House (1977).

Review #737: House.

Cast
Kimiko Ikegami (Gorgeous), Miki Jinbo (Kung Fu), Kumiko Oba (Fantasy), Ai Matubara (Prof), Mieko Sato (Mac), Eriko Tanaka (Melody), Masayo Miyako (Sweet), Yōko Minamida (Auntie), Kiyohiko Ozaki (Keisuke Tôgô), Saho Sasazawa (Father), and Ryoko Ema (Haruko Wanibuchi) Directed by Nobuhiko Obayashi.

Review
I don't know what to say. This is...weird. But for me, it's the kind of weirdness that I embrace. This Japanese world cinema film (also known as Hausu) came from Toho, who wanted to get in on the popularity of Jaws, with Obayashi only directing because no other director wanted to do it. And yes, the story of the movie was done by Chigumi Obayashi, his daughter. Production notes aside, the movie itself is an experience to behold. This is not a horror movie in the conventional sense, nor is it a horror-comedy in that way either. Yes, people do killed in the movie. I never thought I'd be laughing after seeing a head fly out a well, laugh, and then bite someone before fluttering away. In terms of the acting, it resonates well with the manic pace, especially regarding Jinbo and her action scenes. There is no comparison because House is in a league of its own, especially with the effects, which fit the tone of the movie, being as intentionally weird and unrealistic. Here you get to see seven girls deal with a haunted horror house, all while enjoying yourself and trying to find the jigsaw pieces that make this puzzle. But the real fun is watching the jigsaw puzzle become more and more jumbled, eventually ending weirder than when the movie first began. This is the kind of movie you watch late at night, not so much for the horror, but just to enjoy the ride and embrace the weirdness.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Super Mario Bros.

Review #736: Super Mario Bros.

Cast
Bob Hoskins (Mario), John Leguizamo (Luigi), Dennis Hopper (King Koopa), Samantha Mathis (Princess Daisy), Fisher Stevens (Iggy), Richard Edson (Spike), Fiona Shaw (Lena), and Mojo Nixon (Toad) Directed by Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel.

Review
Since today's the 30th anniversary of the release of Super Mario Bros, I decided to review the movie based off the video game. Before talking about this movie, let me talk a little about Super Mario. Let's be honest: The plot of the original game is simple: A plumber named Mario tries to rescue a princess from Bowser (also known as Koopa). To make a movie out of it, you have to have more plot. Whatever Super Mario game you played first (Mine was Super Mario Bros 3 on the NES, which my dad bought at a sale five years ago), Mario's legacy is one that can never be stopped, and it is has crossed over into the realm of television, cereals, anime, comics, and of course, this movie.

Yep, this one. The one from the same people that worked on Max Headroom (never heard of it)...which has had a reputation. Not just from people, but from the actors themselves. Dennis Hopper described this film as a nightmare that went over budget. Bob Hoskins said it was not only the worst job he ever did, he also said it was both his biggest disappointment and the one thing he'd change about his past. Leguizamo said in his own memoir that he and Hoskins got drunk constantly while filiming this. It's strange that Mario and Luigi's last names are both Mario (I guess that explains the Mario Bros. part)...but that's not the least of the movie's problems. The main problem is that the movie really doesn't have much of a focus to it in terms of tone. Is it supposed to be a comedy? Light hearted family flick? Adventure? Sci-fi? Dark fantasy? What is it? The lack of consistency with the tone clouds a movie that is already pretty strange. I do kinda like the idea of an alternate dimension for the Mario Bros, but it's still not done very well because it just flies by too quick to make an impact. The acting is certainly...notable. Hopper looks like he doesn't care. Now whether that means that he doesn't care about the movie or his performance in it is the question. Hoskins and Leguizamo evidently did not enjoy their experience in the movie, and it shows. Pretty much every actor is just there to say lines...though Stevens & Edson provide occasional moments of mild enjoyment

Let's talk about some of the video game stuff briefly, because I know at least something about video games. I wonder if the Princess is named Daisy because of Super Mario Land (released four years earlier) or because being known as Princess Toadstool (The name she was referred to as in the US prior to 1993) would be too weird. The Goombas are an okay effect, though them being taller than the Mario Bros doesn't make too much sense, given that in the game they are the easiest to kill. I find it very strange that Toad is now a guitar playing rebel...but then again Toad wasn't exactly endearing in the video games to begin with. Yoshi...is there for about 20 seconds. Apparently Yoshi was an animatronic effect controlled by cables and radios. It's not a bad effect, but he's only there briefly.  Koopa (also known as Bowser) is now evidently half-human, half-lizard. Nuff said. Remember Big Bertha? That fish from the third game? Big Bertha is now a big woman. The Bob-omb at least resembles the one from the game, and is probably the only thing in this movie that is loyal, sadly enough.

The movie's effects are hit and miss. The design of the city is okay, but you could honestly confuse it for any movies with a  The portal effects look more like soup and the Goombas have a certain washed out pale look to them. The movie ends on a cliffhanger...that will never be resolved. Super Mario Bros was a flop at the box office, and rightfully so. It's a movie that tries to cover too many bases to focus and please everyone while managing to be a tangled mess with no clear focus. It's sad how it seems no one who made this had fun making this, but at least it's not unwatchable. It's not a terrible movie, it's just isn't any good either. I did find it interesting that there's actually a comic strip dedicated as a "sequel" to this film, so at least something came out of this. Ultimately, this a movie that lags alongside other weird 90's movies, though not the good kind. Happy 30th, Mario. You deserved better than this.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

A Page of Madness.

Review #735: A Page of Madness.

Cast
Masao Inoue (Servent), Ayako Iijima (Servent's daughter), Yoshie Nakagawa (Servent's wife), Hiroshi Nemoto (Young man), Misao Seki (Doctor), Minoru Takase (Crazy man A), Eiko Minami (Dancer), Kyosuke Takamatsu (Crazy man B), Tetsu Tsuboi (Crazy man C), and Shintarô Takiguchi (Boy) Directed by Teinosuke Kinugasa.

Review
World cinema films are interesting to review because they can provide a look into the culture and movie techniques of the time, along with being something different as opposed to the regular state of affairs here. And hey, this is also a silent movie from Japan. But let's go one further: This movie has no inter-titles, making it a rare kind of silent film, one in which its all up to the viewer to try to tell what's going on. The movie (also known as Kurutta Ippēji) had a low budget, comprised of silver painted walls and opening credits that were turned page by page (with a hand sticking out in some shots), but the movie's experimental avant-garde style fits perfectly, particularly with the opening scene, with shots of dim lighting and use of shadows. You can try to figure the movie out, or just step back and watch the images put on screen. The movie is interesting to watch because it doesn't quite follow conventions while also displaying a variety of images, ending with masks. The actors certainly emote well in the offbeat world the movie establishes for itself. One notable fact is that the movie's story had four writers, including the director and Yasunari Kawabata, who later won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1968. This film was lost for 45 years until Kinugasa found it in his storehouse. For the re-release, Aono Jikken Ensemble did the music to accompany it, which I saw in this version. Speaking of which, the music certainly fits with the haunting quality of the movie, not being distracting and fitting with the eccentric quality of a film such as this, which manages to be a one-of-a-kind movie that can be appreciated for all of its quirks. The run time is just barely under an hour, which is a plus for anyone looking to enjoy some cinema from almost 80 years ago that manages to resonate today.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Lethal Weapon 4.

Review #734: Lethal Weapon 4.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Jet Li (Wah Sing Ku), Rene Russo (Lorna Cole), Joe Pesci (Leo Getz), Chris Rock (Detective Lee Butters), Kim Chan (Uncle Benny Chan), Steve Kahan (Captain Ed Murphy), Calvin Jung (Detective Ng), Jack Kehler (U.S. State Department Official), and Eddy Ko (Hong) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, and #731 - Lethal Weapon 3)

Review
It's hard to say how I feel about finally finishing this series of films. On the one hand, the first two movies are really, really excellent buddy cop movies. On the other hand, the last two don't exactly cut it. It really is hard to stay fresh when you've already done three films. Remember how I said the last movie had a lack of punch? This film essentially is a sucker punch when it comes to action, though the effectiveness of it all depends on the audience. It does have a good deal of night-time action, and even Riggs and Murtaugh get bloodied up, which I guess is some sort of variety (seriously, they have more than just bruises - one's on crutches!), and shows that...yeah, they really too old for this-you get the idea. But was this film really necessary? I suppose if you like fours, sure. The cast is fine, and Gibson-Glover is about enjoyable as they have been earlier. Russo is given barely any time, but she does fine. Li doesn't speak too much, though at least he knows how to beat the snot out of people. Is he a good villain? Not really, but at least he puts up a fight. Pesci and Rock are (mostly) endearing, being relevant to the plot just enough. The underlying problem with the movie is that it isn't as funny (or fun) to watch. Remember the toiler bomb scene in the 2nd movie? It was funny, in a movie that really set the bar for action-comedy. In this? Murtaugh's house gets burned down, and unless being saved by a kid is funny, that whole sequence to me just sums the relative lack of fun emitted in this one. Sure, there is a scene with laughing gas that is fun (unless you've already seen people laughing and laughing over and over *cough* Fresh Prince of Bel-Air), but the action and tone pretty much suffocate the movie. The opening sequence is entertaining, and even the ending is poignant enough, but the movie isn't so lucky. Don't get me wrong: This is not a bad movie. It is entertaining, though not so much as before. At least it is a good way to end the series, no matter any attempts Hollywood will try in remaking the magic.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Pollyanna.

Review #733: Pollyanna.

Cast
Mary Pickford (Pollyanna Whittier), Wharton James (Reverend John Whittier), Katherine Griffith (Aunt Polly Harrington), Helen Jerome Eddy (Nancy Thing, Polly's Maid), George Berrell (Old Tom, Polly's Handyman), Howard Ralston (Jimmy Bean), William Courtleigh (John Pendleton), and Herbert Prior (Dr. Tom Chilton) Directed by Paul Powell.

Review
You may be asking me one question: Why this movie, particularly in the twilight hours of August? The answer is...Why not? It's not like this isn't the first random choice on this show (Sweet 15, anyone?), and it won't be the last. Also, it's a movie with Mary Pickford, a very notable star of screen during the silent era, playing a 12 year old, though she was actually 27 when this was released in theaters in early 1920. This was based off (say it with me now) a novel of the same name, which was popular enough to spawn a series of books along with a term for bias towards the positive side. Anyway, how's the movie? Let's put it this way: If you are up for some cheer and pleasantries that illuminate from Pickford, this is for you. Even when the movie reaches gloomier subjects near the end, it never ceases to be anything other than entertaining, in large part due to Pickford. Her presence practically stretches throughout the whole movie, and it's hard to not enjoy Pickford's radiant charm. It has its shares of drama and light comedy, and the actors do a good job not overacting either for the most part. Ultimately, the optimistic charm of Pollyanna and the way it spreads across the community makes the movie more than just an orphan story, it makes it a enjoyable tale that is nicely spread in less then an hour. It's a good film to spend time on, and ultimately a good film to enjoy with everyone, especially silent movie fans.

On an unrelated note, the teacher in my first college class happens to be from Canada, which Pickford was also from. I guess after all the time mentioning that country in the past few years paid off in a subtle way.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Escape from L.A.

Review #732: Escape from L.A.

Cast
Kurt Russell (Snake Plissken), Steve Buscemi (Map to the Stars Eddie), Georges Corraface (Cuervo Jones), Cliff Robertson (President), Stacy Keach (Cmdr. Malloy), Peter Fonda (Pipeline), Pam Grier (Hershe Las Palmas), A. J. Langer (Utopia), Valeria Golino (Taslima), Bruce Campbell (Surgeon General of Beverly Hills), and Michelle Forbes (Brazen) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween, #634 - Escape from New York, and #712 - The Thing)

Review
It's been a while (ten days) since I reviewed a movie, so let me get back to work with a familiar director, John Carpenter. And hey, it's the sequel released 15 years after the first movie, what could go wrong? The answer to that question lies within the movie itself. I praised the original for its dystopian outlook, Russell himself, and the thrilling action. What I forgot to mention is that Escape from New York managed to keep itself from losing momentum. The sequel? Not so much. While Russell is still the best actor in the movie, the rest of the cast isn't as impressive. Corraface's character comes and goes too quickly to make any real impression on you, while Fonda's character is more pointless than Buscemi's character, but at least the latter does something important, so points for that. The movie is bleak, but it isn't as interesting as the first movie, and the computer effects for water effects (especially the surfing - yes Snake surfs) don't help the movie, as they come off as too distracting. It takes a while for the movie to become interesting, and the action scenes are passable, though they are overshadowed a bit by the scene where Plisskin has to make 5 baskets in a row (at the LA Coliseum, no less), and the aforementioned surfing scene, which is just plain strange. The movie was written by Debra Hill, John Carpenter & Russell, with Russell apparently coming up with the ending. I guess it was hard to make an ending that wasn't just like the last one, with this ending being more bleak given that there was no sequel (which apparently would've been Plissken escaping Earth) because this movie proved to be a failure financially. It's not a bad movie, it at least is entertaining to a degree, and Russell clearly had a lot of passion for this movie, and I respect his performance. The movie itself, though, isn't as good, but it is at least a good way to pass 100 minutes, and you might enjoy the movie more than I did. It's hard to believe this movie was released in August 1996. August...9th, 1996. Okay, I didn't plan for this to be an anniversary review. Welcome to the human race.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Lethal Weapon 3.

Review #731: Lethal Weapon 3.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Rene Russo (Lorna Cole), Stuart Wilson (Jack Travis), Joe Pesci (Leo Getz), Steve Kahan (Captain Murphy), Darlene Love (Trish Murtaugh), Ebonie Smith (Carrie Murtaugh), and Nick Chinlund (Hatchett) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, and #619 - Maverick)

Review
Compared to the two previous Lethal Weapon movies, Lethal Weapon 3 isn't as good. But that's not saying it's not a good movie. It doesn't have the same punch as the first two movies, but the banter between Gibson and Glover combined with good entertaining action push the movie to respectability. If you liked the first two films, you'll like this one too, though admittedly not as much. It's not as if there's any terrible characters, in fact I love Russo's character, mainly because it's nice to see another person kick some people to the ground. Or maybe because I prefer her over Pesci's character. This time around, he's not as helpful but at least he's in the movie in limited quantities. In fact, Pesci's character wasn't in the original script, but added in later, which explains the "pop ins" he does. At least he doesn't grate on your nerves too much. The villain this time around isn't half-bad, though I won't probably remember too much of him. I do like his introduction in which he deals with an employee...with cement. It's always nice to see Gibson and Glover together because they make a good pair and have some fun that rolls with the audience. Take this for what it's worth, which is pretty good.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Cars 2.

Review #730: Cars 2.

Cast
Larry the Cable Guy (Mater), Owen Wilson (Lightning McQueen), Michael Caine (Finn McMissile), Emily Mortimer (Holley Shiftwell), John Turturro (Francesco Bernoulli), Eddie Izzard (Sir Miles Axlerod), Thomas Kretschmann (Professor Zündapp), Joe Mantegna (Grem), Peter Jacobson (Acer), Tony Shalhoub (Luigi), Jason Isaacs (Siddeley/Leland Turbo), and Stanley Townsend (Vladimir Trunkov/Ivan/Victor Hugo), Directed by John Lasseter (#440 - Toy Story, #441 - Toy Story 2, #539 - A Bug's Life, and #729 - Cars)

Review
The first Cars was okay. In the sense that when compared to other Pixar movies, it suffered under comparison, but the movie along was fine. This? Meh. Remember how passion made Cars into something to credit? With this, it should've been buried in a box and never opened. Ultimately the problems all come down to the focus changing from McQueen...to Mater. Look, I don't hate Larry the Cable Guy, but after a while, I started to just loathe Mater. He worked better in the first movie because of the small town atmosphere the first movie had, where Mater wasn't with spies and inferior cars trying to ruin a Prix. When did we go from small town memories to SPY FLICK? That would be like if Toy Story 2 was instead a cyberpunk opera. Actually, that would've been better than this. McQueen and Mater's bonding was actually more interesting than Mater being a spy, because I wasn't yelling at the screen, waiting for the movie to get to the point. It's something when you want to see cars racing each other more than spies. At least the rest of the cast is alright, even if there are dozens of characters (and cameos). Admittedly, it's a good looking movie in terms of animation, especially nighttime shots, with the glow of the lights. Mater drags on your nerves, especially if you have little patience. It could be argued that he is up to the level of annoyance that Jar Jar Binks was in The Phantom Menace, though at least Mater saves the day. I like the idea of McQueen going to race in a Prix around the world, to see other cultures and other racers, now that the town is well off. Instead, it's a look into how silly Mater can be in other cultures, right down to swallowing a bunch of wasabi. I wonder if it would've been funnier in live action, with real people. Of course, if I wanted to, I could watch it on the Internet.

The "be yourself" theme works in theory, unless of course you meet someone who doesn't like you, or is a bully. Yes, even when you are being beaten up, at least you can be comforted in that they were being themselves. The idea that cars can apparently kill other cars is a bit strange, though this works into my idea that the cars secretly took over the Earth and just became sentient, disguising their act by acting as friendly as possible. The movie is good for younger audiences, at least, but it should strive better. We could get into the "animation shouldn't be just for kids" argument, but there are better movies to watch. The depth of the movie is lacking with regards to other Pixar movies, but maybe that was a part of the disappointment with me. Pixar is a pinnacle of great quality animated movies, before (Toy Story, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo) and after (Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, Inside Out) this movie. If you have younger relatives, they might like it. But only if there are no other options. None.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Cars.

Review #729: Cars.

Cast
Owen Wilson (Lightning McQueen), Paul Newman (Doc Hudson), Bonnie Hunt (Sally Carrera), Larry the Cable Guy (Mater), Tony Shalhoub (Luigi), Cheech Marin (Ramone), Michael Wallis (Sheriff), George Carlin (Fillmore), Paul Dooley (Sarge), Jenifer Lewis (Flo), Guido Quaroni (Guido), Richard Petty (Strip "The King" Weathers), Michael Keaton (Chick Hicks), Katherine Helmond (Lizzie), John Ratzenberger (Mack), and Joe Ranft (Red) Directed by John Lasseter (#440 - Toy Story, #441 - Toy Story 2 and #539 - A Bug's Life) and Joe Ranft.

Review
Yep, this one. I remember getting this a birthday gift when I was 10 or 11. This was back when I was just a kid, without much to worry about, as opposed to now. I remember that the movie was fine, and yeah, I probably liked it back then. Anyway...how is the movie for me after a few years passed me by? I suppose the movie's okay. But when held up to the standards that Pixar films had, it isn't as good, though I'd say the movie is at least passable enough. I am aware of the plot resemblance to the movie Doc Hollywood, but I was more focused on the anthropomorphic cars. Apparently, there are no humans, but the cars are fueled by other cars. Did the cars suddenly take over the Earth? And if so, did they...get rid of the humans? But regardless, the movie is well crafted in terms of animation and style. The cars are wonderful to look at, and it's obvious that the movie has a good deal of passion for Route 66, and it is at least entertaining enough. The plot has its cliches (the hotshot, the country bumpkin, the one with a secret, the hippie, etc.) and it is admittedly slightly predictable, but at least the movie doesn't drag on too much. It showcases what it wants and doesn't let itself linger too much. The voice cast is fine, and it seems the cars in Radiator Springs have a decent accord with each other, which helps make the movie feel more friendly. It's hard to say if the movie is more interesting with the racing or the town, but at least it never bored me too much. It's a movie that for all of its flaws manages to squeak out a passable experience, heightened for younger kids. And...then there was a sequel. I will deal with that shortly.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ant-Man.

Review #728: Ant-Man.

Cast
Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Michael Douglas (Dr. Hank Pym), Evangeline Lilly (Hope van Dyne), Corey Stoll (Darren Cross / Yellowjacket), Bobby Cannavale (Paxton), Michael Peña (Luis), Judy Greer (Maggie Lang), Abby Ryder Fortson (Cassie Lang), David Dastmalchian (Kurt), T.I. (Dave), Wood Harris (Gale), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter), John Slattery (Howard Stark), and Martin Donovan (Mitchell Carson) Directed by Peyton Reed.

Review
Admittedly, having four writers credited and having a director replaced during production is a bit troubling. But I went into Ant-Man to have some fun, and I ended up being satisfied. Really satisfied. This is a movie that has fun with itself and its premise, exhibiting snappy dialogue when needed while also having brilliant (pint sized) action. Rudd makes for a good lead hero, and her certainly works well with Douglas and Lilly, especially when trying to train him. The movie doesn't take too long to have some action...and a laugh, and it keeps going from there, never really stopping. Stoll does fine hamming it up when he's in the film, and the fight at the end of the movie is both exciting and fun. It's not just a superhero movie, it also is a heist as well, and that certainly changes up from most origin stories, though most don't involve ants. Lots of them. It's a good looking movie with the effects dealing with our mini sized hero, and seeing shots of Ant-Man fighting from a distance generates some laughs, especially at the end. It's a good time for what it's worth, and it certainly manages to be just the right amount of entertainment. The Marvel movies are a well oiled machine that keeps on going, increasing itself movie after movie, while having fun with itself and having a story that knows where its going. Watch the movie, and enjoy yourself.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

For Heaven's Sake.

Review #727: For Heaven's Sake.

Cast
Harold Lloyd (The Uptown Boy), Jobyna Ralston (The Downtown Girl), Noah Young (The Roughneck), Jim Mason (The Gangster), and Paul Weigel (The Optimist) Directed by Sam Taylor.

Review
It's a quick movie described by Lloyd himself as a "gag picture", which as you can tell means that the movie was more about the comedy bits than his character pictures, like Grandma's Boy or The Freshman. Lloyd was reluctant to release this film due to his disappointment with it, but the movie was a success. As for the film itself, it's enjoyable enough. Is it as good as the previous two Lloyd films I mentioned? Not entirely, but it is nice. The movie sets itself quickly and leaves itself enough time to make gags, right down to the title cards. I especially like the entire sequence with Lloyd being "chased" all throughout the town, which turns from just a small gang into a big group, and it just has gag after gag, succeeding rapidly. The cast is effective enough with the gags in the movie, and Lloyd and Ralston do well together. The movie loads itself up with gags in a near-hour span, and it works well enough to be entertaining without needing too much plot. Comedy is the best medicine, and it can be big or small.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

King Kong (1976)

Review #726: King Kong.

Cast
Jeff Bridges (Jack Prescott), Charles Grodin (Fred S. Wilson), Jessica Lange (Dwan), John Randolph (Captain Ross), Rene Auberjonois (Roy Bagley), Ed Lauter (Carnahan), Julius Harris (Boan), and Jack O'Halloran (Joe Perko) Directed by John Guillermin.

Review
If you want to promote your remake of a 1933 classic (#283), here's a good tag line: The most exciting original motion picture event of all time. Granted, this movie is about as original as a baloney sandwich trying to call itself a ham sandwich, but it certainly has a good ring to it, especially when produced by Dino De Laurentiis. Let me make this perfectly clear from the beginning: If it's between this and the original film, stick to the original film. But it could be argued that this film knows that going in, so it tries to do something different, with a campier tone, 130 minutes, and actual filming locations instead of stages. Carlo Rambaldi designed the effects for this film, and he helped construct a 40 foot mechanical version of Kong, which shows up (briefly) near the end of the movie. It's clear that the movie wants to show the technical aspect and then build characters around that. In a way, it works, although the end product is not exactly as grand as it could've been. The motivations and plot are updated into a quest for oil, which I suppose is creative, though it ends the same way as the original...At least they include Kong's heartbeat before he dies, so that's something new. How the cast does depends on what you (the viewer) want: If you like the idea of campy infused people interacting around the main attraction (Kong), go for it. For me, they're okay. They just seem to get in the way half of the time, though Bridges and Grodin (all fashion and hair aside) seem to do okay. Bridges' character cheering for Kong taking down the helicopters is strange, considering he's seen Kong throw people off a log into a pit, crush people on the ground, and throwing debris towards people. And yet, he cheers him as if he's done nothing wrong. If you don't want Lange's character to be eaten, then that's a good thing for you. Like the original, this film's effects are a product of their time, and for most of the movie, Kong looks relatively good, without much light shown, anyway. Near the end it looks a little more fake, but the movie doesn't linger too much on that. No, it lingers more on just about everything else, from the oil to Bridges-Lange, etc. John Barry's music is a highlight. Take this movie for what it is: A jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss. For me, it's sometimes enjoyable, but other times it's just okay.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Day the Earth Stood Still.

Review #725: The Day the Earth Stood Still.

Cast
Michael Rennie (Klaatu), Patricia Neal (Helen Benson), Billy Gray (Bobby Benson), Hugh Marlowe (Tom Stephens), Sam Jaffe (Professor Jacob Barnhardt), Frances Bavier (Mrs. Barley), Lock Martin (Gort), and Frank Conroy (Mr. Harley) Directed by Robert Wise (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture)

Review
If you haven't watched the movie but you are reading this review, there might be spoilers, so tread carefully and...watch the movie! Now then...

Simply put, this is a truthful movie. Even after 64 years, this movie manages to have a message that still resonates today. Especially with the way technology has progressed in the time since. Many people have talked about this movie in length already, but this review is meant to just be about how the movie is. And it is great. The buildup to the movie's message at the end, the performance of Rennie as Klaatu, Gort's presence, Bernard Herrmann's music, and the way that it is shot make for one of the more memorable 1950's alien visitor stories, but more importantly one of the best movies about humanity's reach and how even technology could be our own downfall, no matter what intent it may have, along with paranoia.

It shows the degrees of how humans interact to Klaatu's presence: From the hundreds of observers who flock to see him and his saucer's arrival, to the ones who are scared of him and Gort, to the ones who want to see him destroyed, to the curious scientific minds, to the one little boy who enjoys his presence, and so on. It's not a "people vs the alien" type of a movie, it plays on the paranoia of the people to Klaatu and the era in general this was made, being released just a few years after World War II ended, which is reflected a few times during the film.

Rennie is interesting as Klaatu, making him so interesting to watch because of how he interacts with the humans around him, especially regarding his quest regarding his message. The rest of the cast does a fine job, enabling the degrees of humans and their interactions with him. Let's not forget about Gort, played by Martin (reportedly to be at least 7 feet tall, though some report at least 7'7), who had to film in short intervals due to his troubles with the heavy suit. But even with that fact, his silent movements (along with how the suit was made) help keep the movie from falling off the rails by simply being effective in keeping the tense atmosphere. If the effect had been less well crafted, I wonder if the movie would've had the same effect.

The movie also benefits from the ethereal nature of Herrmann's score, which right from the very beginning sets the tone of the movie and makes the atmosphere of the movie seem to come alive. It's a great movie to watch and look at too, especially the shots of the saucer coming down to Washington, or seeing the military vehicles driving to pursue Klaatu. Klaatu's message at the end of the movie is neither heavy-handed nor dated, it's a message that still rings true today about how we have a choice about our fate, and we'll either join them or be destroyed. I can't imagine the remake being any better than this. Ultimately, would I recommend this movie (instead of the remake)? You bet.

Lastly...Klaatu barada nikto. It's a unique phrase that has become referenced in multiple movies, TV shows, and other various forms of media, along with being a really cool thing to say.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Sagebrush Trail.

Review #724: Sagebrush Trail.

Cast
John Wayne (John Brant), Nancy Shubert (Sally Blake), Lane Chandler (Joseph Conlon), Yakima Canutt (Outlaw Gang Leader), Henry Hall (Bad Blake), and Wally Wales (Deputy Sheriff) Directed by Armand Schaefer.

Review
Yes, it's almost time...for Independence Day to be over. But much like firework demonstrations, the celebrations will still be around for most of the night anyway, so here is my own little contribution to it, a film with John Wayne starring in it, before he became more popular to audiences. I'm surprised it took this long to get to a John Wayne movie, and it only figures that it's one made by Monogram Pictures, a studio that made b-movies, with a good majority being Westerns. Wayne and his voice always seems to resonate well with people, and I can see why. It's a smooth touch that is consistent and is refreshing to see here. Ah Westerns, home to dirt, trails, and gunfights. And in this case, you get all of them, so if you want stuff like that (Oh, and John Wayne), you win there. Otherwise, it's a standard movie that could've been longer (barely over 50 minutes), but if you want an American patriotic type of movie and short on time, watch this. Or (legally, of course) pop some fireworks. Happy July 4th.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Threat.

Review #723: The Threat.

Cast
Michael O'Shea (Detective Ray Williams), Virginia Grey (Carol), Charles McGraw (Arnold "Red" Kluger), Julie Bishop (Ann Williams), Frank Conroy (District Attorney Barker MacDonald), Robert Shayne (Inspector Murphy), Anthony Caruso (Nick Damon), Don McGuire (Joe Turner), and Frank Richards (Lefty) Directed by Felix E. Feist.

Review
It's a cheap little quickie of a b-movie that runs 66 minutes, made in the heyday of film noirs, with this being released at the turn of the decade. Yeah, that's a boring way to describe the movie, but at least the movie isn't as boring, so there's that. The movie is at least quick with its approach, and it also manages to make McGraw a main focus, and he does an excellent job as the villain, mainly because of his voice, which rings well with his chemistry with Grey and O'Shea. It's a rough and tough kind of movie, with the kind of hostage formula style you'd see from old movies, but it at least is entertaining enough if you're in the mood for it. If you'd like a movie from the 40's that will be short, to the point, and decent enough, this is for you. Is it great? No, but it is at least something to not be embarrassed by. You won't remember much from it after a while, but it is passable enough.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Changeling.

Review #722: The Changeling.

Cast
George C. Scott (John Russell), Melvyn Douglas (Sen. Joseph Carmichael), Trish Van Devere (Claire Norman), Eric Christmas (Albert Harmon), John Colicos (De Witt), Jean Marsh (Joanna Russell), and Roberta Maxwell (Eva Lingstrom) Directed by Peter Medak.

Review
As Canada Day slowly ended today, I decided to celebrate Canada once again with this film mainly because it sounded too interesting not to. While the movie is set in Seattle, it was mostly filmed in Canada, more specifically Vancouver, incorporating shots of some Seattle landmarks and Vancouver landscape. In fact, the house featured in the movie was actually a modern house with a Victorian facade added on. As for the movie itself, it's pretty good. The atmosphere of the movie is well-maintained and helps contribute to an interesting movie that is both engaging and chilling. Scott has a commanding presence that keeps the movie on track, and he has a good rapport with Van Devere and Douglas. It's a movie that develops itself surely and steadily, making for good mystery while also having good thrills as well, especially at the end. I like the set they used for the house, and I also like the shots of both Vancouver and Seattle, which look nice. It's a good movie that has some scares while also being engaging. The movie runs well and never seems to drag on while also managing to keep a consistent tone and never waver. Ultimately, it's a good gem of horror. I hoped you enjoyed your Canada Day, and if you're not Canadian (like me), at least listen to O Canada once.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

edit-2026: revised image

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

Review #721: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

Cast
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Ida Lupino (Ann Brandon), George Zucco (Professor Moriarty), Alan Marshal (Jerrold Hunter), and E. E. Clive (Inspector Bristol) Directed by Alfred L. Werker (#676 - Shock)

Review
It's been a while (#583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles) since I reviewed a Sherlock Holmes film, and it's only fitting that it's the second film of the Rathbone series, which had 14 films in total in seven years. In fact, this was the second Holmes film with Rathbone released in 1939, because in those days, films were made really quickly, with the gap between the two films being only 5 months (and 1 day). It is in this film that the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" came into popularity, and while it wasn't a phrase used in the Doyle stories (though it was used in stage adaptations before this film), it has entered into Holmes' lore mainly because of the quality of this movie, which is exceptional. The interactions that Rathbone has with Bruce are well paced and make for a good duo, though his scenes with Zucco are also well done, especially their last scene, which has some good action. It may be a little typical at times, but it at least is a good way to spend 81 minutes while watching Rathbone steal the show (as usual) and see a little mystery play out nicely.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Twice Upon a Time.

Review #720: Twice Upon a Time.

Cast
Lorenzo Music (Ralph, The All-Purpose Animal), Julie Payne (Flora Fauna), Marshall Efron (Synonamess Botch), Hamilton Camp (Greensleeves), James Cranna (Rod Rescueman / Scuzzbopper / Frivoli Foreman), Paul Frees (Narrator / Chef of State / Judges / Bailiff), and Judith Kahan (The Fairy Godmother) Directed by John Korty and Charles Swenton.

Review
Twice Upon a Time is 75 minutes of uniqueness. It utilizes improv comedians, which means that the movie has an array of unpredictability, which also could be said for the animation. Lumage is one of the more unique processes utilized for a movie. The animators move prefabricated cut-out plastic pieces on a light table, somewhat like cutout animation. There are also multiple versions of this movie, one with a different set up involving Greensleves, one with Efron's character being raunchier (read: less PG), and this one. The one I saw on TCM Underground (which show cult films that aren't as well known late at night) was rated PG, though make what you will about the version you might see. Oh, and George Lucas was executive producer. Anyway...how's the movie? It's a Hodge-podge of characters, silliness, live action mixed with Lumage, and a story that make for a strangely satisfying movie. The characters are zany, but they seem perfect for a movie that takes a story that seems normal at first and turns it into a madcap adventure that isn't all that predictable. Lorenzo Music is a highlight, mainly because his voice fits well with how the movie goes, especially when paired with a silent character, such as Mumford, who looks just like a Tramp lookalike. The villain is over the top evil, and it works for a movie like this, which moves well. Is it dated? You could argue that, but it's a time capsule of creativity that while not particularly new age, is interesting to watch. One bright side is that some people (Henry Selick & David Fincher - both in directing films like Coraline and The Social Network, and Harley Jessup - production design and visual effects, even winning an Oscar) went on to have careers in film after this, and maybe that helps make the movie have a little legacy of its own. Take the movie for what it is: One of a kind, though with different versions.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mystery of the Wax Museum.

Review #719: Mystery of the Wax Museum.

Cast
Lionel Atwill (Ivan Igor), Fay Wray (Charlotte Duncan), Glenda Farrell (Florence Dempsey), Frank McHugh (Jim), Allen Vincent (Ralph Burton), Gavin Gordon (George Winton), Edwin Maxwell (Joe Worth), and Holmes Herbert (Dr. Rasmussen) Directed by Michael Curtiz (#125 - Casablanca and #416 - Yankee Doodle Dandy, #505 - The Adventures of Robin Hood, and #529 - Mildred Pierce)

Review
Remember House of Wax (#271) with Vincent Price? Mystery of the Wax Museum is the original version, made by the same studio (Warner Brothers) that would make the remake 20 years later, with this movie based off an unpublished story, The Wax Works. This movie utilizes two-color Technicolor, a unique system utilized in some films (like the 1925 version of Phantom of the Opera), although the reception to the system was lukewarm due to the perceived artificial qualities it projected. This was one of only three films that Warner Brothers had under this system, and the last. Anyway, the movie's color actually helps set the mood very nicely because its artificial quality here makes the movie seem creepy, which for a movie like this, works. It works for a mystery like this, which moves quickly and never seems padded, setting its characters up and their motivations just fine. Atwill and Wray are the highlights, both having good scenes, sometimes together. The movie is quickly resolved, and I'm impressed at how it managed to be just effective, without having to resort to much final thoughts. It's a movie that looks good in its own way while being a fine little mystery that can be good for anyone looking for a quick 30's film to watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Brainstorm (1983).

Review #718: Brainstorm.

Cast
Christopher Walken (Michael Brace), Natalie Wood (Karen Brace), Louise Fletcher (Lillian Reynolds), Cliff Robertson (Alex Terson), Alan Fudge (Robert Jenkins), Joe Dorsey (Hal Abramson), Jason Lively (Chris Brace), Jordan Christopher (Gordy Forbes), and Donald Hotton (Landan Marks) Directed by Douglas Trumbull.

Review
Brainstorm deserves credit for its effects, which are still impressive, regardless of how old the movie is. Which is good, considering the rest of the movie isn't as impressive. Granted, the movie does have a creative premise: A research team creates a helmet that lets someone record their experience (such as racing a car, riding a horse - physically and mentally I might add) onto the device to be experienced later. Oh, and there's some evil management who want to make it militarized. I liked the movie more when it showed the helmet and what it does than the plot involving the company because it felt enjoyable and it felt less forced. The characters are fine, but this is one of those movies where the effects overtake the acting...which has been done before with other science fiction films, but it proves to be a distraction when the effects aren't chugging themselves out. I feel like the movie wants to just be about the helmet and one's experience with it instead of "nyah, we want the helmet for mind control!" Walken and Wood are at least enjoyable, though I wish Fletcher was given more time on screen. Robertson is just okay. Admittedly, the movie had a troubled production, in fact this movie was released nearly two years after Natalie Wood's death in November 1981, on a production break. After MGM tried to lock Trumbull out, the movie was finally let back into production, albeit with limited release and publicity, which ensued the movie's box office failure, and Trumbull has never directed a movie since. The movie was originally going to utilize Trumbull's Showscan process, which uses a quicker frame per second rate...but the cost of retrofitting theaters was too much for the studio. The movie does utilize a different ratio for the virtual reality scenes as opposed to the normal scenes (which is smaller), which is nice. It could be indicative of the future....someday. But until that day comes, it's an okay movie that had some troubled history.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Logan's Run.

Review #717: Logan's Run.

Cast
Michael York (Logan 5), Jenny Agutter (Jessica 6), Richard Jordan (Francis 7), Roscoe Lee Browne (Box), Farrah Fawcett (Holly 13), Michael Anderson Jr. (Doc), and Peter Ustinov (The Old Man) Directed by Michael Anderson.

Review
Logan's Run was a toss up to rate for a while. On the one hand, Logan's Run is a product of its time that is an example of a movie set many, many years into the future (the year 2274, with the book being 2116), which is beneficial in the sense that the movie has free reign to guess on a future none of us will ever see, making the movie have a chance to run wild with the idea of a utopia, the buildings, and...how we dress. On the other hand, it could be argued the movie is dated specifically by the effects, which is why Hollywood has been trying to remake this film for years (and failing at it, I might add), but Hollywood remade Robocop, and that ended...oh you already know. Logan's Run is the kind of movie you'd watch late at night and enjoy, but whether you'd enjoy the movie for how it deals with a utopia's effects on society...or how it treats itself in terms of clothing/effects is another story. I'm trying to make this review as anti wishy-washy as possible, so I'll just say that the movie is fine. York and Agutter are good, and they do make a fine pairing together, which is to the movie's advantage. You could make fun of the clothing...or Box. Box is a robot who lives in an ice cave. Take one look at him, and you'll see. Oddly enough, I was laughing at the part with the cats, because the second half of the movie has a bunch of cats meowing and moving around while the movie plays. But maybe I'm just weird. Jordan is okay, and the supporting cast as a whole is passable, it's one of those kind of movies. I was surprised to see that a bunch of locations in Texas were used (including a Water Gardens), mainly because it's not everyday you see your state in a credits sequence. The effects...are what they are. Monorails are cool to watch, and even the shots of the city look like they took a good deal of time to make, and I even saw a credit for matte painting, which isn't as easy it may seem, so I can give the movie credit. If you enjoy the movie (seriously or mockingly), the effects won't get in the way (rather they might actually be beneficial) of a good time. If you find it's not exactly up to code with your standards...the effects will kill the mood even more. But I can't help but enjoy this strange gem. Maybe you will too. Whether a remake will be made in the future or not, appreciating the movie for what it is makes sense too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Horror Express.

Review #716: Horror Express.

Cast
Christopher Lee (Professor Sir Alexander Saxton), Peter Cushing (Dr. Wells), Alberto de Mendoza (Father Pujardov), Julio Peña (Inspector Mirov), Silvia Tortosa (Countess Irina Petrovski), Telly Savalas (Captain Kazan), George Rigaud (Count Marion Petrovski), Víctor Israel (Maletero – the Baggage Man), Ángel del Pozo (Yevtushenko), and Helga Liné (Natasha) Directed by Eugenio Martín.

Review
It has been over two weeks since the passing of Christopher Lee, who I've covered numerous times on this show in the past. It cannot be stated enought how much respect I and other people had for his talent, on and off the screen. He did voices for some of Tim Burton's movies, played characters in both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, released albums of his singing (including metal!), was related to Ian Fleming (and even played a Bond villain once), and was in over 300 films in a very long film career. And he was also Dracula. As such, I decided to watch this film as a tribute along with the fact that it also stars Peter Cushing (who was one of Lee's closest friends) and Telly Savalas, who also once played a Bond villain. Also, Horror Express is an adaptation of Who Goes There?, which has been adapted three other times into films, two of which I have covered (The Thing From Another World and The Thing) already. As you could tell, the movie takes place on a train, in 1906. This time around, Lee plays a good guy, and he shares a great rapport with Cushing that makes the movie a little more interesting. What's interesting is that this was a Spanish/British production, which is why the movie is also known as "Pánico en el Transiberiano". The movie is what you might expect from a Hammer movie (except that it's not)- visually pleasing, coupled with some blood, and with a bit of overblown acting. But at least it's an enjoyable movie...if you're in the mood for some horror that does get interesting around the last 30 minutes, and then Savalas' character comes in late to provide some enjoyment. It's a 70's movie that has its moments of terror (especially with the lights off), and its moments of overblown stuff with de Mendoza's characters, but the movie is still at least passable. Is it as good as other movies that Lee and Cushing did together? No, but it is at least a mildly enjoyable flick that passes on quickly with some thrills of its own.

Lastly, thank you Christopher Lee, for everything that you did for cinema. We will never forget your contributions.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Crossfire.

Review #715: Crossfire.

Cast
Robert Young (Captain Finlay), Robert Mitchum (Sgt. Peter Keeley), Robert Ryan (Montgomery), Gloria Grahame (Ginny Tremaine), Paul Kelly (Mr. Tremaine), Sam Levene (Joseph Samuels), Jacqueline White (Mary Mitchell), Steve Brodie (Floyd Bowers), and George Cooper (Cpl. Arthur Mitchell) Directed by Edward Dmytryk.

Review
For some of you reading this at home, a b-movie refers to a movie that was low-budget, or a movie that wasn't exactly promoted as the marquee for a studio's year, though b-movies could also be profitable, given that they were fast and cheap to make and screen to theaters, ranging from science fiction to westerns, while used as part of a double feature. Ah, a film noir. But it is not so much a film noir as it is a comment on perception of others and how hatred sometimes meshes with that perception, with deadly results like this film. It's a quick movie, but it's a movie that knows what it wants to do, and it succeeds at being an effective look into people and prejudice. Young and Mitchum are good at chemistry in regards to solving the case, and the time they have on screen together is riveting. For a movie that has few characters, Crossfire manages to be engaging and compelling enough to watch to the end, to the inevitable conclusion, though at least it's a movie that tries to deliver a message while being quick and enjoyable. Whether it succeeds at being engaging is up to the viewer, but it does in my book. And I avoided making references to the board game Crossfire for the entirety of the review, which I guess is surprising. As for the movie, I'd recommend it for anyone looking to watch late 40's cinema with a touch of noir.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Inside Out.

Review #714: Inside Out.

Cast

Amy Poehler (Joy), Phyllis Smith (Sadness), Bill Hader (Fear), Lewis Black (Anger), Mindy Kaling (Disgust), Kaitlyn Dias (Riley Anderson), Diane Lane (Riley's mom), Kyle MacLachlan (Riley's father), and Richard Kind (Bing Bong) Directed by Pete Docter (#074 - Monsters, Inc and #288 - Up) and Ronnie del Carmen.

Review

This is the 11th film I've reviewed that came right from my local movie theater (#240: Paranorman, #372: 42, #396: Iron Man 3, #425: Pacific Rim, #540: The Lego Movie, #571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier, #582 - Godzilla, #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past, #626 - Guardians of the Galaxy, #706 - Avengers: Age of Ultron), and the first involving a Pixar film. Is it good? Having joyful tears by the end is a good indicator. The animation is the first sign, because it just looks so beautiful to watch, from Abstract thought chamber to the way the characters project in terms of appearance, especially Joy and her glow, but also the way the various places in Riley's mind look. Also, Bing Bong is probably one of the best imaginary friends I've ever heard of. But where the movie really shines is how it utilizes its cast in terms of the unique story that manages to be funny and sweet with the amount of charm it has. My favorite emotion in this was Sadness, and maybe its because Smith makes that emotion more than just depression incarnate. Poehler and Black's emotions come a close tie for second, mainly because it's hard to not appreciate both her overbearing joy and his booming voice that is oddly a delight to watch get angry. The rest of the cast is also pretty good, and I especially like seeing the five emotions interact with each other, watching their squabbles along with their successes. It's a charming movie that looks great and is beyond enjoyable to go through. The theme of the movie on emotions is an interesting and well developed one, especially given how it's utilized in the end, which makes it even better. It's a movie that isn't just funny, it's a movie that's emotional (literally) and brilliant. Go see it, if you haven't already.

Note: I am aware that some might compare it to Herman's Head, a show that had a concept similar to this in the 1990s. But hey, everything's relative, so don't worry too much. Or care, but whatever. By the way, Lava was a short film that went before this film, and it's alright. And stay for the credits!

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars. 

And When Did You Last See Your Father?

Review #713: And When Did You Last See Your Father?

Cast
Jim Broadbent (Arthur Morrison), Colin Firth (Blake Morrison), Juliet Stevenson (Kim Morrison), Gina McKee (Kathy Morrison), Claire Skinner (Gillian), Sarah Lancashire (Beaty), Matthew Beard (Teenage Blake), and Elaine Cassidy (Sandra) Directed by Anand Tucker.

Review
Today is Father's Day. As such, I decided this would be fitting. I've also decided to split the review into two paragraphs, mainly to indicate two feelings of mine today. Anyway, let me get to the movie first. When it comes to 90 minute movies, the good news is that if it is bad, it ends quickly enough. However if the movie is actually pretty decent for itself, then that's just bad news, mainly because you feel disappointed that it's already over. But at least with this movie, I enjoyed the time I had with the film, mainly due to the chemistry that Broadbent and Firth have with each other. Granted, the movie has more to do with flashbacks between Broadbent and Beard's characters, but either way, I enjoy Broadbent mostly because he is really the glue that holds the movie together, and any scene with him has its share of joy but also a tinge of sadness, given the circumstances of the movie's set up, right near the end of his character's life. It's a movie that has beautiful sets and color to it, which I suppose helps make the movie easier to watch. It has its moments of emotion, and while it may seem that there isn't much of a resolution, I suppose that was the point, because ultimately life doesn't always have such endings. But oh well. Is it a perfect film? No, but at least it manages to give you a look into how lives always seem to inter wine with other lives over time, while also being engaging to watch. It's a decent movie that goes with Father's Day and seeing Broadbent and Firth shine together.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And now, my other thoughts on the day (this is not a continuation of the review, but I wanted to include this for this occasion): I chose this movie mainly because it reminded me of my father and myself in a way. My last day with my father could be either the last time I saw him alive (just a few days before, where we didn't really have much of a conversation), or on his death day, which I would characterize as one of the days I would not wish upon anyone. My father had his secrets, which spilled onto the surface after his death, but they did not make my perception of him negative, rather they made me realize that sometimes even our idols and the people we look up to have their quirks and differences. How we deal with it is what matters. I remember how I used to (lightly) head tap my father when I was younger, and how he used to hold me up and laugh. I remember giving him a card on Father's Day mainly because when you're young, real gifts are hard to imagine both fiscally and feasibly. But he always seemed to like it. He was tempered with anger towards things in his life, and I think I inherited some of that anger towards the little things. But he always seemed to have laughter, too. He was my father, and throughout all of his flaws and quirks, I appreciated what he did for me and my mother. Lastly, I apologize if this went on too long, but I just want to say one last thing: I love you, Dad. Thank you.

The Thing (1982).

Superseded by better review: https://movienightcentral.blogspot.com/2022/06/redux-thing-1982.html

Review #712: The Thing.

Cast
Kurt Russell (MacReady), Keith David (Childs), Wilford Brimley (Blair), Donald Moffat (Garry), T. K. Carter (Nauls), Richard Masur (Clark), David Clennon (Palmer), Charles Hallahan (Norris), Richard Dysart (Copper), Peter Maloney (Bennings), Joel Polis (Fuchs), and Thomas G. Waites (Windows) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween and #634 - Escape from New York)

Review
The original movie (#519 - The Thing from Another World) was good in being straightforward and not playing fast and loose with the tension while being a fine movie. The Thing? It flat out rules. You could ask yourself two questions on how to judge special effects. How do you judge them: On how they look or the level of believability? Does it matter if the effects are practical or CGI? As for me, I go on how they work with regards to the movie, which in this case is exceptional. Some criticize the movie for the disgusting nature of the effects, and it didn't help that E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and Blade Runner were released around the same time as this, which is why the movie wasn't a big success when it came out in 1982. It's been over thirty years, but the movie has a cult following, and it could be attributed to the movie being successful at establishing tense drama, the chiller atmosphere, Kurt Russell's beard, the soundtrack, or the creativity of the special effects. The cast does a good job at establishing tension within the crew, with Russell being effective as the leader and at handing the action. The atmosphere is as tense as can be in the Antarctic, especially with the sets and chilly weather and mood. I like the music mainly because it is the perfect tone for a movie as tense as this one, especially the opening theme, which reoccurs throughout. This is a movie for late night viewership, for anyone who just wants a good thrill while also experiencing 80's cinema, Brimley's outburst midway through, and a Carpenter classic.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Mothra.

Review #711: Mothra.

Cast
Frankie Sakai (Zen-Chan Fukuda), Kyoko Kagawa (Michi Hanamura), Hiroshi Koizumi (Dr. Shin'ichi Chujo), Ken Uehara (Dr. Harada), Jerry Ito (Clark Nelson), Yumi Ito & Emi Ito (The Shoubijin), Takashi Shimura (Sadakatsu Amano), Masamitsu Tayama (Shinji Tyuujou), and Tetsu Nakamura (Nelson's Henchman) Directed by Ishirō Honda (#167 - Godzilla)

Review
It has been way too long since I've reviewed a world cinema film, and what better one to do than Mothra, a Japanese film involving a monster (also known as kaiju), in this case a caterpillar/moth. Unlike Godzilla, the movie is less grim with regards to the monster and more light on the tone, with vocal group The Peanuts starring as twin fairies. Strangely enough, it all works well. It's a fun flick mainly because it manages to just be itself without going overboard in silliness. The color of the movie looks good, especially with the sets, looking so crisp. I like the effects on Mothra, especially after she transforms. Is it dated? Sure, but sometimes dated can be a good thing, and with this movie, it's a plus mainly because it's too much joy to dislike. The characters seem to be having a good time, and I like the main three actors (Sakai, Kagawa, Koizumi), who seem to click well. The villain (Itou) is hammy, but perfect for something like this. It may not be as thrilling as Godzilla or have the same impact, but Mothra makes up for it by just being a movie filled with bridled joy.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Fly.

Review #710: The Fly.

Cast
David Hedison (Andre Delambre), Patricia Owens (Helene Delambre), Vincent Price (Francois Delambre), Herbert Marshall (Inspector Charas), Kathleen Freeman (Emma), Betty Lou Gerson (Nurse Andersone), and Charles Herbert (Philippe Delambre) Directed by Kurt Neumann.

Review
The 1950s were a time for movies about science experiments (with a good portion involving atomic weapons) and how even the best intended experiments can go wrong. This is a movie that has really good actors that make for good entertainment, especially Vincent Price, who as usual is enjoyable to watch. Hedison and Owens do a pretty good job together, especially in one of the more iconic scenes of the movie, where Hedison's character reveals the result of his experiment to his wife. It's a chilling scene that also looks really good to watch, mainly due to the way the laboratory is lit, dark in some spots and lighted in others, which gives a really good contrast. The effects themselves are good, and it is used to good effect at the end of the movie, which ends pretty surprisingly. The movie takes itself seriously and doesn't really become too schlocky for itself, while having good moments.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Most Dangerous Game.

Review #709: The Most Dangerous Game.

Cast
Joel McCrea (Sanger "Bob" Rainsford), Fay Wray (Eve Trowbridge), Leslie Banks (Count Zaroff), Robert Armstrong (Martin Trowbridge), Noble Johnson (Ivan), Steve Clemente (Tartar), and Dutch Hendrian (Servant) Directed by Irving Pichel (#617 - Destination Moon) and Ernest B. Schoedsack (#283 - King Kong and #604 - Mighty Joe Young)

Review
The movie was filmed on the jungle sets of King Kong, with Wray and Armstrong being used for both films, while filmed at night. Strangely enough, this movie managed to be finished first, though it being only barely an hour long in length sure helped. As for the movie, it's pretty good. It has a good atmosphere, and I attribute that mostly to the sets, which make the movie look really nice. McCrea does a good job as the lead, maybe because he just gels well in the short time he has, especially with Wray, who as usual is good at being both a lead and screaming in terror. Banks is a decent villain, he isn't too over the top, and he does do well in the action scenes. In total, the movie is fine mainly because it just gets going quick, even beginning with a ship wreck. I like how it seems there will be three survivors who will be the main focus...and then two of them suddenly get swept away. I guess it means to never assume you've survived a ship wreck, which isn't the worst lesson I've heard. Anyway, the movie is enjoyable and quick, and if you like 30's cinema or thriller movies, you'll like this one.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Vampire Bat.

Review #708: The Vampire Bat.

Cast
Lionel Atwill (Dr. Otto von Niemann), Fay Wray (Ruth Bertin), Melvyn Douglas (Karl Breettschneider), Maude Eburne (Gussie Schnappmann), George E. Stone (Kringen), Dwight Frye (Herman Gleib), Robert Frazer (Emil Borst), and Rita Carlisle (Martha Mueller) Directed by Frank R. Strayer.

Review
Well, it's certainly a quick movie. At 63 minutes, this is a movie that was released just a month before another Atwill-Wray movie would be released (Mystery of the Wax Museum), but this one was released by Majestic Pictures, a studio known for cheap flicks made quickly. And since this is in public domain, you can find this movie anywhere on the Internet. But the question is would you want to? That depends. The sets look nice and scenic, fitting well with what the movie is trying to do so quickly. The characters are fine, save for Eburne's comic relief character, an anxious panicky character who almost ruins the balance that Wray and Douglas have with each other. Atwill is a good lead character (who pops up in numerous 1930's films). The ending is at least something different from most vampire films, though your reaction may vary on your level of disbelief. Extra points for having Dwight Frye as a supporting character, which is always welcome. If you're up for some quick cheap horror thrills, I'd say this movie is for you. Is it an old flick? As the old saying goes, 82 is the new 40. Or 30.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Mad Max 2.

Review #707: Mad Max 2.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Mad Max Rockatansky), Bruce Spence (Gyro Captain), Vernon Wells (Wez), Emil Minty (The Feral Kid), Michael Preston (Pappagallo), Virginia Hey (Warrior Woman), Kjell Nilsson (Lord Humungus), Max Phipps (Todie), and Arkie Whiteley (The Captain's Girl) Directed by George Miller (#380 - Mad Max, #392 - Happy Feet, and #493 - The Witches of Eastwick)

Review
Mad Max 2 (also known as The Road Warrior) was released just two years after the original film. The first movie was brutal, but effective in its bleakness, especially on a low budget. This time around, the sequel has a bigger budget but more importantly, the sequel has more excitement and more (dare I say it) awesomeness. The environment of the movie and how much of a wasteland helps to the movie's advantage in making for cynical bleakness. Gibson is just perfectly well suited for a hardened character such as this, and the rest of the cast (especially the Gyro Captain) are perfectly well suited. Wez and Lord Humungus are brilliantly effective villains, and the climax of the movie is helped especially by them. The action in the movie is fast paced but also satisfying. This is like a Western, only if the West was Australia, and revolving around the apocalypse. It's a movie that pulls no punches, and is relentless in its dystopian punk outlook. It's a brisk 96 minute film that manages to be extremely slick in its approach, so go see it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Review #706: Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Cast
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye), James Spader (Ultron), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Pietro Maximoff / Quicksilver), Paul Bettany (Jarvis / Vision), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / The Falcon), Linda Cardellini (Laura Barton), and Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter) Directed by Josh Whedon (#312 - The Avengers)

Review

It's a good movie. Is it great? No, but it is an entertaining movie. While it admittedly stuffs itself a little too much with a bit of everything, that's not to say the movie isn't too imperfect. To say there is a load of heroes in this film is a bit of an understatement, though the movie doesn't utilize all of them, which is disappointing if you liked War Machine. Or the Falcon. But hey, at least we get three new heroes into the fray, though Quicksilver in this film isn't as interesting as the one played by Evan Peters in X-Men: Days of Future Past. Why the two versions are so different is beyond me. Olsen does make Scarlet Witch seem interesting, which is welcome with me. As usual, our main six Avengers are good with each other, and it is nice to see some character development for Hawkeye (in the sense that I remember his name now. Oh, and something about a family), which is fine. But of course, this review can't function without mention of James Spader as Ultron. I knew at some point I'd talk about Spader (who I find perpetually awesome in The Blacklist. Boston Legal was fun to watch when I was younger, though it's been about...four years since I've seen it), and here we are. I like his performance. Yes, he's constricted to just his voice, but I find his tone very well suited to a role such as this. His performance is really entertaining, though I wonder if he is up to the same level as Loki's villainous role in the first film. The effects are nice, and it is refreshing to see The Vision's look, though I do wonder why he made a cape (No capes!). But the movie is good. It does over stuff itself with characters and plot lines, but to be fair, it's not like that's all a bad thing. This Marvel universe is only getting bigger, and I can't wait to see what's next. It's not a step back from the first film, more of a transition to the next phase, which is fine with me. Enjoy the movie, and try to snag as much popcorn as you can. Or whatever. 

Trailers seen before the movie: Insidious 3 (ha!), Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (double ha!), Masterminds (meh), Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (interesting), and Fantastic Four (why?).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Social Network.

Review #705: The Social Network.

Cast
Jesse Eisenberg (Mark Zuckerberg), Andrew Garfield (Eduardo Saverin), Justin Timberlake (Sean Parker), Armie Hammer (Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss), Max Minghella (Divya Narendra), Rooney Mara (Erica Albright), Brenda Song (Christy Lee), and Rashida Jones (Marylin Delpy) Directed by David Fincher (#586 - Alien 3)

Review
Yes, business is rough. Yes, it seems a lot of people love this movie. Yes, it is true that a lot of people use Facebook, even you (the reader) might as well. I do too. I still don't love the movie. The fact this was made when everyone involved was still alive and the fact that the writer admit that the book the movie was based off is played slightly fast and loose with only makes up the pile of tedium that this movie is for me.  Actually, you could recut this movie into a horror film, especially with the soundtrack, and especially with our main character. It's sad, because the movie is actually well-acted, the problem is the fact that barely any of these characters are ones you want to root for, which makes for a boring clod. By the end of it, you are wondering if the movie you have seen is mainly for people who are into characters of snark or just a big giant joke. Ultimately, this is a movie that left me cold and mostly stoic. But my dilemma is how to rate this movie. Do I give it a high rating for its acting/music/thrills and feel guilty, or do I give it a low rating for the general tedium it gave me that seems harsh? In a way, that is what anyone who watches this movie must do. Either they like the movie, or they grow sick of it. It's really hard to stay in the middle. For once, I won't be too generous with a rating, though I do recommend seeing it just to see if you'll like it any better than I did.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Battlefield Earth.

Review #704: Battlefield Earth.

Cast
John Travolta (Terl), Barry Pepper (Jonnie Goodboy Tyler), Forest Whitaker (Ker), Kim Coates (Carlo), Sabine Karsenti (Chrissy), Richard Tyson (Robert the Fox), and Kelly Preston (Chirk) Directed by Roger Christian.

Review
I tempted fate. All I had to say was 'dutch angle', and this is the result. A whole movie with dutch angles. You might be wondering why I mention this after reviewing a movie I liked with dutch angles. Because this one is just terrible. Apparently the angles were put in the movie to give it more of a comic book feel...but the angles seem more pretentiously put there to make the movie seem less terrible, but it only makes it worse. What was I talking about? Oh yeah, this movie. It's awful. Tremendously. Exceptionally. Dutifully. I can't decide what is worse: John Travolta's performance or the inane script. Actually, I think both are equally drivel. So I am to understand that this is supposed to be like Star Wars? Because it seems more like The Phantom Menace's immature cousin instead. I do wonder how the human race in this movie managed to lose the invasion in a matter of minutes to such silly aliens such as these. I realize why Terl decided to educate Pepper's character (to be the foreman for the mine), but that doesn't mean I can't make fun of the fact that he basically signed his death notice by doing that. I have no idea how Whitaker got signed onto this movie, though at least he won an Oscar years after this train wreck, so he has that going for him. At least the movie did one thing right. It won Golden Raspberry Awards. Seven of them, in fact. The movie couldn't even make its budget back, but it at least won a bunch of awards, which I'm sure Travolta is proud of. Actually, this is one of those movie everyone would like to forget. I can't decide whether to give it a 0/10 stars...or a negative rating. But then I realized that it would be an insult to the three zero star movies (Birdemic, The Garbage Pail Kids Movie & The Magic Voyage), and I need to keep my reputation.

I end this review with a line that I'm sure was meant to be taken seriously.
"While you were still learning how to spell your name, I was being trained to conquer galaxies!"

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Third Man.

Review #703: The Third Man.

Cast
Joseph Cotten (Holly Martins), Alida Valli (Anna Schmidt), Orson Welles (Harry Lime), Trevor Howard (Major Calloway), Bernard Lee (Sergeant Paine), Wilfrid Hyde-White (Crabbin), Erich Ponto (Dr. Winkel), and Ernst Deutsch (Baron Kurtz) Directed by Carol Reed.

Review
It's hard to put into words why this is a fine movie, but one of the main reasons is the fact the movie manages to be consistent in terms of its production. It never seems to stray from its suspenseful roots while also managing to have a good atmosphere around it as well. And yes, the zither music is the cornerstone of the unique strangeness that is this movie. Cotten and Valli are alright, and the ending with the two is what it is: an ending. Welles is only in the movie for the second half, but he sure makes up for it by just having a commanding presence while on screen, which all starts with how we first see him, which is his face, illuminated by a window light, as the movie segues into a chase that is pretty fun to watch. The scene at the end in the sewers is riveting to watch, especially when Lime gets his fingers out of the gate. That shot is just really excellent. The zither music is...certainly different from what film noirs had, and I don't think I've ever watched a movie with zither, so in a way the music is fine with me. The film is shot nicely, and the dutch angles work well with the tone the movie is going for, helping to make a good mystery.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Hustler.

Review #702: The Hustler.

Cast
Paul Newman (Eddie Felson), Jackie Gleason (Minnesota Fats), Piper Laurie (Sarah Packard), George C. Scott (Bert Gordon), Myron McCormick (Charlie), Murray Hamilton (Findley), and Michael Constantine (Big John) Directed by Robert Rossen.

Review
Winners are not always who we think they are. To some, it's the only thing, or the will to win for others. Alternatively, one might say it's not winning or losing that matters, it's how you played the game. But with this movie, being a winner and a loser is not based on how they compete, it is based on how they are as a person. If you want a movie that pulls no punches, a movie that shows both the grim realities of life and a game of pool, then this is the one for you. Newman does a wonderful job, showcasing his complexities of emotion and character depth along with some nice trick shots. His pairing with Laurie makes for an interesting splice with the pool action, and it makes the movie more whole because it gives the film more depth. Speaking of which, Gleason does a great job as well, and even though you don't see him for most of the film, his presence always seems to be felt, and it is welcome when you see him appear. Lastly, Scott is just great. Brutally effective while also playing his role as only Scott would play him: Efficient. This is a movie that may seem long, but it really makes for fine entertainment while also being a look into what makes one a winner, which this movie is.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Back to the Future.

Review #701: Back to the Future.

Cast
Michael J. Fox (Marty McFly), Christopher Lloyd (Doc Brown), Lea Thompson (Lorraine Baines-McFly), Crispin Glover (George McFly), Thomas F. Wilson (Biff Tannen), Claudia Wells (Jennifer Parker), and James Tolkan (Mr. Strickland) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, and #648 - Beowulf)

Review
Yep, Back to the Future. I told you all that this film would be reviewed sometime in the future. And low and behold, the future has arrived. Which is now the present. Or the past. Forget what I said early. Back to the Future is a movie I've watched a few times over the years, from seeing it on a projector when I was a young kid to seeing it on HBO Family (yes that actually exists) three (or so) years ago, I remember this movie vividly as I'm sure many of you do. That being said, this movie is great. Are you not surprised? It doesn't matter when I watch it, it's still a fun movie to watch, and an even better movie to talk about, especially when it comes to the characters. And the music. Fox is just so likable to watch, especially his interactions with Doc and Biff, and he gets his chance to shine alone as well, and one of my (many) favorite scenes is him playing Johnny B. Goode at the dance, solely because Fox looks so energized in that moment of euphoria.

Speaking of energy, Christopher Lloyd is just pure energy, with a load of charm along with the ability to just make words just pop into the head, especially when it comes to gigawatts, pronounced as jiggawatts. Lloyd and Fox make for a really good team because their interactions seem real and seem like the kind of thing that would happen with nearly anyone else. Biff is actually a pretty good villain in the sense that while he is not what one would call intelligent, he is still a brute force of strength that also is what he is: the bad guy that loses. But at least Wilson has his moments, especially with Glover, who is perfectly cast, as is Thompson. The soundtrack by Alan Silvestri is great to listen with its scope working well on the movie, though I must note that Huey Lewis and the News' "Back in Time" and "The Power of Love" are also beneficial to the music being so effective as a whole. This is a brilliant film that features one of my favorite things: A DeLorean. The car is so cool looking (minus the giant door opening, which could really hurt if not opened carefully), and the fact it serves as the time machine is just great, given that it already looked like a strange device. The movie is clever, fun, exciting, hilarious, wickedly cool, and just plain ol' classic. I highly recommend watching the movie more than once.

Oh yeah, the sequels. I'll get to them...in the future.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lost in Translation.

Review #700: Lost in Translation.

Cast
Bill Murray (Bob Harris), Scarlett Johansson (Charlotte), Giovanni Ribisi (John), Anna Faris (Kelly), Fumihiro Hayashi (Charlie Brown), and François Du Bois (the Pianist) Directed by Sofia Coppola.

Review
Well, what can I say. I had wanted to review this movie ever since I had acquired it a few months ago. I waited for the best time to review a movie such as this, and after nearly five years, it seems that the movie I delve into movies, the more they start to run with each other. But when it comes to this movie, nothing is as it seems. I came into watching the movies without much knowledge on it, and needless to say I like it. A lot. Bill Murray and his way of emotion and just all around portrayal is the main attraction, and he is wonderful to watch, especially when he tries to film a commercial in the beginning of the movie, because you get to see Murray try and look like Humphrey Bogar from Casablanca...while selling you whiskey. But what really makes the movie is the chemistry between Murray and Johansson, whose interactions with each other and how they correspond with the culture around make for an interesting take on meeting someone, anyone, in a new land. It's a movie that has more beneath the surface than just a comedy-drama, it's a movie that is literally lost in translation, and I enjoyed watching it. One might wonder how it ends. It ends with words, just words. What words he says are up to your interpretation.

Thank you for watching over the past five seasons and (now) 700 reviews. I hope you keep reading the movie reviews and I wish you all good luck. See you all soon.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!

Review #699: The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!

Cast
Leslie Nielsen (Lt. Frank Drebin), Priscilla Presley (Jane Spencer), Ricardo Montalbán (Vincent Ludwig), George Kennedy (Capt. Ed Hocken), O. J. Simpson (Det. Nordberg), Susan Beaubian (Wilma Nordberg), Nancy Marchand (Mayor Barkley), Raye Birk (Pahpshmir), and Jeannette Charles (Queen Elizabeth II) Directed by David Zucker (#664 - Airplane!)

Review
Yes, we have come to the point of The Naked Gun. In a way, I feel proud of that fact, though I do wonder how it took so long for me to review it. In short, I was lazy. But hey, nobody's perfect, though this movie sure comes close to it. This movie will tickle your funny bone so much that you'll be on the floor with laughter calling for help. Yes, there are sight gags, but the movie's biggest strength is with Leslie Nielsen, who has the absolute best timing with any sort of gag. It's hard to pick a favorite scene, though the beginning scene (and the credits that go along with it) is hard to beat, especially with Nielsen at the wheel. Any scene with Nielsen and Presley is effective because it provides the movie with a nice blend of fun and humor, especially at the end of the movie. I was pleasantly surprised to see Ricardo Montalbán in this movie, and he does a pretty good job at basically playing a villain in a comedy movie, but it is fun to see him, especially because he does it so well. The supporting cast is right for the job, complimenting a movie that already has so much going for it. It's a movie that is over 25 years old, and that's usually the point where a movie starts to feel like fine wine, well versed and well aged. Go see the movie, it will be the best 85 minutes you could spend because the movie just lets you have fun.

Now then. There is a matter of the next review. It will be...the 700th. No spoilers here...yet.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Airplane II: The Sequel.

Review #698: Airplane II: The Sequel.

Cast
Robert Hays (Ted Striker), Julie Hagerty (Elaine Dickinson), Lloyd Bridges (Steve McCroskey), Chad Everett (Simon Kurtz), Peter Graves (Captain Clarence Oveur), William Shatner (Commander Buck Murdock), Rip Torn (Bud Kruger), John Dehner (The Commissioner), Chuck Connors (The Sarge), Richard Jaeckel (Controller #2), Stephen Stucker (Jacobs / Courtroom Clerk), and Sonny Bono (Joe Seluchi) Directed by Ken Finkleman.

Review
If you pretend the first movie doesn't exist, the movie would have a shot at being okay. But because we can't just pretend movies don't exist (contrary to popular belief), Airplane II: The Sequel is proof that some movies should have just stayed dead and buried. The first movie stands as a fun spoof that manages to utilize its surroundings and make for a wonderfully awesome movie. The second movie tries way too hard in some places while trying too little in others, which all boils down to a breeze of a movie that makes you yearn for the first film again. While it's true that some of the original cast comes back, it doesn't really make the movie all too better, given that it lacks Leslie Nielsen and Robert Stack, who made the original even more enjoyable with their portrayals. It's strange that this sets place in the "near future", yet the characters haven't seemed to age a bit. Oh yeah, and there's a lunar base on the moon and commercial space travel. 33 years later, and we have neither of those things, nor do we have Rocky XXXVII. The gags for the movie are okay, but they also reuse gags as well (not to mention using flashbacks to the first film), which only reminds me as well as you what you're missing out on. The best character in the movie is only there for the last quarter of the movie, and naturally is played by William Shatner, who amuses me with his talk of the blinking, beeping, flashing lights, or maybe it's because by the end of the movie you're wishing Captain Kirk would save these idiots. What amuses me is the post-credit scene "announcing" Airplane III, composted with a line of "That's exactly what they'll be expecting us to do!", because there never was an Airplane III, and I can't imagine why. I think you already know the answer to that one. Give yourself a round of applause. And don't watch this movie, unless you like stoic disappointment.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Artist.

Review #697: The Artist.

Cast
Jean Dujardin (George Valentin), Bérénice Bejo (Peppy Miller), John Goodman (Al Zimmer), James Cromwell (Clifton), Missi Pyle (Constance), Penelope Ann Miller (Doris Valentin), and Uggie the dog. Directed by Michel Hazanavicius.

Review
Admittedly, the movie may seem a little like Singin in the Rain with regards to an actor dealing with converting from silent to "talkie" acting, with a touch of Silent Movie. But The Artist manages to make itself stand out with its sense of style, especially with its acting. This is a wonderful movie that manages to just be what it wants without feeling artificial or lacking. It looks very nice and the music is also enjoyable. The acting is excellent, especially Jean Dujardin. He has a certain charm to him that makes the movie irresistible to watch, especially with that dog as well. Bejo is also wonderful, working as a good lead with Dujardin, the two compliment each other well. Goodman and Cromwell are good supporting leads that make the movie even more enjoyable. The movie is what it is: Fun, relaxing, and all around just good filmmaking.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Pursuit of Happyness.

Review #696: The Pursuit of Happyness.

Cast
Will Smith (Chris Gardner), Jaden Smith (Christopher Gardner Jr), Thandie Newton (Linda Gardner), Brian Howe (Jay Twistle), Dan Castellaneta (Alan Frakesh), James Karen (Martin Frohm), and Kurt Fuller (Walter Ribbon) Directed by Gabriele Muccino.

Review
This is a movie that while not perfect, manages to hit the mark and at least be entertaining while having a little edge to it. Smith and Smith (yes I know) work really well together in their pairing because any scene they share together raises the interest level along with being enjoyable. The movie around it is fine, it has its moments of brilliance, with regards to the scenes that show the desperation of Gardner. The movie handles its subject well enough that you basically forget about any sort of inaccuracies and just let the movie roll through. It's a movie that manages to make you want to keep watching to the end. The supporting cast is fine, though I admit that it's more interesting to see the Gardners instead. It takes a little while to get itself rolling, but when it rises to the occasion, it does so at a brisk pace and it manages to be a fine film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Broken Blossoms.

Review #695: Broken Blossoms.

Cast
Lillian Gish (Lucy Burrows), Richard Barthelmess (Cheng Huan), Donald Crisp (Battling Burrows), Arthur Howard (Burrows' Manager), and Edward Peil Sr. (Evil Eye) Directed by D. W. Griffith (#415 - America)

Review
I admit to not having covered the 1910's much on this show, as this is only the 4th film from that decade (the others being Mickey, Back to God's Country, and The Poor Little Rich Girl) featured on this show, let us just push that fact aside for now for a movie unlike the other films. This is a movie that manages to evoke sadness over the small rays of hope while never betraying its purpose of tragedy. Gish is instantly likable for the audience, from the sad expressions in her eyes to her forcing a small smile, she makes the movie have an unsettling mood. Barthelmess and Gish are wonderful in the scenes they share with each other. Maybe it's the way they look at each other, or how innocent it all seems, which is a blessing by contrast to the rest of the film's tone. Speaking of that, Crisp is brutally effective at making the movie nearly uncomfortable to watch, with his expressions of anger, which all boils down to the surface with the closet scene near the end. Gish's fearful expressions and Crisp's anger combined with filming in a small set make for a climax that delivers. Yes, it's a sad movie. But this a sad movie that manages to be well made along with having some really effective acting. Because after all, if we just watch happy movies all our lives, we'll never know what to do when we encounter a sad moment in our lives.

Overall, I give it 10 out 10 stars.

Movie Night: Fury.

Review #694: Fury.

Cast
Brad Pitt (Don Collier), Logan Lerman (Norman Ellison), Shia LaBeouf (Boyd Swan), Michael Peña (Trini Garcia), Jon Bernthal (Grady Travis), Jason Isaacs (Cpt. Waggoner), and Scott Eastwood (Sgt. Miles) Directed by David Ayer.

Review
When it comes to World War II movies, we watch regardless of the era. Whether it is Patton, or Sands of Iwo Jima, or The Dirty Dozen, or various others, it's a subject that is endless. And this just happens to be another one, though this one is influenced by evens, which I guess makes the movie less susceptible to criticism of inaccuracy. And what we have here is a movie well fit for war. Watching war movies takes a little endurance because the subject matter has to hold itself to a standard while taking the brunt of horror. In that case, this movie works just fine for it. The performances are well done, and I like Pitt's tone. I was a bit surprised that LeBeouf does a pretty fine job, mostly because he really seems into this role. The action and effects are well done, which is good because had the effects not been up to par, it would've made for a distracting mess. The movie has just enough edge to make for a brutal, but ultimately functional movie. If you're not a fan of war movies or a fan of happier times, I'd suggest anything else. But for the rest of the audience at home, this is up their alley.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.

Review #693: Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.

Cast
Will Ferrell (Ron Burgundy), Steve Carell (Brick Tamland), Paul Rudd (Brian Fantana), David Koechner (Champ Kind), Christina Applegate (Veronica Corningstone), Dylan Baker (Freddie Shapp), Meagan Good (Linda Jackson), James Marsden (Jack Lime), Kristen Wiig (Chani Lastnamé), and Judah Nelson (Walter Burgundy) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy)

Review
Admittedly, nine years is a weird gap between films, especially for a comedy. But hey, nobody's perfect. But was is it worth it? I guess so. It's not a disappointment but in terms of fun, the first wins out. It is a likable movie, and it does flow well with itself, which are all nice little strengths, though again it nearly suffers from comparisons to the first. The movie doesn't really have much of a flaw to it, though the cameos at the end of the movie, while somewhat entertaining, almost seem too indulgent. The movie seems to be a little more injected with drama and while it is admirable to have, it's not really helping the movie all that much. It is fun to see the cast once again, and I guess it wouldn't be awful if a third movie was made. So all in all, take the movie for what it is and consider the fact this isn't a bad way to spend your time, so that's that.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.