainly a treat, with Prince and The Time both having some riveting tunes. It's not a terrible film, nor a good one, but it is a fairly watchable and engaging movie. You want a movie of the time? A movie that makes you want to listen to the album? Or something that is just something on its own. It's not the kind of film worthy to picked on by film "analysts", but it is the kind of movie to sit back and talk on.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.