Dark Star.

Review #1221: Dark Star.

Cast: 
Brian Narelle (Lieutenant Doolittle), Dan O'Bannon (Sergeant Pinback, Bomb #19, and Bomb #20), Cal Kuniholm (Boiler), Dre Pahich (Talby, dubbed by John Carpenter), Joe Sanders (Commander Powell, dubbed by John Carpenter), Barbara Knapp (Computer), Miles Watkins (Mission Control), and Nick Castle (Alien) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing, and #732 - Escape from L.A.)

Review: 
This is a weird one. But what is one to expect from a film with an beachball alien with claws? Dark Star is the creation of Carpenter and O'Bannon, who wrote the film while being students at the USC School of Cinematic Arts. Carpenter was inspired by George Lucas' and his drive to adapt his USC short "THX 1138" into a feature-length film to make his own feature. The attempt began in 1970 with an initial budget of $1,000 and the use of USC soundstages. The budget rose over time, having one form as a 45 minute short made on $6,000. Carpenter also composed the music score, while O'Bannon served as editor, star, production designer, and visual effects supervisor. Through the help of distributor Jack Murphy and Jack H. Harris, additional minutes were filmed to make it feature-length (along with doing certain cuts) that resulted in a 83 minute feature made for $60,000. O'Bannon subsequently described the film as such: “We had what would have been the world’s most impressive student film and it became the world’s least impressive professional film.” Carpenter later stated that it was "one of the most difficult, brutalizing, devastating, and satisfying experiences of my life." It wasn't a huge success upon limited theatrical release, but it has found its own place as a cult classic. It certainly stands out from other science-fiction films, that is for sure, seeming like a riff on features such as 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and a bit of a precursor to Alien (1979) with its blue collar crew on a spaceship (which O'Bannon subsquently wrote) who have the task of destroying unstable planets that might threaten future colonization of other planets. Being stuck on a ship like that for years on end would probably either make for a horror or a comedy film - the result is an uneven, but fairly enjoyable little comedy. I didn't find myself loving what comes out on screen each and every minute, but it did prove to make a few interesting moments that overcomes some of its amateurishness. After all, the buttons on the bridge consoles are ice cube trays, the space helmets are from a toy line, and the bombs are made out of plastic model kits. The ending is apparently inspired from Ray Bradbury's short story "Kaleidoscope", albeit with a plummet towards a planet with a makeshift surfboard. 

For a movie described by Carpenter as "Waiting for Godot in outer space", there is plenty of discussion one could have about the place this film has within sci-fi, cynical yet biting in its tale that stands out from other space films of previous ilk (especially so in the years that followed), being a product of its decade that resonates for those who allow themselves to do so. The special effects team (Ron Cobb, Bob Greenberg, Greg Jein, Harry Walton, John Wash) prove to do a fine job with what they are given - it may be a cheap film, but at least it is an ambitious one too. The scene with the beach ball alien is also pretty neat too. The acting isn't too particularly great by any means, but there are a few moments that make for chuckles, such as O'Bannon and his reflections on being stuck on his ship through video tape with this casual crew, or Narelle having to try and give a philosophical try at stopping a smart bomb detonation. It isn't a great film by any means, but it is an ambitious one that sets out for its own take on moving beyond the stars with a fair sense of conviction on its side. It might not be for a casual taste, but it does have an appeal within for those who are curious enough to let it linger in its reaches.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A History of Violence.

Review #1220: A History of Violence.

Cast: 
Viggo Mortensen (Tom Stall / Joey Cusack), Maria Bello (Edie Stall), Ed Harris (Carl Fogarty), William Hurt (Richie Cusack), Ashton Holmes (Jack Stall), Peter MacNeill (Sheriff Sam Carney), Stephen McHattie (Leland Jones), Greg Bryk (Billy Orser), and Kyle Schmid (Bobby) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future and #1127 - eXistenZ)

Review: 
I suppose there is something to be said about violence and how it pervades our lives from time to time, and how people deal with the consequences of said actions in trying to survive and where it can go from there. This is adapted from the 1997 graphic novel of the same name written by John Wagner (writer of works such as Judge Dredd) with art from Vince Locke that Josh Olson turned into a screenplay, which kept parts from the first half mostly intact while re-writing the climax involving Stall and his brother. In any case, this is a nice pulpy tale with plenty of noir elements to go around, having capable performances from its cast that makes this a worthy piece to check out alongside other Cronenberg pieces. In a sense, it feels like a take on the Western genre, with its take on the reluctant gunfighter and his fight to escape the impulses of his dark past. It moves at its own pace for 96 minutes, having its share of violence alongside interesting moments with its characters that allow to seem more than just figures to play around with. Mortensen is wonderful, playing his man with the right sense of balance between trying to toe the line of morals and his true nature, being convincing and selling his paths in two different worlds with plenty of conviction to go around. Bello also shines well, being capable with passion and grace with plenty of chemistry to go around with Mortensen. Harris makes for a worthy adversary when he shows up on screen, showcasing menace with ease and a pair of sunglasses. Hurt shows up right for the climax, but he makes it all worth it with his own degree of threatening nature (with ensuing Irish accent) that makes his time on screen work just as well as any big bad in a noir type of film does. Holmes is decent when needed, as can be said for MacNeill. McHattie and Bryk do well with their moments on screen in the first half, being capable at showing aggression as expected with subtlety. It is a film that makes its violence ugly and shocking without dwelling on going for overkill or distraction. This is a well-done blunt instrument of a film, showing violence and its mingling with identity without becoming just another crime thriller movie. We never find ourselves cheering for when the characters get into a shootout but instead think about the circumstances that drive people to do such things in the first place. This is a effective film that wraps itself in tension and violence without losing its target in all of the ruckus and blood.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Pokémon Detective Pikachu.

Review #1219: Pokémon Detective Pikachu.

Cast: 
Ryan Reynolds (Detective Pikachu), Justice Smith (Tim Goodman), Kathryn Newton (Lucy Stevens), Bill Nighy (Howard Clifford), Ken Watanabe (Detective Hideo Yoshida), Chris Geere (Roger Clifford), Suki Waterhouse (Ms. Norman), Omar Chaparro (Sebastian), Rita Ora (Dr. Ann Laurent), and Karan Soni (Jack) Directed by Rob Letterman (#164 - Shark Tale)

Review:
I suppose it had to happen sometime. This is based off the Pokémon franchise created by Satoshi Tajiri and Ken Sugimori alongside the spin-off game Detective Pikachu developed by Creatures Inc. This isn't the first film based on the video game property, with Pokémon: The First Movie being released in 1998; since then, there has been 21 animated films released (all released in Japan with release in America later - with only the first five given theatrical release for the latter). In any case, it is easy to say that this is a very average movie, racked with plenty of visual enjoyment and a few laughs headlined by a solid lead voice and facial motion capture performance from Reynolds. It proves to be a light charmer that doesn't waste its 104 minutes on being anything other than just fine for the kids and ones big on seeing certain Pokémon (a property I'm not overly familiar with). In a sense, it does feel a bit like Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), albeit instead of animation it is big furry creatures. The look of the film (from cinematographer John Mathieson) is fairly nice, helping to make the main city setting look bright enough where the neon and other things don't become too flashy for the sake of it. They certainly nailed the look of these Pokémon creatures when it comes to finding that right type of balance where the photo-realistic nature doesn't look too weird, seeming fairly natural for where the film wants to go, where the distraction involves wondering what you may see in the background instead of being weirded out by the designs made. It probably isn't a surprise that there were four writers involved with the screenplay (Dan Hernandez, Benji Samit, Letterman, and Derek Connolly) and three with the story (Hernandez, Samit, and Nicole Perlman), since the film seems to try to aim to make a detective story with tinges of comedy and action, making a fairly decent effort to hold itself together with decent intrigue and climax, even if its human characters seem a bit lacking. It seems more of a weird film than one with some depth to it, I guess. Reynolds is the star of the show, being the best of the bunch of the cast, sarcastic and yet still endearing to be around with. Smith is okay, playing off with Reynolds decently when needed. Newton is quirky but amusing that plays off fine on occasion. Nighy and Watanabe prove okay in their respective times on screen. On the whole, while I wish the film was a bit more ambitious with where it wanted to go, this proves to be a light silly charmer that will play well with those who seek out cuddly creatures with powers and some detective work. I wouldn't be against making another one of these, if only to see where it could go from there, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Pulp Fiction.

Review #1218: Pulp Fiction.

Cast: 
John Travolta (Vincent Vega), Samuel L. Jackson (Jules Winnfield), Uma Thurman (Mia Wallace), Harvey Keitel (Winston Wolfe), Tim Roth (Ringo/"Pumpkin"), Amanda Plummer (Yolanda/"Honey Bunny"), Maria de Medeiros (Fabienne), Ving Rhames (Marsellus Wallace), Eric Stoltz (Lance), Rosanna Arquette (Jody), Christopher Walken (Captain Koons), Bruce Willis (Butch Coolidge), Bronagh Gallagher (Trudi) Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, and #1180 - Reservoir Dogs)

Review: 
It isn't hard to say that this is a wonderful film. 25 years since its release, Pulp Fiction is a wonderful exercise in film-making and storytelling, managing to be entertaining from start to finish with the stories and characters weaved through the story work of Tarantino and Roger Avary. It has its share of violence and vulgarity, but it is a fun kind of movie that also has its share of humor and people that roll with what is going on that seem like it is culled from an older time without choking on its own homages and references. In an interview talking about inspiration for the idea in the film, Tarantino stated that these were "...ones you’ve seen a zillion times—the boxer who’s supposed to throw a fight and doesn’t, the Mob guy who’s supposed to take the boss’s wife out for the evening, the two hit men who come and kill these guys.” Tarantino knows where to go with his movie in part because of his love for them, knowing the best way to go isn't so much a straight line but a circle. This love is pretty apparent with the scene in the restaurant, having people dressed up as film stars and others and having plenty of posters around (such as Attack of the 50 Foot Woman). Travolta and Jackson shine brightest whenever on screen, eliciting plenty of interest and chuckles when in conversation, such as when talking about the way they survived as a sort of miracle or about Royales with cheese. Travolta in particular is wonderful, casual yet inviting - highlighted when he dances with Thurman, for example. Jackson isn't hard to forget, however, and it's the closing sequence involving him trying to make a way out of his current path and onto something else that makes the whole film complete, selling the whole exchange with Roth without hesitation. Thurman plays well with her gun moll type character, having plenty of spry charm with her time on screen. Keitel is efficient in his brief time on screen, controlling the room with intimidation that fits just right for his scene. Roth and Plummer are quite effective with their roles when needed. Rhames does quite well with his role, rough and compelling even when just shown with just the back of his head. Walken has one scene in the film, but he sure makes it one worth viewing, telling his story without fail. Willis plays a familiar character type with raw charm and effectiveness one would expect from him without having to say too much. With a run-time of 154 minutes, it never proves to be overlong or plodding in one story too much without purpose. Even when it makes references, it never feels like it is being done just because one could, and there's plenty of depth to go around. It is quite the accomplishment for a film made on a budget of $8 million and a quality cast to go with it. At the Academy Awards ceremony months after release, the film recieved plenty of nominations to go around, three of them for its leads alongside Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture. While the film lost in six of its categories (most notably losing to Forest Gump for the latter category), Tarantino and Avary received an Oscar for their screenplay, which is certainly well warranted by the film's result - a modern masterpiece for the ages. You could highlight at least five scenes to show someone how the film is and still wonder if you could add another to say how much fun it can be.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

Review #1217: Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

Cast: 
Ming-Na Wen (Doctor Aki Ross), Alec Baldwin (Captain Gray Edwards), Ving Rhames (Ryan), Steve Buscemi (Neil), Peri Gilpin (Jane), Donald Sutherland (Dr. Sid), James Woods (General Hein), Keith David (Council Member #1), Jean Simmons (Council Member #2), and Matt McKenzie (Major Elliot) Directed by Hironobu Sakaguchi and Motonori Sakakibara.

Review: 
Perhaps this movie is like the tale of Icarus. However, instead of daring to fly near the sun on illustrious wings of feathers, this is a film that dares to soar as the first photo-realistic computer-animated feature film, made over the course of four years with a budget of $137 million (with at least half the budget being spent on marketing from Columbia Pictures and construction in Hawaii of a studio for Square Pictures, whose demise rose from the eventual failure of the film at the box office). Final Fantasy (created by Hironobu Sakaguchi) is a series of fantasy role playing video games, with each installment being stand-alone tales that have recurring elements in terms of game mechanics, with fifteen main titles being released since 1987. Undeniably, it is easy to give praise to the ambition that the makers of this film had towards delivering something that would inspire curiosity and interest, although it seems more for the animation than the actual story in any case. It just can't help itself being a visual spectacle even after two decades of age (although it may take a bit of time to get used to its type of flair), at least. The spirit aspect feels a bit too hokey to really make for a compelling story, with the twist involving their true nature (with a name like Phantoms, take one guess) not making as much an impact. It feels too clumsy with trying to handle its characters, particularly with its main character, who never comes into focus as someone to really follow along with.

That's not to say I didn't like the performances of the cast, who each do their parts just fine. Wen does okay with what she is given, even if her chemistry with Baldwin (probably the most practical performer here) reads more like an audio-book than something befitting a movie, especially a science-fiction one. Rhames, Buscemi and Gilpin all do okay, providing little moments of amusement until they aren't needed by the plot. Sutherland fills the wise old shoes of his character without much trouble (ponder on the whole Gaia theory stuff as you wish, however), and Woods is finely tuned to play with a good deal of ham to his performance, which work out okay, even if his motivations feel a bit too underplayed to really resonate. The writing can't quite make them feel like people to gel with, as if I am watching one long cut-scene with no way to break free. The story was done by Sakaguchi, while having a screenplay from Al Reinert (writer of films such as For All Mankind and Apollo 13) and Jeff Vintar (co-writer of I, Robot). The parts involving the Gaia only serve to make the film seem more deeply rooted than it really is, with a climax that feels too patched up to have an impact. It isn't so much a junk food type of sci-fi movie as it is just an off-brand piece of candy that looks nice but is a bit stale in all the wrong places to really sit right. With a run-time of 106 minutes, it will prove fine for the eyes to sit with while resonating less with its aims that at drag a cobbled assortment of sci-fi gobbledygook across the line without being a complete success. I didn't feel that it was a waste of my time, but I did feel disappointed that it wasn't worth it just enough. I do find science fiction movies to be a fun thing to sit through, but I couldn't find this one to be just as fitting of praise as others that dared to show a different kind of reality or look.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Trek (2009).

Redux Review #009: Star Trek.

Cast: 
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Leonard Nimoy (Spock Prime), Eric Bana (Captain Nero), Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike), Karl Urban (Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy), Zoe Saldaña (Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Montgomery "Scotty" Scott), John Cho (Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Pavel Chekov), Ben Cross (Sarek), Winona Ryder (Amanda Grayson), Clifton Collins, Jr. (Ayel), Chris Hemsworth (George Kirk), and Jennifer Morrison (Winona Kirk) Directed by J. J. Abrams.

Review: 
On December 20, 2010, I covered Star Trek (2009). As is the case with any of the reviews from Season One, while I do feel the rating is probably still accurate to what I feel now as opposed to then, it does feel appropriate to revisit this film, since it has been ten years since its release on May 8, 2009. Hope you folks enjoy - live long and prosper.

It goes without saying that Star Trek is a cultural phenomenon. It has endured for over a half-century in part because of how entertaining it has proven itself to be with a balance of adventure and intelligence throughout its several incarnations. While the original series was cancelled after just three seasons in 1969, it proved to be a hit in syndication, leading to an eventual feature film and a subsequent film franchise. From 1979 to 2002, ten films were released into theaters, six covering the original cast and four with the cast of the third Star Trek show, Star Trek: The Next Generation, which began in 1987. From that year onto 2005, there was at least one Star Trek series on television, with four series coming and going before the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise. That, alongside the previous failure of Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) led to a pursuit for a different direction of the franchise, with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (writers of Mission: Impossible III alongside J. J. Abrams) brought in to help write a new film, with Abrams initially being brought in as producer. However, he subsequently accepted Paramount Pictures' offer to serve as director, owing to how he felt about the duo's script, describing it in an interview as "...so emotional and so relatable". It is evident to see that Abrams has a passion for entertainment, even if he described himself as someone who was not a particularly a big fan of the original show. He wanted to make a movie that any sort of fan can be interested in without becoming a shell of itself or becoming too absorbed in references. The idea of making a prequel wasn't new to Star Trek, since plans for an Academy Years film was thought up after the failure of the fifth film in 1989, although it was soon scrapped, and the aforementioned Enterprise show was set a century prior to the original. This film tries to have a balance with its time travel aspects and its usage of Nimoy to bridge the past into making a new, somewhat familiar future, which works itself out more often than not.

Undeniably, the film hinges on the dynamic of Pine and Quinto and their characters, with the film building itself up towards them being in the film together. I found myself more interested in the sequence with a young Spock and Sarek than the part with young Kirk, since it felt more impactful to the nature of the plot dynamic, seeing how the former is one of two worlds where the other has had better moments. By the time the plot kicks in, one does get a hold for most of these characters without too many objections (whether fan or not). Pine, trying to not find himself playing a shadow of the original Kirk played by William Shatner, comes off as fairly charming to be around with, fitting right in with the adventure and delivering some of the heroic qualities one would expect, as brash and confident as one can be. Quinto, who has the interesting proposition of trying to fit themselves in as a character while being passed the torch by the previous actor, proves quite capable. He delivers a measured performance, as calm and logical as per the standard while maintaining both human and alien nature that plays off well when with others like Pine, where the seeds of a friendship get well cultivated by the film. When Nimoy appears (feeling as a mix of fan-service and a way to deliver exposition), it does sure feel nice to see him back again, seeming just as in-step with his calm exterior and logic as ever when he is on screen. Bana makes for an okay villain, but he feels underscored when compared to the things around him. His ultimate plan never really seems to come into focus as much as it should. It is clear to see that they want to make a villain just as threatening as Khan from the second film, but they can't quite make someone worth being around. Greenwood carries his weight for the first half quite nicely, encouraging and reliable at once. Urban does well with recreating the abrasive yet amusing nature of his role without too much trouble, feeling right at home for his time on screen. Saldana proves to be a fine match to go alongside the others, as is the case with Pegg, Cho, and Yelchin, who each get their little moments into shine without seeming lost in the background. Instead of a 1960s take on how the 23rd century would be with regard to space travel, now it is a 2009 take, with plenty of lighting choices to go around alongside other things. It certainly is an interesting movie to look at, having plenty of interesting effects (and enough lens flare to point out and likely stair or make fun of) that makes this a well-done spectacle while having enough of a grip with a capable if not flawed plot (in the age of the Internet one could have a bit of day with its usage of black holes); it manages to have a strong foundation while lingering forward in its middle and closing out strongly enough to make a winner. It sets out to please both fans of the original and curious newcomers and does well with its intentions, finding a middle ground that inspires some joy, a little bit of laughs (mostly intentional), but also a pursuit to see where it could go from there, maintaining the spirit of curiosity and wonder from before without being lost in spectacle or technobabble. It works as a recommendation for newcomers and fans looking for a new frontier to set their eyes on.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Woman in Green.

Review #1216: The Woman in Green.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Hillary Brooke (Lydia Marlowe), Henry Daniell (Professor Moriarty), Paul Cavanagh (Sir George Fenwick), Matthew Boulton (Inspector Gregson), Eve Amber (Maude Fenwick), and Frederick Worlock (Doctor Onslow) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, #1021 - The Spider Woman, #1040 - The Scarlet Claw, #1056 - The Pearl of Death, and #1161 - The House of Fear)

Review: 
This is the eleventh film of the Sherlock Holmes series of films with Rathbone and Bruce, release three months after the previous film. If you're at all familiar with how these things go for these features, you'll probably find yourself satisfied with this installment. Anyone looking to jump in these films out of random will also find themselves with a workable winner in any case - it won't be much of a waste in any case with a run-time of just over an hour in 68 minutes. I do think the title is pretty amusing, given that this is a black-and-white film, and I don't think anyone even mentions green at any point. Then again, with a focus on severed forefingers (not shown, obviously), blackmail of rich people, and hypnotism, one won't really think about that too much. It doesn't have much in terms of deep mystery, but it is a decent experience in entertainment at least, having a few interesting sequences. Rathbone is as efficient as ever, never seeming lost in the shuffle or disinterested in getting the best out of what he can with the scenarios presented - consistent as one can. Bruce plays up to the standard of his second fiddle character with comic relief - some of which that works, some that doesn't, with two easy moments easy to highlight you can judge for yourself. One involves him being a skeptic of hypnotism and its effectiveness, opening stating his doubts when at a presentation, only to have him subsequently tricked into being hypnotized and taking off his shoe and rolling his pant leg. The other is him leading the way to "rescue" Holmes while the other authorities arrest the others, including him hopping up on a ledge to get him down. Whatever the case may be, Rathbone and Bruce are around to keep things steady.

This is the third film with the character of Professor Moriarty (The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939), played by George Zucco, and Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1942), played by Lionel Atwill), with each having the same type of fate for its villain: falling off a great height. This is the third different actor to play the role, but it also happens to be his third appearance in the Holmes series, joining the tradition of re-using actors for multiple appearances (as is the cast with Brooke and Cavanagh). Daniell proves fine, with one key highlight being a sequence in which he sneaks into Holmes' place in order to have a conversation with him midway through the film, warning him about further pursuit into the mysterious killer. Of course his final fate is a bit ridiculous, since he tries to escape jail by jumping from one ledge to another - while wearing handcuffs, and he then just falls down to death. I guess just having him go to prison didn't pull the final punch they wanted. Brooke is okay as the person referred to in the title, although she isn't really too particularly compelling with the hypnotism aspects. This is the second of four films you can find in the public domain (alongside Secret Weapon and the last two films of the series - Terror by Night and Dressed to Kill), which makes them readily available. In recent years, they were digitally restored and given computer colorization by Legend Films; the Universal films had for decades deteriorated in terms of cellulose nitrate film, requiring restoration from the UCLA Film and Television Archive, which took eight years to restore the twelve films from 1993 to 2001. As a whole, this is a decent film among other okay films of the Holmes cycle with Rathbone and Bruce, being just as well to recommend as other features for anyone looking for a bit of quick mystery.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Message from Space.

Review #1215: Message from Space.

Cast: 
Vic Morrow (General Garuda), Sonny Chiba (Hans), Philip Casnoff (Aaron), Peggy Lee Brennan (Meia), Etsuko Shihomi (Emeralida), Tetsuro Tamba (Noguchi), Mikio Narita (Rockseia XII), Makoto Satō (Urocco), Hiroyuki Sanada (Shiro), and Isamu Shimizu (Robot Beba-2) Directed by Kinji Fukasaku.

Review: 
Undeniably, Star Wars (1977) looms over this film, much in the same way that one sees with other "inspirations", like Starcrash (1978) or Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), only this time with an attempt at making some spectacle, having a budget of over $5 million (roughly half of the amount from Star Wars) while having a big blend of castmates and ideas, some of which that go well and some of which that go ridiculously. It has something for everybody, or more specifically it has all of the things someone can use to pick it apart, such as magic walnuts, ridiculous young leads, semi-passable effects, metal-skinned villains and their mom and so on. I should expect no less from a film with four writers (Hiro Matusda for the screenplay, and a listing of Kinji Fukasaku, Shotaro Ishinomori, and Masahiro Noda for the story), a grand total of eight producers, and seven special effects members. This was made and distributed by Toei Company (with American distribution by United Artists in the fall).

This is a mess of a movie, but it sure is perfect to make light of with the execution of its story and effects. The highlights are seeing Morrow and Chiba, seemingly in it for the money (which seems really obvious for the former) but at least interesting to be around when they try to sell this material. Casnoff and Sanada, playing a hotshot spacerider duo, do not fare as well. They come off as too silly to be the kind of character to become heroes; one amusing sequence involves the characters recieving their magic walnuts after throwing them out earlier (while getting bad dreams that make them feel bad) - which takes a bit of time for one of them, who pouts for a moment. Brennan is cheery but pretty forgettable. No one really stands out too much, mostly because of the goofiness that the film shows in full, such as when some of the characters go out in space without helmets. It does seem like an ambitious film at least, clearly looking at the current big thing and making a big effort to make something weird and epic. It may need to be hold enough for me to really give this a positive note, but at least it made an effort. No sci-fi movie is complete unless you have a big goofy villain, and this one is no different, with a big silver faced, big horned weirdo like this. I especially like how he is guided by his mother Empress, played by an actor in drag of all things. Narita tries his best with this material, no doubt wondering how long he'll have to put up with such oddness. At 105 minutes, it might prove just fine for people looking for something a bit familiar with their space stuff but with a bunch of weird flair packed into things, where scenes involving playing chicken with space ships can roll right along with others about a robot being chosen alongside the other walnuts seed things. Whatever is your fancy, this film may have the weird thing for you.

May the 4th be with you.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Blown Away (1994).

Review #1214: Blown Away.

Cast: 
Jeff Bridges (Jimmy Dove/Liam McGivney), Tommy Lee Jones (Ryan Gaerity), Suzy Amis (Kate Dove), Lloyd Bridges (Max O'Bannon), Forest Whitaker (Anthony Franklin), Stephi Lineburg (Lizzie), John Finn (Captain Fred Roarke), Caitlin Clarke (Rita), Christofer de Oni (Cortez), Loyd Catlett (Bama), and Ruben Santiago-Hudson (Blanket) Directed by Stephen Hopkins (#548 - Predator 2 and #1143 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child)

Review: 
Perhaps there was an interesting suspense thriller idea somewhere in the development process. After all, there are three writers (John Rice, Joe Batteer, and Jay Roach) listed in the credits while being released a month after Speed, another bomb action thriller that happens to be far more interesting with delivering suspense and capable characters. That's not to say that this film doesn't have anything going for it - pairing Bridges and Jones together does sound like a winning idea. Actually, I must amend that, since they are playing Irishmen, complete with attempts at Irish accents that likely won't be too accurate at the least. Actually, the basic idea of making a movie of two people affected by their experiences within bomb-making could have worked out fine. Make it an independent film or one actually shot in Ireland (or here's one better, cast Irish actors), and you have something that would stand out from other things. Heck, watching an actual bomb squad show or movie would likely prove better use of time. But hey, this is a film that wants to be an action thriller, so how can I blame them for aiming for explosive entertainment. It sure is a shame that this film isn't really that much fun, being fairly ridiculous with its execution over the course of its two hour run-time that can't quite provoke much in terms of actual suspense nor investment in these characters. They never seem to come alive, and the threat presented by the bombs seem more mundane than anything. One particularly ridiculous sequence involves Amis and Lineburg in which they arrive at their house just after Jones leaves it, having decided to call Bridges after blowing up two of his friends, while jumping on the bed and messing with some toys. Obviously the idea is try and make us think he put a bomb in the house, since the movie wants to try and inspire tension over where he may have put it. Things such as opening the fridge door or turning on the stove sure seem riveting if you think there's a bomb in there - actually not really. It's easy after a while to not really take this movie seriously and just have it sit there as background noise that makes moderate effort at getting attention, such as Jones playing with some crabs after fixing a kite. Bridges and Jones are both okay, but they each can't really elevate this film to anything other than generic with their respective roles. At least you get to see two Bridges in the same film, even if they are playing off an nephew-uncle dynamic. Whitaker and Amis are also okay, but not too particularly memorable. The climax isn't too entertaining either, save for a bomb that gets armed by a Rube Goldberg type of mechanism, which gets shown as a close-up to try and evoke suspense, I guess. At least you'll get a few explosions for your trouble, alongside attempts at Irish accents and occasional shots of Boston. On the whole, this is a movie too mild in what it wants to do to actually go anywhere interesting with action, lacking energy to make anything other than a way to kill time you'll forget about later.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Avengers: Endgame.

Review #1213: Avengers: Endgame.

Cast: 
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Brie Larson (Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Josh Brolin (Thanos), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Evangeline Lilly (Hope van Dyne / The Wasp), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Rene Russo (Frigga), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Benedict Wong (Wong), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Dave Bautista (Drax), Letitia Wright (Shuri), John Slattery (Howard Stark), Tilda Swinton (The Ancient One), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter), Marisa Tomei (Aunt May), Angela Bassett (Ramonda), Michael Douglas (Hank Pym), Michelle Pfeiffer (Janet Van Dyne), William Hurt (Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), Winston Duke (M'Baku), Hiroyuki Sanada (Akihiko), Tom Vaughan-Lawlor (Ebony Maw), Vin Diesel (Groot), Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), and Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier, #796 - Captain America: Civil War, and #1079 - Avengers: Infinity War)

Review: 
It is a strange thing to reach the end of a film saga like this one, with 22 films in eleven years that showcased numerous heroes onto the big screen while making a cinematic universe unrivaled at this moment by any other sort of studio. There will be more comic book films in the future from Marvel Studios that one would hope will continue to make interesting hero stories that work well as entertainment. As I recall from Infinity War last year, I thought that it was a pretty good experience that went for spectacle and succeeded in packing in each moment it wants to for a 149 minute run-time. Endgame decides to build on the model with a 181 minute run-time, which makes it longer than any comic book film - which is likely for the best, since at least it does try to be thorough with where it wants to go. This is a film that has a big task on its hands - it has to follow the previous Avengers film and its big punch at the end from its main threat: half of the universe is eliminated on a snap of the fingers of its big space device, the Infinity Gauntlet. It was pretty shocking to see that actually occur in that film, but I admit that it had to happen, mostly because there had to be a way to put big stakes for the inevitable sequel - so why not just have some of your heroes actually vanish? Of course, we live in an age where rumors and sequel reports are rampant, so seeing a hero die does tend to feel a bit hollow if you figure that they'll just return for their own batch of sequels (although explaining that to a kid would probably be a bit cynical at first). In any case, this is a film that has fun with some of its greatest hits by going back to the past, which works itself out just fine without becoming too stupid with its use of time travel as a plot device - for the most part. For me, I thought that the film was pretty good. It is probably as good as the last film, and it will probably rank up as a top ten favorite of this "Infinity Saga", which is for the best. It lives up to the expectations set from before and fulfills its destiny as an ending that proves satisfactory in closing things out with its own set of twists and action pulls. It has a bit of emotional weight to it at least, with its opening scene being a pretty fine highlight in actually showcasing some consequences along with the only Avenger actor given nothing to do over the years in Renner, so that works out. Finales are hard to land, particularly with trying to cover its bases and hooking its audience with excitement and rewarding the ones who have watched these films for over a decade with a real ending. Suffice to say, this works out well.

Undeniably, the best part of the film for me was the interactions of the heroes together with each other, with a key emphasis on the original cast-mates from the earlier films, while pairing off certain heroes with each other like the previous Avengers film did, such as Downey and Evans, Johansson and Renner, or Hemsworth with Cooper. These work out pretty well, with Downey being the most entertaining part of the film, as one would expect from someone doing a role once again over the past eleven years while serving as the heart of these films with his journey, which works out as well as one should expect. Evans and his earnest nature shine through just as well, persistent and well-natured with his own story. It makes sense to pair these two together for their own little story, which makes for a neat team-up when it comes together. Ruffalo is pretty fun to be around with, working this character to a brilliant balance that lets him not get lost in the effects while giving him time to shine. Hemsworth is fine, representing the one most changed by the events from before, which works fine - minus the parts when he is just used as comic relief for the first half, which can feel a bit tiring given his character over the past few years, even if isn't completely permanent, and I do look forward to seeing him again in other films. Johansson does well for herself here again, resilient as expected. Renner does a good job here as well, particularly with a well-done sequence in Japan that makes for quick but fun action. Among the other parts of the main group of heroes to shine is Gillan, Rudd and Cooper, who help contribute to giving the film some weight and humor, respectively. The ones to not get much to really do is Cheadle and Larson, honestly. Brolin plays the inevitability of his villain fairly well when he is on screen (although I did chuckle a bit at his "Farmer Thanos" getup for a moment). He doesn't really have as much to go on as before, but going from a pursuit for powerful stones to trying to keep his power does make him still seem dangerous without diminishing him too much. The key moments that drive the film aren't necessarily just big action pieces (of which there are enough for any action hound) but instead moments smaller on scale, such as Downey with Slattery sharing a scene together or Hemsworth with Russo at respective key points of time. It isn't so much because the moments just help to drive the plot at each point as it the fact that it resonates with what viewers have seen from these heroes and parents that shape them that resonate far more than a simple quip. The film's plot tries to juggle these characters and its destinations with an assortment of set pieces and time travel gobbledygook (which makes sense if one really doesn't think about it severely) that builds up to a big climax battle - which I found to be fairly satisfactory. I felt it made the right choices of where to go more often than not without simply devolving itself into complete overload of fan-service. It will make people really emotionally invested in these characters probably have some sort of release of emotion (which for me are just movies) and it will work out well for occasional viewers without bashing their head in with a insulting plot. It is grandiose and consuming for those who seek it, pure and simple. It may inspire a bunch of debate over how it handles certain characters (or how things ultimately ends up), but it is clear that there was a great deal of effort to pull things together to make a winning end without having a creaky foundation.

One will leave the theater probably with a sense of relief that the film worked out as well as it did within the big amount of time it had to do so, likely reflecting on how things go from there. I will probably stick around to see how some of the next few films turn out in trying to build adapt new heroes on screen and what interesting things could happen next while probably looking back on these films on occasion. This has been the best and strangest ride of entertainment that transformed comic book movies into something more, turning heroes only just known in comic circles and elevating it into the mainstream. None of these films are perfect, but they each have had their own vision and purpose, with this one being a fine gem amongst other shining features, with this being a moment of triumph.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

2 Days in the Valley.

Review #1212: 2 Days in the Valley.

Cast: 
Danny Aiello (Dosmo Pizzo), Greg Cruttwell (Allan Hopper), Jeff Daniels (Alvin Strayer), Teri Hatcher (Becky Foxx), Glenne Headly (Susan Parish), Peter Horton (Roy Foxx), Marsha Mason (Audrey Hopper), Paul Mazursky (Teddy Peppers), James Spader (Lee Woods), Eric Stoltz (Wes Taylor), Charlize Theron (Helga Svelgen), and Keith Carradine (Detective Creighton) Directed by John Herzfeld.

Review: 
Sometimes you just need a crime movie about people who share in common the fact that they are just a bunch of weirdos - whether you have seen this type of movie before or not. They aren't exactly winners, but they have some sort of "unrealized potential" (as described by writer/director Herzfeld) - and it all comes together to make an okay film. Herzfeld's previous experience with direction of films was primarily television specials and movies (such as his two works with ABC Afterschool Special in 1980 and 1981), with one theatrical release with Two of a Kind in 1983. Admittedly, the cast listing is likely to prove more interesting, since you have a movie that can say it has scenes with key highlight stars such as Aiello, Headly, Mazursky, Spader, Stoltz, and Theron making for a feature that probably should have been better. It won't serve as anyone's favorite film to watch for anyone's marathon, but at least there is enough here in terms of charm and occasional action to make it a fair use of 105 minutes. It sure tries to move itself swiftly with tricks and twists, some of which that work and others that mostly feel like a tap on the door rather than a big blast. It is at least sometimes present with a sense of dark humor that rolls alongside a plot connecting its dots together across people in the San Fernando Valley, which goes well enough. Its the interactions that can come from it that make this roll through the bumps, such as Aiello and Headly, or Mazursky (a director who can't go through ending it all in a cemetery because his yapping dog is with him) with Mason. Easily, the one who I revel in watching is Spader, who walks right through playing a slimy creep like this without struggle, whether acting with Aiello and a clock or with Theron. Aiello is also pretty fun to be with, wry and useful to be around with, such as when having to interact with these other nuts (including the one he thought would work fine as his other hitman partner). The time spent with Daniels and Stoltz isn't too particularly long, but it is fine to see how they act within the lines of the cop angle of the film - one with cynicism, one with ambition. Hatcher falls as the weak point, not being as interesting to follow with, minus one fight with Theron that actually is pretty amusing to see go down. Cruttwell is somewhat amusing, but he doesn't really have much to do for the second half. The best that can be said for the film is that it doesn't overstay its welcome, bookending itself with some charm and decent entertainment (with a worthy enough climax) - it isn't perfect, but there is something here worth curiosity, due to its assembled cast and where they go from there. It is a movie that finds itself on a road going 76 on a 70 limit, having a bit of movement without going off the rails or all the way still.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Incredible Hulk.

Review #1211: The Incredible Hulk.

Cast: 
Edward Norton (Bruce Banner), Liv Tyler (Betty Ross), Tim Roth (Emil Blonsky), William Hurt (General 'Thunderbolt' Ross), Tim Blake Nelson (Samuel Sterns), Ty Burrell (Leonard), Christina Cabot (Major Kathleen Sparr), Peter Mensah (General Joe Greller), and Lou Ferrigno (Voice of The Incredible Hulk) Directed by Louis Leterrier.

Review:
It feels strange to finally cover this film. In light of Avengers: Endgame serving as the culmination of over a decade of Marvel films - 22 in all, it only makes sense to review the only other film I haven't done. In any case, I hope you enjoy.

In a way, the true tragedy of this film is not so much the nature of Bruce Banner and the beast that lurks inside him when prone to anger. Really, it is the fact that this film seems to stick out as some sort of oddball (near black sheep) film within the Marvel Studios run of films. Oh sure, the Hulk has made further appearances in other Marvel movies in the years since (without Norton), but it seems striking to how a sequel did not manage to transpire for this feature while other heroes managed to inspire future solo adventures (this can be attributed in part due to the rights that Universal Studios has with Hulk in regards to distribution for standalone features). In effect, the film does seem to stick out like a sore thumb from the others in some of its approaches with its narrative that makes for a decent but not particularly standout movie. It was released a month after Iron Man while being five years after Hulk (2003). I'm not too particularly familiar with that film, nor the previous 1970s television series with Bruce Bixby and Lou Ferrigno, but I do have a basic understanding of the Hulk, and at least it can be said that one doesn't really need to worry about not knowing every little thing about a hero. The script (originally done by Zak Penn while having re-writes from Norton) certainly seems a bit jammed in exactly what it want to be - verging between a thriller/monster movie and typical comic action flair. It does okay with both tones, but it could be seen as forgettable for others with less patience. Leterrier, commenting on the film years later in an interview, stated that a movie is "...a sum of compromises until you grow into your own independence. I always try to bring the character and the actor forward. It’s very obvious in The Incredible Hulk. The first half of the movie is really mine and the second half is the studio’s expected Hulk movie — two giants kicking each other’s ass.” Make of that what you will.

It isn't exactly a crowd-pleaser type of movie (minus the big action spectacle at the end, of course), but at least it doesn't try to spend too much time on the origin story, going from Banner to Hulk in the span of 25 minutes. It certainly tries to make sure you won't be waiting for the Hulk to show up with too much impatience. The run-time served as a conflict between Leterrier, Norton, and the producers, with the former preferring a run-time of 135 while the latter and their argument won out with their time of 112 minutes (one notable omission involved an alternate opening in the Arctic, for example). Norton makes a fine Banner for the most part, but the film seems a bit lost in making him seem like an actual hero. Something just seems missing between him being the Hulk when he's angry to being someone you could see doing things as part of a bigger thing. The chemistry between him and Tyler (in a fairly subdued performance doesn't really click all together either, seeming a bit too subdued to make any real lasting drama. It is nice to see Roth, but he can't really make this adversary feel particularly threatening. The stakes just seem a bit too low even with two big beasts hammering each other, really. It didn't need earth-shaking stakes to drive up suspense, but something that inspires us to care a bit more than just the standard "gee, I sure hope the big guy doesn't lose to the other big guy". It is nice to see Ferrigno voice the Hulk, at least. Hurt is gruff for the course, which isn't exactly an insult. Nelson shows up for a limited amount of time, showing brief spurts of energy despite really being there just to further the plot a bit and not much else. It is a movie that has decent effects, and the character design on the Hulk looks right for the time. The climax (done in the night, naturally) seems a bit tacked on with its battle (owing to the small stakes), but at least it left the door open for future possibilities involving this character without feeling like an insult - which is for the best. It doesn't really compare too well to the first batch of comic book movies in Marvel Studios' run, but it has its own merits and reasons to give it a shot, edging itself into curiosity with some fair touches of drama and action to headline an imperfect but adequate movie.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Excalibur.

Review #1210: Excalibur.

Cast: 
Nigel Terry (King Arthur), Helen Mirren (Morgana Le Fay), Nicholas Clay (Sir Lancelot), Cherie Lunghi (Queen Guenevere), Paul Geoffrey (Sir Perceval), Nicol Williamson (Merlin), Corin Redgrave (Duke of Cornwall), Patrick Stewart (King Leodegrance), Keith Buckley (Sir Uryens), Clive Swift (Sir Ector), Liam Neeson (Sir Gawain), Gabriel Byrne (King Uther Pendragon), and Robert Addie (Prince Mordred) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz and #975 - Deliverance)

Review: 
The legend of King Arthur is a myth that has lived on in various forms of media for centuries, such as in prose or in novel form. Naturally it has served as something to adapt to the world of film, each having their own sort of style to tell the tale - whether involving a comedic take (A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, itself an adaptation of a novel from Mark Twain), or as an adaptation of a Broadway musical in Camelot (1967), or as a parody in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). In 1969, John Boorman had wanted to make a film about the Merlin legend. His plans to do the film with United Artists did not come to pass owing to the scope of the script (for which he wrote with Rospo Pallenberg), with the studio offering him the chance to do an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. While Boorman did not end up doing an adaptation of such material, he incorporated set design and imagery ideas from that stalled attempt for this film, which is based off the prose Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory. It is obvious that Boorman clearly wanted to make the definitive version of the legend, utilizing its 140 minute run-time to try and make a big grand story spectacle from life to death. It reads a bit like a history paper written in a fever dream by someone who really wants to get all of this information down before it flashes away - it may seem a bit long, but that's because he really wants to wow you with all that is going on. The spectacle does tend to outweigh the actual characters at times, and a lesser made film would buckle under the pressure - but Boorman manages to keep it all together to make an engaging fever dream of a movie.

The film has an interesting look to it, owing to the lighting choices (such as the forest scenes or parts involving the sword) that occurred due to production having rain fall on each day of the shoot, filmed entirely in Ireland. The result makes it seem like one is watching a otherworldly type of movie, with eerie and fitting cinematography from Alex Thomson. The aluminium on the knights glistens well at times, especially. The key highlight of the film is Williamson, who can switch from clever wit to foreboding when needed, wise and tricky as one would hope. He sells the film well whenever he pops up on screen, that is for sure. Terry (who dabbled in film on occasion when not on the British stage) has the task of trying to play the man of the myth from adolescence all the way to a withered man without seeming lost in the tale - he does just fine with that. Mirren (also known for her work in the theatre) isn't given too much depth with her conniving part, but at least she is game to have some scheming fun for her moments. Clay and Lunghi don't fare as great, each being a bit passive while not having too much chemistry of sorts with Terry, whether friend or lover. It doesn't come to the point where it undercuts the film as a whole, but it feels more haphazard than it probably should. Geoffrey ends up having to try and help carry the film a bit for the film's last half, and while he does seemingly make the role grow from when he is introduced, he can't help make it seem that the film could run out of steam when it tries to give focus on the Grail. The others of the cast fill their roles when required (including early performances on film for Stewart and Neeson, which is neat in some way). The film promotes itself on nobility and comradeship from its fabled Knights of the Round Table, where the king embodies the land he and his subjects walk on. It is a film that indulges in sets of armor, violence and a sense of hope, juggling itself amiably as an epic that merits its own place in entertainment among fantasy films. Perhaps it doesn't hold up as well as it should with some of its narrative workings, but it makes up for it with plenty of fun, spectacle and a fairly game cast that works out a quest of the legend and comes up with most of the right ideas in time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Missing Link.

Review #1209: Missing Link.

Cast:
Zach Galifianakis (Mr. Link/Susan), Hugh Jackman (Sir Lionel Frost), Zoe Saldaña (Adelina Fortnight), Stephen Fry (Lord Piggot-Dunceby), Timothy Olyphant (Willard Stenk), Emma Thompson (The Yeti Elder), Amrita Acharia (Ama Lahuma), Matt Lucas (Mr. Collick), David Walliams (Lemuel Lint), and Ching Valdez-Aran (Gamu) Directed by Chris Butler (#240 - ParaNorman)

Review: 
This is certainly a first in movie theater experiences: one without a single other audience member present besides me. As much as audiences can be weird at times, it sure is a shame to not have anybody else watching something that actually was pretty good, even if it was a 2 o'clock showing.

Admittedly, watching a stop-motion film made from Laika doesn't have too many objections from me, particularly since they have managed to craft a solid winner each time I viewed them, whether it was their first venture with Coraline (2009) or their last one with Kubo and the Two Strings (2016). They manage to make interesting movies with plenty of visual flair that works well for the eyes without reaching to bombard them too much. With this film, their attempt at adventure (done by writer/director Butler) works itself out just fine, having tinges of humor and heart and a fairly solid cast to go along with some well-done visuals. It isn't the strongest feature that Laika has made, but it fits just fine with their other works in providing some entertainment, regardless of age. Not many films can be a buddy flick with a creature like Bigfoot, that is for sure. Galifianakis is charming, making this gentle yet unwavering creature come alive with energy, helping to make for a few laughs sprinkled throughout, such as when he decides to come up with his name or such. Jackman pulls his part well enough, self-assured in a pursuit for a creature but also well enough to play a pursuit for more without too much trouble. Saldana is fine as the last part of the main trio. Fry and Olyphant make for decent adversaries, each having their own set of brashness that rolls just fine. The story holds okay for its 94 minute run-time, feeling a bit closed-in with its adventure trappings (such as when it actually reaches the Himalayas), but there isn't a sense of boredom even if it sometimes feel a bit familiar with some of its characterizations, with its beginning and climax feeling a bit more better in pace than its middle. It has a few nice designs to the places it wants to get to (such as sequences in the Himalayas or involving a fight on a ship), even if some of its landings probably don't land as hard as they could have. It at least has a decent message regarding friendship and belonging that will serve its audience well without seeming completely out of the blue or overly sentimental. It is a film that probably needs more in terms of its pursuit for its characters, but it at least serves itself well with style and some charm to make up a fair winner.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Blood and Lace.

Review #1208: Blood and Lace.

Cast: 
Gloria Grahame (Mrs. Deere), Melody Patterson (Ellie Masters), Milton Selzer (Mr. Mullins), Len Lesser (Tom Kredge), Vic Tayback (Calvin Carruthers), Terri Messina (Bunch), Ronald Taft (Walter), and Dennis Christopher (Pete) Directed by Philip S. Gilbert.

Review: 
The key tips to making a good slasher film (if there really is much of a key) is to make one that has a sense of balance, where you can find just the right amount of tension along with at least one interesting character to go along with some gore. There has to be at least something to care about for a film besides just an assortment of scenes and occasional slashes. There are plenty of slasher films out there that fit most if not all of those requirements - this is not one of them, however. This is simply a bland slasher film that coasts on a cheap narrative and characters too empty for a black hole to swallow.  The best performance is from Grahame, which was her first appearance on screen in five years. She had won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for The Bad and the Beautiful (1952), but her career had declined in the ensuing years. She proves game to play into the trashiness of the villainous role and make it stick out, doing so to the point where the killer is overshadowed near completely (saved only because of a silly mask). Grahame is okay, but the people around her aren't too particular interesting to follow with, verging from shells (the kids) to sleazy (Selzer, Lesser, and Tayback), which I suppose distracts from the fact that the film has no true scares. It never feels unsettling or shocking at any point, reading off as just a film made on the cheap, with this being done for roughly $200,000, which I suppose one could expect from production companies named Contemporary Filmakers and Carlin Company Productions - with distribution in America coming from American International Pictures. Music and sound effects were taken from free music archives. Blood and Lace served as a drive-in regular for horror double bills, but somehow it never had a release onto VHS or DVD, with a 2015 Blu-ray release being the first home media release in North America. The opening scene with the perspective of the killer is at least a bit interesting, in that it predates Halloween (1979) and its opening POV shot - although at least that one didn't have the weapon stick out in front of the camera. The lack of a big victim count, combined with a ludicrous twist at the end serves as just another nail in the coffin. Perhaps the film was aiming to be unsettling with its tone - after all, this is a movie where Grahame and Lesser try to keep the kid count at level by just taking kids back from storage in the freezer and just pass them off as sick. Honestly, it never really seems to go anywhere - the freezer stuff comes and goes while the stuff with the kids is pretty bland. One strange thing is that this is the only directorial effort of Gilbert. Writer/producer Gil Lasky served as writer/producer for three other films in the next three years - and he hasn't done anything since. On the whole, this is a fairly bland slasher film, managing to generate only the bare minimum of actual fright, seeming more of a joke than a true expression of shock.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Shazam!

Review #1207: Shazam!

Cast: 
Asher Angel (Billy Batson), Zachary Levi (Shazam), Mark Strong (Dr. Thaddeus Sivana), Jack Dylan Grazer (Freddy Freeman), Djimon Hounsou (Wizard), Faithe Herman (Darla Dudley), Grace Fulton (Mary Bromfield), Ian Chen (Eugene Choi), Jovan Armand (Pedro Peña), Marta Milans (Rosa Vasquez), Cooper Andrews (Victor Vasquez), and John Glover (Mr. Sivana), with Adam Brody (Super Hero Freddy), Meagan Good (Super Hero Darla), Michelle Borth (Super Hero Mary), Ross Butler (Super Hero Eugene), and D. J. Cotrona (Super Hero Pedro) Directed by David F. Sandberg.

Review: 
Time for a bit of story time, since I felt it seemed interesting enough in regards to Shazam and his history.

Shazam! certainly had a unique path to entering the worlds of comic books and film. The success of heroes such as Superman and Batman in their respective line of comics inspired Fawcett Comics to try and make their own respective hero, with Captain Marvel being created in 1939. Creators Bill Parker and C. C. Beck wanted to deliver a hero that would rely on folk-tales and myths more than pulp - Shazam after all is an acronym for the six figures who gave power to the hero originally known as Captain Marvel: Solomon, Hercules, Atlas, Zeus, Achilles, and Mercury. In 1941, Republic Pictures released the film serial Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941), becoming the first film depiction of a superhero. While future films did not follow in the next seven decades, a television series was done in 1974 involving Filmation. It should be noted that DC Comics did not find the hero to be particularly original, filing lawsuits against both Fawcett Comics and Republic Pictures for copyright infringement in 1941 due to what they saw as similarities between Superman and Captain Marvel. There were verdicts and appeals that followed over the next decade, but Fawcett eventually gave up publishing the hero in 1953, fourteen years after the character's birth. In 1972, DC brought back the property; by this point, Marvel had acquired the trademark and started their own series of Captain Marvel comic books. The origin that the film utilizes for Batson is from more recent publications (as opposed to the newsboy sleeping in a subway station of the original) while also having inspiration from Big (1988). In any case, it is obvious fairly quickly that this is aiming for light charm in a year surrounded by heroes and occasional origin stories.

The obvious thing to say is that this is a wonderful hero film. It doesn't fall into the trap of needing high stakes or overwrought drama but instead relies on charm and humor along with a mostly effective story headlined by Angel, Levi, and Strong. Angel is worthy enough for us to want to follow along with on his path of discovery, never seeming too distant or out-of-touch for us to care about - in essence, he's a kid we can watch grow just as the movie does. Levi has the task of acting as a kid in an adult's body (complete with a whole suit and such), and he rolls with it with ease, having as much fun as one probably would have when trying to find who they are beneath a flashy suit and self promotion. Strong is just as adept in serving as the arch nemesis in part because he seems quite creepy enough to pull his scheme to completion.  He plays the bitter yet brilliant foe with relish that makes one yearn for more from him. Grazer works just fine, serving as the one to play a bit of second fiddle "manager" to Angel that helps deliver some chuckles, such as when he and Levi both realize his immunity to bullets and proceed to want to get the would-be robbers to do it again on camera, but now targeted on the face. Hounsou does just fine with his purpose of crackling the plot along with some magic with a voice fit for a wise tiring wizard. The other members of the cast aren't given too much to really do until the climax, but nobody sticks out as a deterrent to the enjoyment, occasionally serving for a chuckle. The film spends the chunk of its first half to try and give story to both its lead character and villain. Both have a key choice they had to make as children and where they go from there. It carefully balances its act to try and not tire patience prior to the arrival of its main card of its title hero. It achieves the goals it sets out to do by not stretching itself too thin with too many subplots or characters and keeps things on a routine if not comfortable level. The scenes involving Shazam finding his powers can certainly give a jolt of astonishment. I also found the Sins to be pretty interesting to look at, and they do seem creepy enough without making the movie seem completely confused on where it is going. Watching enough of these type of films makes some of the film's turns for its resolutions come off as more familiar and expected than probably imagined, but at least there isn't anything here that tries to do a take off of ill-advised narrative decisions. The climax serves the film decently in getting some thrills and chuckles without becoming too weighted down in trying to linger for too long, although a 132 minute run-time perhaps could have been trimmed a bit. In any case, the best that can be said for this film is that it is a wildly entertaining superhero film, just as well to watch alongside other features such as Wonder Woman (2017) or Aquaman (2018) that sticks out for its abundance of light charm and energy. I certainly look forward to any future installments involving this character, that is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Bernie (2011).

Review #1206: Bernie.

Cast: 
Jack Black (Bernie Tiede), Matthew McConaughey (Danny Buck Davidson), Shirley MacLaine (Marjorie "Margate Nugent), Brady Coleman (Scrappy Holmes), Richard Robichaux (Lloyd Hornbuckle), Rick Dial (Don Leggett), Brandon Smith (Sheriff Huckabee), Larry Jack Dotson (the Rev. Woodard), Merrilee McCommas (Molly), Mathew Greer (Carl), and Gabriel Luna (Kevin) Directed by Richard Linklater (#645 - School of Rock and #1138 - Dazed and Confused)

Review: 
It could be argued that this is an oddball kind of film. After all, it is a dark comedy chronicle of a 1996 murder in a small town by a mortician that had respect from his community despite keeping his victim in a freezer for nine months. Of course, most films don't try to have gossip elements involving a mix of actual townspeople interviews and performers that likes to muddle the line of fiction and documentary. The screenplay was done by Linklater and Skip Hollandsworth, who had wrote an article about the case called "Midnight in the Garden of East Texas" two years after the murder. It is an interesting kind of film in what kind of story it wants to tell, being quick to not veer too hard into being either drama or black comedy, with the key to the film's success being Black and his performance. He plays it with a subtle edge, having the task of trying to make a person who we know killed someone from the get go be someone that we don't immediately recoil from, and he does a fine job in seeping into a kindly tactful type of guy that never seems inauthentic or too out-of-depth for Black to roll with - whether that involves trying to help a couple pick a nicer coffin or partake in singing practice for a show, being quirky without feeling like a bit being done for show. McConaughey (showing up mostly in talking-head segments) is fun to sit with for the moments he gets to show up. MacLaine is mostly utilized to show some dourness and compulsive control over things for a lady described by someone as one with a "...nose was so high, she’d drown in a rainstorm.” Perhaps the portrayal of Nugent could have certainly been expanded on in some ways, but she does play the final side of the film's triangle of main actors just fine. The other actors blend in without too much trouble when needed. It is interesting at times to see the gossip talked about in the segments involving town members that goes on long enough without choking the film's momentum or run-time of 99 minutes too much. With a budget of $6 million and a shooting schedule of 22 days, Bernie certainly stands out as quirky if not mostly effective entertainment that is given life through the portrayal of the title role from Black that proves to be a little gem that works itself out just fine in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Air America.

Review #1205: Air America.

Cast: 
Mel Gibson (Gene Ryack), Robert Downey Jr. (Billy Covington), Nancy Travis (Corinne Landreaux), Ken Jenkins (Major Donald Lemond), David Marshall Grant (Robert Diehl), Lane Smith (Senator Davenport), Art LaFleur (Jack Neely), Ned Eisenberg (Nick Pirelli), Marshall Bell (O.V.), David Bowe (Saunders), and Burt Kwouk (General Lu Soong) Directed by Roger Spottiswoode (#171 - Tomorrow Never Dies and #191 - The 6th Day)

Review: 
Perhaps this film was made at the wrong time. The film's development began with director Richard Rush in 1985 in an attempt to be the first comedy about the Vietnam War, writing a script that at one point was slated to star Sean Connery in the lead role, with various actors thought of for the other main role ranging from Bill Murray to Kevin Costner. In any case, a new direction was taken that led to the hiring of John Eskow to make changes, for which he received a co-writing credit. The film is loosely based off the non-fiction book of the same name from Christopher Robbins. As a action comedy, the only interesting thing about the movie is how it manages to flounder in two genres. This should seem surprising with Gibson and Downey Jr heading the cast, but it becomes apparent by the halfway point of its 113 minute run-time that the film doesn't have the energy to drive many laughs or thrills to carry a whole movie. The film tries to have it both ways - it has its bits of gags and oddball characters, such as ones who like to dangle sleeping people on a rope while flying or playing with coloring books while also trying to show dramatic elements (namely involving the war or the nature of their trade, including a fictionalized portrayal of an actual Laotian general), but it never truly clicks together in making something that actually seems interesting to follow along with. Perhaps the makers of this film really thought that a mish-mash of genres would serve the material well, but it just feels disconnected most of the time, where the implications never really seem to make an impact or matter. Wondering how factual the film is to real-life events is probably a bit more useful a task to do instead of giving the film too much effort. At least there is some decent plane action. It sure is nice to see Gibson at least, and he sure tries to make this maverick type seem interesting to follow along with, but he just seems to be going through the motions by the time his character arc suddenly turns up in the climax. Downey is fine with making some snide reflections, but he doesn't really seem to be interesting enough for the audience to go with when the film wants to try and present some sort of dilemma for its climax. Travis (in a role originally meant for Ally Sheedy) is fairly forgettable, with the oddball pilots somehow standing out better. Grant and LaFleur are a bit amusing for their patches of showtime, but they can't help the film gain footing because it just seems aimless with or without them. Obviously I wasn't expecting something loaded with action, but by the time it tries to reach for some sort of moral ground, it's easy to not care and lose oneself in awaiting the credits, the last thing one wants in a action comedy. It serves best as a time-waster, one that will generate a few chuckles alongside a possible yawn or two that makes this more of a disappointment than a complete disaster.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Meteor.

Review #1204: Meteor.

Cast: 
Sean Connery (Dr. Paul Bradley), Natalie Wood (Tatiana Donskaya), Karl Malden (Harry Sherwood), Brian Keith (Dr. Alexei Dubov), Martin Landau (General Adlon), Trevor Howard (Sir Michael Hughes), Richard Dysart (Secretary of Defense), Henry Fonda (The President), and Joseph Campanella (General Easton) Directed by Ronald Neame (#673 - Scrooge)

Review: 
What is a meteor? One definition (at least according to a cursory Google search) is that it is a " small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth's atmosphere, becoming incandescent as a result of friction and appearing as a streak of light." Perhaps the definition doesn't give the movie's big threat proper credit, since this is a disaster film released to ride on the popularity of films of its ilk released in the 1970s such as the Airport films (1970, 1974, 1977, 1979), The Poseidon Adventure (1972) and countless others  - with this one being distributed by American International Pictures and funding from Hong Kong studio Shaw Brothers. This was one of numerous AIP films in the 1970s that differed from the usual fare they had delivered in previous decades, with less focus on horror and more focus on other genres (whether it involved kung fu, blaxploitation, or something else), with an increase in budgets. This film, unlike others released by the studio, proved to be a failure, making less than $10 million on release with a budget over $15 million. This led to the demise of AIP, which soon merged with Filmways, Inc and stopped distributing films by 1980. In any case, the hands that attempted to guide the film might have seemed promising. Stanley Mann and Edmund H. North were the writers for the film, with the latter being responsible for writing films such as The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) and Patton (1970). Much like the disaster films mentioned already, this one also boasts a collection of big-name actors of its time to supplant the roles.

With all of that in mind, it sure is strange that this film turns out to be a dud. How does one make a film racked with only the bare minimum of suspense and mild special effects? How does one make a film where the energy of the cast and the people they are playing fight blandness? By the time the actual meteor shows up for its climax, the level of excitement jumps up a percentage point, since it means it's almost over, even if the tension levels by this time are nearly non-existent. This probably would've fared better as a comedy, actually. Imagine a bunch of people flailing around talking about a giant rock hitting the Earth in your driest voice, and you have this movie basically summed up. As nice as it is to see Connery be pulled into this ridiculous mess, he isn't too particularly interesting - whether that it is due to the script or due to being on autopilot waiting to get done with this mess (and the check to clear) is up to you. Him and Wood don't have much chemistry with each other, but it really is more because it just feels like filler before scenes of exposition/meteor stuff take the stage again. Keith is fine, and he does provide a bit of humor to a film that is practically begging for some action. Malden proves okay with his gruff if not stock kind of role. Landau goes over-the-top for a role without any real sort of depth to it besides being adversarial to the others. The other members of the cast make brief appearances that come and go as they please. The effects are okay, but they don't really elevate this material to any real sense of enjoyable spectacle, with one sequence utilizing footage from Avalanche (1978) alongside tons of artificial snow for background shooting. The sequence involving the subway and the mud surely must've proven interesting to think of as effective in concept - but it just seems more of a waste of money and time (along with a pain for any actor having to act in mud). This mish-mash in quality for the effects can be attributed in part because numerous visual effects teams came and went during production due to being fired for the quality of effects delivered on a small budget (no doubt due to the budget focus on the actors) - the shots involving building collapsing near the end was actually just re-used footage from building demolitions. Ultimately, it is the lack of any interesting characters or situations that prove fatal to the film. It becomes evident quickly that there isn't much in the way of tension, since the idea of the meteor actually hitting the Earth never really seems all that likely. The film actually ends with a notation about a report named "Project Icarus", a student project done in 1967 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that involved students in a systems engineering class to make a plan to use rockets to deflect or destroy an asteroid in the event of a possible collision with Earth, which led to a book release the following year. One would likely be better off reading the report than watching the film, actually. It disappoints on a basic level as entertainment with its actors and it disappoints on a level of spectacle that makes this a chore for all but people with nothing better to do.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.