Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.

Review #940: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.

Cast: 
Bill Hader (Flint Lockwood), Anna Faris (Sam Sparks), James Caan (Tim Lockwood), Neil Patrick Harris (Steve the Monkey), Bruce Campbell (Mayor Shelbourne), Andy Samberg (Brent McHale), Mr. T (Officer Earl Devereaux), Bobb'e J. Thompson (Calvin "Cal" Devereaux), Benjamin Bratt (Manny), and Al Roker (Patrick Patrickson) Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (#540 - The Lego Movie and #568 - 21 Jump Street)

Review: 
The last time that I had reviewed an animated movie was back in December (with Beauty and the Beast - #891), so it is welcome to review a film that is from a different animation studio - Sony Pictures Animation. This is based off the children's book of the same name, which I remember reading quite fondly when I was a child; obviously the movie takes liberties with the source material (with the food falling from the sky being from a machine being one example), but can it manage to pull off delicious entertainment (pardon the pun)? To put it lightly, it works just fine. Hader and Faris shine just fine as leads, having a fair amount of chemistry while also being fairly interesting in their own ways; Hader's character treads on familiar grounds, but he manages to give the character enough likability and charm, especially when on screen with Faris' character, who is equally engaging to watch. The father-son dynamic between Hader and Caan goes around the same lines that you'd expect from these kind of movies, though at least it isn't broadly annoying. Campbell does a fine job at showing the gluttony of the de facto antagonist of the movie (unless you count an abundance of food as an adversary); the supporting cast is pretty likable, with Harris, Samberg and Mr. T being capable highlights. The highlight of the film is the animation, which is bright and colorful but it fits for the movie; seeing burgers come out of the sky while the sky becomes a shade of purple is quite nice to look at (alongside other shots of fun foods, like ice cream). It isn't a movie without much emotional punch, but there is enough entertainment and moments of charm and food (so much food) within its 90 minute run-time to make a capable movie. Is it something to the caliber up something like Up (#288, released months before this film)? Not quite, but not everything needs to be that kind of gem; sometimes the best thing to watch (or eat) is a nice tasty digestible burger (or movie). Bottom line, this is a capable little film worth at least checking out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Swamp Thing.

Review #939: Swamp Thing.

Cast:
Ray Wise (Alec Holland), Adrienne Barbeau (Alice Cable), Louis Jourdan (Anton Arcane), Dick Durock (Swamp Thing), David Hess (Ferret), Nicholas Worth (Bruno), Don Knight (Harry Ritter), Al Ruban (Charlie), Ben Bates (Arcane Monster), Nannette Brown (Dr. Linda Holland), Reggie Batts (Jude), and Mimi Craven (Arcane's Secretary) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, and #633 - Red Eye)

Review:
With all of the superhero/comic book movies that have come out in the past decade (and the ones that will come in the next few years), it is a bit refreshing if not interesting to see one from a different time and what better than an 80s flick? Based off the DC Comics character of the same name, Swamp Thing is a more grounded kind of hero movie, feeling like a mix of monster and horror movies that make for a serviceable kind of film. Wise does well in the time he has on screen, making his character fairly relatable prior to his transformation. Barbeau is the one we see more of throughout the film (the eponymous hero takes a while to show up, naturally), and she pulls off a fine performance; her scenes with Swamp Thing are also enjoyable (one of the best parts is him answering her question if he is hurt: "Only when I laugh", with him soon laughing). Jourdan is a fair villain, being a bit overblown in his genius without being an over-the-top foe. His henchmen aren't too noteworthy, though Worth has an amusing scene with the two main leads after they all escape. Batts (in his only film role to date) does a capable job in a comic relief role. The film does have its moments of amusement, but it never veers towards outright slapstick, managing to keep a good balance while not being overtly campy. Craven does a fine job directing, handling the horror and sci-fi pretty well. The action scenes are enjoyable, and the suit for Swamp Thing looks pretty decent. The film also has a nice look to it as well (filmed in South Carolina); the swamp is fairly good to look at, mainly because the movie doesn't have a blurred effect to it (in other words, the special effects and the sets don't blur into each other). Though the movie lasts just 91 minutes, it certainly runs at an efficient pace, keeping itself going quite well. It isn't a great superhero flick, but it is a capable kind of movie worth considering.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Girl Shy.

Review #938: Girl Shy.

Cast: 
Harold Lloyd (Harold Meadows, The Poor Boy), Jobyna Ralston (Mary Buckingham, The Rich Girl), Richard Daniels (Jerry Meadows, The Poor Man), and Carlton Griffin (Ronald DeVore, The Rich Man) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman, #674 - Grandma's Boy, #758 - Safety Last!, #864 - Hot Water, and #889 - A Sailor-Made Man, #903 - Dr. Jack, #918 - Why Worry?) and Sam Taylor (The Freshman, #727 - For Heaven's Sake, Safety Last!, Hot Water, Dr. Jack, Why Worry?)

Review: 
It is nice to come closer to being full circle with Harold Lloyd's silent feature filmography, with this being the ninth of his eleven to be reviewed (reviewed out of order, but still). This was Lloyd's sixth feature film, with this being the first not to be produced by Hal Roach (who had produced the previous five); in addition, this was a "character picture" (as described by Lloyd), where the relationship between Lloyd and Ralston's characters is given more emphasis than simply having a load of gags. However, the climax of the movie (involving numerous modes of transport, such as the trolley, horse-drawn wagon, and horseback) is a clear highlight for the movie in terms of eye catching hilarity. This time around, the main character is a stutterer around girls who writes about his "lovemaking"; two different types of women (and how to "woo" them) are shown, one being a vamp and the other being a flapper; these two scenes are pretty amusing for the time. Lloyd and Ralston do a pretty job together, balancing sentiment along with moments of amusement quite well. Daniels lends a capable hand to the film, and Griffin serves as a fair enough villain for Lloyd to take action against. Like the other Lloyd films, it runs at a good capable pace (this time around 80 minutes) while also showcasing some fun gags; one of my favorites is Lloyd being moved slowly by a turtle while trying to talk with Ralston. The stuttering (and accompanying whistle to help Lloyd out) never comes off as tedious nor too ridiculous; the parts with him trying to get his book published is quite funny as well. On the whole, this falls along the line of being another good Lloyd movie to watch and enjoy. It isn't as great as something like Safety Last!, but it definitely is something to have a good time with, stutter or not

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Eraserhead.

Review #937: Eraserhead.

Cast:
Jack Nance (Henry Spencer), Charlotte Stewart (Mary X), Allen Joseph (Mr. X), Jeanne Bates (Mrs. X), Judith Roberts (Beautiful Girl Across the Hall), Laurel Near (Lady in the Radiator), Jack Fisk (Man in the Planet), and Jean Lange (Grandmother) Directed by David Lynch.

Review:
What can I really say about Eraserhead? Fittingly, this is the first film featured on here directed by David Lynch, who also wrote the film along with doing the music, editing, special effects and other technical aspects in a movie that served as his directorial debut. He described the film (released 40 years ago on March 19, 1977 at the Filmex film festival) as "A dream of dark and troubling things"; to try and interpret the movie would be pretty fruitless along with missing the point of these reviews: seeing if this serves as quality entertainment. For me, it is a fairly interesting movie worth looking at, though it may not be for everyone. Nance is our every-man that we follow through the movie, and it is his expressions and actions in this strange world Lynch has crafted that we get to see amidst all of the imagery and sounds. He is the only one who is given significant time to be seen throughout a movie that expresses a surreal kind of horror that preys on one watching closely. The rest of the cast isn't as prevalent in presence, but they certainly are noteworthy, such as Near and Fisk. The black-and-white look of the film is also key in how it works in capturing this strange little world, making for a unique crisp experience. The baby is easiest the most horrifying thing to look at, and the way that it sounds is especially horrifying. Any scene involving it is disturbing, but the whole movie has other moments of gore and weird elements; even something like chicken for dinner is creepy. At 89 minutes, this is a movie that runs at a fair pace in that it never seems to drag itself too much in pretentiousness because there is usually something to look at coming around the corner, with an ending that is like the film itself: flowing at its own pace and on its own terms. Is it a good movie or is a great movie? It definitely excels on establishing atmosphere (along with effects), but for me it operates as a movie that tells its story with a type of unique energy to it that clicks more often than not. When it comes to putting a label on a movie like this, "cult film" likely works best. To try and talk about this movie at a greater length would be hiding the main point: See the movie for yourself and hopefully it gives you some entertainment.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Sherlock Holmes Faces Death.

Review #936: Sherlock Holmes Faces Death.

Cast:
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. John Watson), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Arthur Margetson (Dr. Bob Sexton), Hillary Brooke (Sally Musgrave), Halliwell Hobbes (Alfred Brunton), Minna Phillips (Mrs. Howells), Milburn Stone (Captain Vickary), Gavin Muir (Phillip Musgrave), and Gerald Hamer (Major Langford) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, and #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington)

Review:
I hope that I am not boring you folks with the reviews of these certain films; I do indeed have some interest in these detective films, which clearly have some sort of appeal for me. This is the sixth of the Rathbone series (#583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles, #721 - The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, #798 - Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, and #925), but this one is a mystery revolving around murder in a house (instead of something involving the war, though there are military characters present). After three films of wartime infused spy plots, this certainly comes off as refreshing (honestly, the title is a bit strange - doesn't he always face people dying?). One of my favorite scenes is when Holmes realizes one of the clues in a "ritual" involves a checkerboard floor on one of the rooms, and naturally Holmes decides to use the people in the house in order to act the ritual out. The film runs smoothly enough at 68 minutes, mixing capable characters alongside Rathbone and Bruce (with his character having a bit more competence than before) as expected. One of the more quirky scenes with Rathbone is him talking to a squawking raven. It isn't the best Holmes film with Rathbone (for me, nothing tops the first film), but it certainly is an improvement over the previous three movies, in part because of the way it operates itself. The villain (Margetson), while not strong or particular clever, is somewhat satisfying in that he is not merely one dimensional. Brooke is a somewhat fair supporting actress (the most quirky scene involving her is one where she is reciting a ritual and a bolt of lightning strikes through a window and hits a suit of armor near her). It ends with a dialogue between the two main actors about a "new spirit abroad the land" that isn't about greed (inspired by an act of selflessness by Brooke's character), which is interesting if not somewhat broad. The mystery is entertaining enough, and this is a fairly good way to spend an afternoon with a serviceable type of movie like this.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Atomic Kid.

Review #935: The Atomic Kid.

Cast:
Mickey Rooney (Barnaby 'Blix' Waterberry), Robert Strauss (Stan Cooper), Elaine Devry (Audrey Nelson), Bill Goodwin (Dr. Rodell), Robert Emmett Keane (Mr. Reynolds), Whit Bissell (Dr. Edgar Pangborn), Joey Forman (MP in hospital), Dan Riss (Jim, FBI Chief Agent), Peter Leeds (FBI Agent Bill), and Hal March (FBI Agent Ray) Directed by Leslie H. Martinson (#177 - Batman)

Review:
I suppose the random nature of this show means that any film I happen to come across is fair game for reviewing...and this one (distributed by Republic Pictures) just popped up. I suppose summer vacation is the best time to churn out some more reviews, no matter what the result. This is the first time I'm reviewing a film with Mickey Rooney as the main star, and what better than a movie where he gets an atomic bomb dropped on him? Or one where he eats a sandwich with peanut butter sardines, and horse radish? Of particular note is that the film was written (along with Benedict Freedman and John Fenton Murray) by Blake Edwards, one year before he became a director. This is a movie that clearly aspires to be something easily digestible while being considerably thin in plot. Rooney is somewhat entertaining, managing to have some fun, and he has somewhat capable buddy chemistry with Strauss, though they don't have much screen-time in the middling middle parts of the movie until the end of the film. Devry (billed as "Ms. Mickey Rooney" in the beginning credits) and Rooney are somewhat interesting to watch, but they can't carry the movie to any real enjoyment. It really is just a movie with some mild gags, simply put. This is a movie not worth complaining too much about in part because remembering it is more of an effort than trying to actively give criticism. Is there any highlights? I guess the geiger counter watch is somewhat neat looking, though it is muddled by all the gags involving the main character's neutrons changed anytime he gets in contact with the nurse (get it?). Somehow, the plot includes a spy ring, though it doesn't really go anywhere. Simply put, it's a stale but harmless kind of movie.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Big Combo.

Review #934: The Big Combo.

Cast:
Cornel Wilde (Police Lt. Leonard Diamond), Richard Conte (Mr. Brown), Brian Donlevy (Joe McClure), Jean Wallace (Susan Lowell), Robert Middleton (Police Capt. Peterson), Lee Van Cleef (Fante), Earl Holliman (Mingo), Helen Walker (Alicia Brown), and Jay Adler (Sam Hill) Directed by Joseph H. Lewis.

Review:
When it comes down to film noirs, there is always something interesting about their appeal, whether it be due to the cast (or supporting cast), the way that it is shot, the way that it is structured, or even just the way that it is on an entertainment level. The Big Combo (produced by Theodora Productions and Security Pictures while distributed by Allied Artists Pictures) stands out in how nifty it operates with the cast and pacing. It isn't a great movie, but it certainly is a good enough movie that works on enough entertaining levels. It has a raw edge to it (particularly with one scene involving tonic) that underlies a fairly well-moving gangster movie. Wilde and Wallace (who were married at the time) have their fair share of moments together that work due to how they balance each other and their roles simply and coherently. Conte is a capable villain, giving this character the professional touch required for the movie. Donlevy does a fine job as the right-hand man to Conte, and they do a fine job balancing out their nefarious operation. The rest of the cast are serviceable in their supporting roles, not doing anything to ruin the balance or tone. The latter half of the movie is well executed, with Conte's fate being particularly memorable to watch; the climax in a foggy hangar is done quite well. At 87 minutes, it certainly has a good pace to it that is readily accessible. It's the final scene, with Wilde and Wallace standing in the airport with fog and shadows around them that stands out among the rest, with the credit going to John Alton and his cinematography that resulted in such a nice shot in a movie that works best as a neat little film noir gem.

On a different note, I graduate from my local college (South Texas College) today, with an Associate's Degree in Secondary Education in hand. What a ride it has been for four semesters, especially with how Movie Night has operated around it. With any luck, the reviews will keep coming, no matter what the next step is for me as long as I continue to enjoy doing them, which I still do. Thank you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Embryo (1976).

Review #933: Embryo.

Cast:
Rock Hudson (Dr. Paul Holliston), Barbara Carrera (Victoria Spencer), Diane Ladd (Martha Douglas), Roddy McDowall (Frank Riley), Anne Schedeen (Helen Holliston), John Elerick (Gordon Holliston), Vincent Baggetta (Collier), Jack Colvin (Dr. Jim Winston), and Joyce Brothers (Herself) Directed by Ralph Nelson.

Review:
I had wanted to do this film a while back during the fall season, but I had forgotten about the movie (which is amusing, given all the reviews that occurred anyway) until now. Strangely, the movie begins with a statement from a Dr. Charles Brinkman III, stating: "The film you are about to see is not all science fiction. It is based upon medical technology which currently exists for fetal growth outside the womb. It could be a possibility tomorrow...Or today." I guess with words like that, one could have hope for this strange film, released by Cine Artists Pictures (who went bankrupt before being able to renew the copyright on the movie). And how is it? Well, it certainly is something you wouldn't expect (nor expect to find). The movie revolves around trying to make life (or more specifically, keeping life alive). Naturally, he starts with a dog before deciding upon doing so for a fetus with some sort of experimental thing called "placental lactogen". This goes about as well you'd expect (complete with voice-over by Hudson during the latter experiment), with all of it meant to be taken seriously. Yes, even with the fact that the decision to proceed with a human is only a few days after having "success" with a doberman. When the movie turns from a half-baked Frankenstein into an equally half-baked version of My Fair Lady (or Pygmalion) is likely when the movie lends itself rope to seal its fate. It is evident that the makers of the movie wanted to do something with horror and drama (with not-science fiction, if one goes by the opening) that would have an effect of audiences, but that never seems to succeed. At least it isn't too long (104 minutes), but that can't help in making it seem somewhat dull.

McDowell makes a "cameo" as a chess player who competes against Carrera's character, complete with an outburst after the match ends, which is somewhat amusing. Hudson is the best actor in the movie by merely having a presence that comes closest to being convincing, even with somewhat dry monologues (recorded on tape) throughout the film. Carrera doesn't really spring much personality into the role; she is watchable when trying to interact with colleagues or when trying to search for a cure to her biological problem, but that doesn't excuse a somewhat listless performance. Even when she makes a villainous turn (gasp if you aren't surprised), it doesn't help in making the movie entertaining. Ladd doesn't fare too well either, nor does Schedeen, in part because they don't have any sort of screen time to make anything significantly worth investing in. When the movie gets to its climax, there is no investment in any of these characters, and when you can't care about the stakes the film tries to set, one question is posed: Who cares? Naturally, it ends with a car chase (no joke), complete with aging makeup and a reveal that would be shocking if not merely serving to end a ridiculous movie. On the whole, this is a ridiculous movie that doesn't have as much entertainment value as it should while also not having as much credibility as it wants to strive for, failing on numerous levels for everyone.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Review #932: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Cast:
Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), Zoe Saldaña (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Baby Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Michael Rooker (Yondu Udonta), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Elizabeth Debicki (Ayesha), Chris Sullivan (Taserface), Sean Gunn (Kraglin), Sylvester Stallone (Stakar Ogord), and Kurt Russell (Ego) Directed by James Gunn (#626 -  Guardians of the Galaxy)

Review:
With reviews like these, I generally try to avoid making it about the experience I had around watching the movie in a theater on opening week, mainly because I fear that it may come off as irritating to you fellow readers. But I do admit that the Marvel films (after nine years and 15 films) are generally entertaining along with being well crafted, whether watched alone or with others by me (with the latter applying this time around). The first Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun enjoyable time that had its shares of amusement and thrills, which definitely hit the right spot for me (I'm just surprised it was released three years ago). In any case, this is a fairly enjoyable sequel, and while it doesn't quite rise to the level of the first film, it still works just enough without just being a rehash. The story decides to split the characters up until around the climax (while thankfully not hinting at them breaking up or anything), and I think it helps in letting the film breathe a bit with the characters it tries to feature along with the action. The main group of heroes are all pretty well in their roles; Baby Groot is a neat highlight. Pratt does a fine job, having good chemistry with Saldana and Russell. Cooper and Bautista also do fine jobs. Rooker (a fairly neat standout in the first film) gets a more significant kind of role this time around, and he does a good job with that advantage, being quite fun to watch. Russell is naturally entertaining, and he does a fine job at delivering the gravitas one would expect playing a living planet as a character. Klementieff is also pretty good at playing a slightly naive but easily likable character that has some neat scenes with Bautista. The rest of the cast (such as Gillian and Gunn) are also pretty fine at the roles they play. There is certainly a degree of emotional depth this time around (reminding me of The Empire Strikes Back, at least in some part) that more often than not manages to hit the mark and not bog the movie down, especially when the movie has a great spectacle of effects and action to back itself up nicely at 136 minutes. Take it for what it is: Good ol' fun, with Gunn delivering a fun flick once again.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Not of This Earth.

Review #931: Not of This Earth.

Cast:
Paul Birch (Paul Johnson), Beverly Garland (Nadine Storey), Morgan Jones (Harry Sherbourne), William Roerick (Dr. F.W. Rochelle), Jonathan Haze (Jeremy Perrin), Dick Miller (Joe Piper), Anna Lee Carroll (Davanna Woman), and Pat Flynn (Simmons) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, and #852 - The Terror)

Review:
With an estimated budget of $100,000 and a run-time of 67 minutes (some prints have it as 71 due to repeating certain scenes), this is certainly a movie that fits in as a carefully crafted sci-fi flick. And who better than Roger Corman? It had been a while since I covered one of his numerous films, so this seemed to fit the bill. Birch is a neat villain, in that his insidious nature and voice go well together in making the scenes with him and Garland have their share of thrills. Garland also does a fine job, having a fair share of competence along with a fair sense of panic. I have to admit, a movie about an alien studying the effects of human blood on him and his dying race is an interesting premise, while wearing sunglasses most (but not all) of the time, even in the dark. Jones and Roerick are also pretty good in supporting roles; Haze stands out, mostly because he seems so capable at playing this assistant role with a good touch of charm. Miller is in the movie for one fun little scene as a vacuum cleaner salesman, with a little look toward the camera just before his untimely departure, which is amusing somehow. The effects on the alien (such as his eyes) is pretty good for the time, though the flying creature does remind me an umbrella or lamp (whichever seems funnier). It's not exactly a clear cut invasion movie, nor is it a movie about a sympathetic alien, but there is something about how he interacts with the humans (and vice versa) that works. This is a fairly competent kind of science fiction movie, having some quick thrills and some level of suspense that I'm sure would fit well for anyone. It's no masterpiece, but it is a fairly manageable experience and sometimes that is all one needs for a movie.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Humanoid.

Review #930: The Humanoid.

Cast:
Richard Kiel (Golob), Corinne Cléry (Barbara Gibson), Leonard Mann (Nick), Barbara Bach (Lady Agatha), Arthur Kennedy (Dr. Kraspin), Ivan Rassimov (Lord Graal), Marco Yeh (Tom Tom), and Massimo Serato (Great Brother) Directed by Aldo Lado.

Review:
What day is it? Why it's May 4th, otherwise known as Star Wars Day by fans due to the easy pun on the catchphrase "May the Force be with you". As such, I figured it best to honor the day with...a film that has "inspiration" taken from Star Wars, made in Italy (released there under title of L'umanoide) and released in 1979. The similarities are apparent from the opening titles, with an opening text crawl detailing events from the film (though this is set in the distant future on "Metropolis"). The villain of the movie wears a costume that looks like a low rent Darth Vader outfit (though his face is visible this time), while also commanding a spaceship in the shape of triangle. At least the plot-line is something different, involving turning people into super soldiers (called "Humanoids", naturally). There is a feasible budget this time around (reportedly around $7 million), so the sets have an admirable cheesy feel to them, doing this better than say, Starcrash (#755).

The mish-mash of ideas is quite entertaining if not strange, from the wonder kid filled with mysterious (if not random) powers (and his own mysterious protectors) to the robot dog (because of course) to the villainess who relies on youth serums (gee I wonder what her fate will be) to Kiel basically playing a mix of the Hulk and other monsters with a big heart. There's even a character called the Great Brother, with his brother being the villain (are you surprised?). The music by Ennio Morricone is weird and wonderful, with a bunch of synthesizer arrangements, disco grooves that certainly make for an interesting listening experience. Kiel is interesting in the sense that this is one time where he actually has more than a couple of lines, though after becoming the title character he doesn't speak much; he manages to a capable job nonetheless. Clery and Mann are somewhat capable. The big standout is Yeh, playing some sort of mystical kid hero who excels at playing the ridiculous nature the role carries (he rides on a ghost ship at the end). Rassimov plays the villain, though obviously he doesn't have much evil presence as Kennedy, who hams it up just a notch more along with Bach. He does get to fire laser beams though, so in a way we all win. The ending is pretty interesting, in that it ends with a ghost ship flying away to Tibet with the kid and his friends (?????), with an ending text and narration talking about it took intelligence, insight and strength to defeat a mortal enemy - because of course it ends with that. On the whole, this is an entertaining, if not exactly sane kind of movie.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Tormented.

Review #929: Tormented.

Cast: 
Richard Carlson (Tom Stewart), Susan Gordon (Sandy Hubbard), Lugene Sanders (Meg Hubbard), Juli Reding (Vi Mason), Joe Turkel (Nick), Lillian Adams (Mrs. Ellis), and Gene Roth (Mr. Nelson) Directed by Bert I. Gordon.

Review: 
When it comes to horror films, can you think of one with a ghost tormenting her old lover and his impending marriage? Where one moment involves the main character holding up a ghost and...its head? It seems the only one that can hear and see this ghost is the main character, who sees her in a photograph along with seeing her head in a wrap, even though it is actually just flowers. This is a ludricious kind of movie, filled with pallid characters and a thin plot that still manages to veer toward the absurd, particularly with the ending. With ridiculous cliches (and accompanying spooky music), this is a movie that falls into line with other run-of-the-mill horror flicks like The Screaming Skull (#654), with both films also having been lampooned by Mystery Science Theater 3000. There isn't much to the actors aside from Carlson, who manages to be pretty capable (all things considered) as the lead in a movie where he shows the most energy that reaches believability. Gordon doesn't really get much to do, and Sanders isn't too much better. Reding isn't much of a villain, and her presence doesn't make the movie any more chilling. The climax of the movie is swift (this is a 75 minute film, after all), if not as somber as one would probably expect in a movie like this, though it doesn't really leave that much impact. At the end of the day, this is a movie filled with empty pacing and even emptier people.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Bigger Than Life.

Review #928: Bigger Than Life.

Cast: 
James Mason (Ed Avery), Barbara Rush (Lou Avery), Walter Matthau (Wally Gibbs), Robert F. Simon (Dr. Norton), Christopher Olsen (Richie Avery), Roland Winters (Dr. Ruric), and Rusty Lane (Bob LaPorte) Directed by Nicholas Ray (#181 - Rebel Without a Cause)

Review: 
For the time this was made (in the middle of the 1950s), this certainly stood among movies that revolved around the life of a family, especially considering its subject matter (based off a 1955 story in The New Yorker named Ten Feet Tall by Berton Roueché). While it does serve as a cautionary tale about overuse of medications (with cortisone - discovered less than a decade prior to the release of this film), it also manages to weave a tale about conformity and family life. Granted, the highlight is undeniably Mason (who also produced the film), showing different kinds of emotions through the film that seems convincing; these range from being a caring family man to being in pain to being infused with megalomania, and he does it without going over the top (I do wonder if this could be cut into a horror film, especially the ending). Matthau does an understated job in a supporting role, playing the role neatly enough. Rush also does a good job in the movie as well, neither just being the other lead in a movie with a character as larger than life as Mason plays; she manages to show us her side of what she sees in the life of her household. It's strange how a scene involving a broken mirror can work so well in showing both Mason and Rush at their best, but it just helps with showing the fractured nature of the things to come. Olsen is the weak link of the three (but being a child actor, I'll cut some slack), but he does a well enough job in being as natural as one can be, and he also does a fine job in the climax. In a movie that flows well at 95 minutes, the climax is given fine buildup while also delivering in delivering drama along with suspense. This isn't a movie that relents nor allows any easy kind of cheap critiques, merely allowing this drama to play out. It has its moments of fine drama that will assuredly work for anyone looking for a film that doesn't hold judgement.

Happy May Day, folks.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Krull.

Review #927: Krull.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Our Hospitality.

Review #926: Our Hospitality.

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Sherlock Holmes in Washington.

Review #925: Sherlock Holmes in Washington.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Boy Next Door.

Review #924: The Boy Next Door.

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

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

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

The Pilgrim (1923).

Review #923: The Pilgrim.

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Himiko.

Review #922: Himiko.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Haunting (1963).

Review #921: The Haunting.

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

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956).

Review #920: Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

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

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Kong: Skull Island.

Review #919: Kong: Skull Island.

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

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Why Worry?

Review #918: Why Worry?

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Incredible Journey.

Review #917: The Incredible Journey.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Bride's Play.

Review #916: The Bride's Play.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Red Mill.

Review #915: The Red Mill.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Son of Kong.

Review #914: Son of Kong.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Hamlet (1990).

Review #913: Hamlet (1990).

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Logan.

Review #912: Logan.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Woman of the Year.

Review #911: Woman of the Year.

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

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Notorious (1946).

Review #910: Notorious.

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

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

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Get Out.

Review #909: Get Out.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The General (1926).

Review #908: The General.

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

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

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

White Heat.

Review #907: White Heat.

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

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

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

John Wick: Chapter 2.

Review #906: John Wick: Chapter 2.

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

John Wick.

Review #905: John Wick.

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

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Cabaret (1972).

Review #904: Cabaret.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.