Legal Eagles.

Review #1278: Legal Eagles.

Cast: 
Robert Redford (Tom Logan), Debra Winger (Laura Kelly), Daryl Hannah (Chelsea Deardon), Brian Dennehy (Cavanaugh/Joe Brock), Terence Stamp (Victor Taft), Steven Hill (Bower), Christine Baranski (Carol Freeman), Roscoe Lee Browne (Judge Dawkins), David Clennon (Blanchard), John McMartin (Forrester), Robert Curtis Brown (Roger), Grant Heslov (Usher), Sara Botsford (Barbara), and Jennifer Dundas (Jennifer Logan) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters, #031 - Ghostbusters II, #243 - Stripes, and #487 - Twins)

Review: 
It doesn't take too much time to think that this film could seem interesting. The original idea was to make a buddy film involving Bill Murray and Dustin Hoffman, but when those plans fell apart, Redford expressed interest in doing a romantic comedy, which inspired changes to a dynamic reminiscent of Katherine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy films. The screenplay and story were done by Jim Cash and Jack Epps, Jr, with Reitman contributing to the latter. In a sense, this film is a romance. Of course it also happens to have a sense of comedy, thriller, and courtroom drama packed into its two hour duration, which turns out to be a most unwieldy combination. It certainly seems too packed in to really make the impact it wants to make, which results in a thoroughly average film. It complicates itself too much without really getting a feel for the simple things that can make a film tick: just having fun. One instead sees something that is bound to certain excesses (namely its budget of $40 million) and not working as great whenever it tries shifting gears between rom-com and thriller. There either seems to be too many characters or not enough that actually seems worthy enough to invest in. At least the performances are fine to watch, with Redford and Winder coming out the best, since they at least seem like they are having some sort of chemistry together, whether when trapped in buddy scenarios like an exploding warehouse or some other odd scenario, like Redford and his character that likes to tap dance when unable to sleep (gee, where do you think they'll go with that quirk). Hannah and her performance artist-turned-accused robber/murderer does okay, giving off a laugh or two, but she seems stretched pretty thin in actually making her presence really count, odd but harmless. When she actually does try to romance Redford and his character, I'm just twiddling my thumbs more than anything. Dennehy does just fine, snide yet worth seeing. The other members of the cast don't have as much to really do, seemingly there just to fill time and plot, which is a shame. How does one make a buddy movie with lawyers seem so awkward? One cannot help but wonder if this film needed more or less re-working to really hit its mark (it most certainly needed a trimming down). Actually, there exists an alternate version in which Hannah's character is found to be guilty of one of the murders. I guess that could've proved interesting, though I wonder if that version had more focus. The film just comes and goes, whether in the courtroom or somewhere else. At least one might get some sort of enjoyment over spectacle for the film, what with a climax involving a burning building and all, but its setup doesn't really leave much to give investment over. Their fates never seem to be hanging too much in the balance, and guessing who the real culprit is gets to be pretty easy when the others start dying off. It just seems like a movie too safe to either be really funny or usefully dramatic, trying to get its hand in many genre jars and getting only crumbs in return. It's a bland movie, but at least one could probably come out of it without groaning too much for two hours. I can't call it a winner, but it could probably work as a lark if faced with nothing else to do.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Ad Astra.

Review #1277: Ad Astra.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Major Roy McBride), Tommy Lee Jones (H. Clifford McBride), Ruth Negga (Helen Lantos), Liv Tyler (Eve McBride), Donald Sutherland (Colonel Pruitt), John Ortiz (General Rivas), Greg Bryk (Chip Garnes), Loren Dean (Donald Stanford), John Finn (General Stroud), and Kimberly Elise (Lorraine Deavers) Directed by James Gray.

Review: 
Admittedly, the interest for this film was fairly mild, with tinges of interest revolving around the approach of making a hostile space sci-fi movie, which one could probably see resembling Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. If the film is at least halfway accurate to reality with regards to space, that also helps too. Really though, one film I did see some parallels with was First Man (2018) with its focus on a closed off astronaut who holds in his fear for an important mission. Then again, that film didn't have a lead that voiced over several parts of the film, wonderful shots of other planets, killer baboons, or moon pirates. Really, with all that in mind, this likely could have been one of the most interesting space adventure films to come out in the past few years (this said for someone who hadn't encountered Interstellar first). It sure turned out to be an unbelievable movie - one that is so unbelievably average to the point of frustration. This feels like a film that needed another re-draft (for a film co-written by its director alongside Ethan Gross), and this is for something that reportedly had re-shoots that drove its budget higher than the initial $80 million - but does one need to know the budget to care about a movie? No, but it sure helps to make a movie that looks good and entertains just as well too.

There are highlights to be found here, such as the opening sequence involving a free fall to Earth. It is quite mesmerizing, seeing someone fall and fall to the Earth, even if you know that they will come out of it in at least one piece. The lunar rover scene with pirates on the Moon (or in other words, star pirates) is pretty captivating, interesting to view through the lens of space. The film also does have plenty of wonderful shots of other worlds, including when it finally encounters Neptune and its lovely rings. It just so happens that the film nearly collapses with the parts besides the ones I just mentioned. The loneliness of space sure seems like an interesting concept to go with, a better concept would be to make one that has two consistent halves to it. It does roll just fine for its first half in setting up its one useful lead and getting to Mars, but it sure does seem to seem less steady after that point. The baboon fight beforehand should've proved a worry already, but it barely even inspires a concern that our hero (I guess) will come out of it alive. By the time the film trudges to its climax, its attempts at inspiring some sort of spark of hope through an undeniably bleak and cynical foundation comes off as an utter joke. This is a film that makes cracks at having restaurants on the Moon with pricey blankets for the flight over there. It also seems to have shock for its main character that he won't get to go from Mars to Neptune to actually confront his kooky father (take your pick on how he reacts to that). Pick one tone and stick with it, especially since it probably could have just shown some actual moments around the locations it wants to go. But no, one really needs to see the plight of the sad lone space man again and again. The benefit is that a less competent director might have made these seem downright maudlin as opposed to mildly sobering. You know what did better as a one-man space film? Moon (2009), which actually knew where to go with its main character and his own crisis within the human element for a sci-fi film.

Nobody delivers a terrible performance, but they sure look constrained by what the script requires, especially a criminally wasted Jones. His scraggly beard and weary nature beg for more to do than this. Oh sure, Pitt looks to be gnawing at the idea of a literal one-man show where you can see his stoic nature to space travel and accompanying voiceover over being alone just fine. One can only take so much before wanting to just find something else to view alongside him, especially since nearly every other character is hopelessly incompetent or a shadow. Jones may be wasted, but Tyler and Sutherland make their own captivating contention for being underused. You could take Tyler out of the film and barely anything would feel different. Sutherland only seems to be there just to spew plot points before his 20 minutes are up. Maybe I am being a bit too harsh on these folks, or perhaps this is exactly the kind of film that deserves better and should do better. Mediocre movies can be tiresome, high-priced ones that can't live up to their own premise without nearly poisoning its own foundations with a big d'oh are especially tiresome. On the whole, Ad Astra does deliver on some of its promises when it comes to spectacle and a decent one-man show from Pitt. It proceeds to bewilder and frustrate for two hours by being as ridiculously self-serious as it wants with such amusement that it almost becomes parody. Perhaps a re-watch could give a bit of clarity and understanding to what makes this film tick, but one could just re-watch other better sci-fi films of its ilk instead. On a ranking scale, it would get a C, but since I use numbers, I suppose it averages out to being one to recommend, if only by slim margins. It is watchable, if not one to grumble at sometimes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Mean Streets.

Review #1276: Mean Streets.

Cast: 
Harvey Keitel (Charlie Cappa), Robert De Niro (John "Johnny Boy" Civello), David Proval (Tony DeVienazo), Amy Robinson (Teresa Ronchelli), Richard Romanus (Michael Longo), Cesare Danova (Giovanni Cappa), George Memmoli (Joey), Martin Scorsese (Jimmy Shorts), David Carradine (Drunk) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver and #992 - The King of Comedy)

Review: 
"You don't make up for your sins in Church; you do it on the street; the rest is bullshit and you know it."

It is amazing sometimes to see where a director can go in their path from turning ambition (or someone else's ambition) into something worth being on screen. Scorsese developed a love for cinema from childhood while growing up in Little Italy in Manhattan (with his experiences living there inspiring this film's story), and he subsequently attended  New York University's Tisch School of the Arts, making a few short films before making his debut feature film with Who's That Knocking at My Door (1967), starring Zina Bethune and Keitel in his film debut, which dealt with Catholic guilt. This film also deals with guilt through the lens of a crime film. After serving as one of the editors for the acclaimed documentary Woodstock in 1970, he directed his second film Boxcar Bertha with producer Roger Corman two years later, he was encouraged by actor/director John Cassavetes to make something based on his own ideas, which led to this film (with Scorsese doing the story and co-writing the screenplay with Mardik Martin). Mean Streets was done in a period of 26 days, with Los Angeles being the primary location for all but six of those days (spent where the film was primarily set, New York). Incidentally, Corman offered to fund the film (which ultimately was made for around $500,000) at one point, albeit with an all-black cast. Scorsese found funding with tour producer Jonathan Taplin and eventual distribution from Warner Bros that meant he could do the film as he wanted.

Ultimately, this film is a testament to how someone can really make a film come alive with the right sense of passion and a dynamic cast behind it. It has endured for over four decades in part because of how much it still resonates as a crime drama with its dealings of guilt and sin in the streets. It surpasses its small budget in most areas alongside its surroundings to be something quite captivating in its style that captures plenty of grime through its 112 minute run-time without becoming overwhelming. It moves at its own pace with plenty of control that one could expect from a capable director who wants to make a story come alive without having distractions in the way. With Keitel and De Niro, one can't help but be interested in what happens next, both having an aura that is magnetic whenever either is on screen, the case being especially strong for the former. You can really see the conflict with Keitel pop out on screen without having to be spoonfed direction, where his ambitions and feelings hit their own sort of crossroads. De Niro is a wild fire that burns just as fast whenever he makes his impression, such as reacting to being called a "mook" in the middle of a friendly transaction that evolves into a friendly fistfight. The rest of the cast does just as well, with Robinson having a careful slice of chemistry with Keitel while also being quite watchable, and Proval and Romanus make for a good team with the others. In a film that doesn't have or need a clear hero or villain, the film more around with its own aims and aspirations, where the fights are more inward than anything (although its fistfight is pretty well done) and the spectacle is in how all the drama plays out. There are plenty of crime films to go around, but it doesn't mean that they can't still seem fresh to follow with, with this one seeming like a template for other films to follow (particularly with its use of period rock music). The film ends when and where it needs to end up while leaving its audience entertained and interested in discussing what they saw. It does fine with living up to expectations that one could expect from a director like Scorsese with his first major breakthrough, hitting most of its marks just fine. It aims for the real side of a life in the streets racked with guilt and crime and succeeds without compromise.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Rambo (2008).

Review #1275: Rambo.

Cast: 
Sylvester Stallone (John J. Rambo), Julie Benz (Sarah Miller), Paul Schulze (Michael Burnett), Matthew Marsden (School Boy), Graham McTavish (Lewis), Rey Gallegos (Diaz), Tim Kang (En-Joo), Jake La Botz (Reese), Maung Maung Khin (Major Pa Tee Tint), Ken Howard (Father Arthur Marsh), and Supakorn Kitsuwon (Myint) Directed by Sylvester Stallone (#047 - The Expendables, #277 - Rocky II, #340 - Rocky III, #597 - Rocky IV, and #1163 - Rocky Balboa)

Review: 
It is interesting to come back to this series, which sprung to life with the adaptation of David Morrell's novel First Blood in 1982. In changing the nature of the character and his fate to make for a film like that one, sequels followed in the later part of the decade. Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) was a pretty ridiculous experience, but it was a good adventure for what it was worth. Rambo III (1988) proved to be a hollow experience, but at least one didn't find themselves with a lingering taste of tiredness, silly but passable in the right circumstances. Two decades passed before a new film came out, due to Stallone not having a compelling story idea to return to the role, one that he felt was one of a man lost in the world and wandering it while hating the very thing he is. This isn't so much a curtain call for Stallone and his character as much as it is a revitalization of what made him such a compelling force to be reckoned with in the first place. It is a grim movie with plenty of (fake) blood that uses the real world conflict in Myanmar (Burma) for effect, if only because it just gives Rambo reason to just go all-out on faceless bad guys in his rescue mission once again (whether it happens to be POWs, his military commander friend, or this film with missionaries). There are two ways to look at this film: it can be pretty riveting with its action, dreary but watchable with Stallone at the helm that at least hasn't become a neutered shell of itself. On the other hand, it can be thought of as a brutal, ugly film that becomes more and more cynical before it decides to reward itself with cheap thrills that satisfy the basic need to see a whole bunch of blood and not much else. To me, each resulting sequel gets more and more ridiculous in their attempts at depth when compared to the original, but at least they stay watchable. Stallone stands his ground this time around, a burnt-out warrior who doesn't say much but doesn't really need to say anything that he can't do with a trusty weapon and a reason to persist on. With the passing of Richard Crenna five years earlier, who does one turn to as the main supporting character? The film pretty much leaves that empty, whether intentionally or not. Sure, you have scenes with Stallone speaking with others (which can be pretty much counted by an old stopwatch), but I never really seem to care about anybody other than the lead. It isn't so much a problem of likability as it is more a problem of them seeming more like composites than real people to go along with. In that regard, the acting is just okay all around, with Benz and McTavish making the most impression  The most memorable adversary, supporting character, and impact all still come from the same film - the first one. The most interesting sequence in the whole film is the bloodiest, involving a big machine gun, which complements the idea that these films only get rougher with age. Perhaps the sequence at the end where he goes to see his dad would've been the top one, if it didn't segue into the closing credits. On the whole, this is a film that just goes with the flow of what it think people want from a new 91 minute installment of a burnt out hero done by Stallone - brutal, with plenty of roughness to go around, for better or worse. I shrug my shoulders (and a coin) in the air, because some films really do just fall in the middle. In this case, I recognize the film for doing the basic requirements for an action film, give the film mixed credit for its surroundings, and then say that it would do just fine on the shelf with the other films. In other words, it's fine.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

First Knight.

Review #1274: First Knight.

Cast: 
Sean Connery (King Arthur), Richard Gere (Lancelot), Julia Ormond (Guinevere), Ben Cross (Prince Malagant), John Gielgud (Oswald), Liam Cunningham (Sir Agravain), Christopher Villiers (Sir Kay), Valentine Pelka (Sir Patrise), Colin McCormack (Sir Mador), and Alexis Denisof (Sir Gaheris) Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret! and #664 - Airplane!)

Review: 
Making a medieval movie certainly is a familiar one, especially when it comes to the King Arthur legend. It seems irresistible to compare this film to Excalibur (1981), but there are key differences present in the script, with a screenplay from William Nicholson and a story from Lorne Cameron, David Hoselton and Nicholson that takes inspiration from the writings of Chrétien de Troyes regarding Lancelot and Arthur, which has an absence of fantasy elements. The age difference in this love triangle is also significant, with Ormond being out-aged by Connery and Gere by 35 and 15 years, respectively. But this really isn't a movie where one can just use the age as an easy out to give a critique. No, this is a film that is already pretty mediocre enough to sink itself, squandering its cast alongside an entertaining Jerry Goldsmith score with a film that doesn't have enough energy in the right places to make this a consistently worthwhile experience. When one thinks a battle sequence would help the film get going, the film eventually proves that seeing people fight with swords and mini crossbows doesn't quite pan out this time around. Connery takes 30 minutes to appear, which means one will spend quite a bit of time seeing the presumed seeds of chemistry between Gere and Ormond being planted, which really seem more like dollar-store seeds more than anything. If you had a part in making a King Arthur play in high school (or less generously, middle school), you would likely find more interest present between these two characters that actually resonate better than what is seen here. Even having Connery in the picture doesn't help this love triangle seem anything more than a badly written romance novel, as if one needs campiness to make this have a spark. Gere comes out of it the worst of the three, not seeming interesting enough to really drive things into suspense, whether with a sword or with a woman, while Connery seems so mildly interested in what the script says as a paragon of virtue nearing his end (nice to make a centuries-old spoiler), and Ormond manages to comes off okay. The two share just a kiss, as if any more passion would prove too shocking or riveting. Cross doesn't prove too well as a villain, perhaps because the film is too dull to really make him seem like an interesting one to follow around, especially when it comes to the final fight, notably done with CGI swords to make for faster movements. Gielgud makes a small appearance that works just as well as one could expect without being a mark of ridiculousness for the famed actor. There just happens to be too much baggage and not enough energy, honestly. If you don't have tension nor passion in a film like this, you have a disappointment that proves to be a utter frustration to sit through, where one can pick at its failings and still wonder what they missed. It isn't laughably bad, but it sure isn't a fun one to go through, whether one is big on the King Arthur legend or not.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

Review #1273: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

Cast: 
Jude Law (Joseph Sullivan/Sky Captain), Gwyneth Paltrow (Polly Perkins), Angelina Jolie (Commander Francesca "Franky" Cook), Giovanni Ribisi (Dex), Michael Gambon (Editor Paley), Omid Djalili (Kaji), Bai Ling (The Mysterious Woman), Julian Curry (Dr. Jorge Vargas), Trevor Baxter (Dr. Walter Jennings), Peter Law (Dr. Kessler), and Laurence Olivier (Dr. Totenkopf) Written and Directed by Kerry Conran.

Review: 
Influences can be a wonderful thing. On the one hand, the film takes inspiration from films/comics of the 1930s like Flash Gordon, but on the other hand it also has inspiration from designers of the 1939 World's Fair like Norman Bel Geddes. A decade before the film's release, Conran had started work on making a teaser trailer for his idea in his living room with a bluescreen, spending four years on the project. Eventually, there was enough interest to make the film come to life, albeit as an independent film with plenty of producers for $70 million (or at least that is the reported figure for it, but regardless the film was not a success with audiences upon release). There are numerous things to be said for the film when it comes to its effects, since it is mostly done on a digital backlot. If anything shines, it is likely the digital artists and the crew tasked with making this world come alive. This is a film being sketched out via storyboards (hand-drawn) to be re-created as an 3D animatic by computer. This is a sibling type of contribution, with Kerry serving as writer and director, his brother Kevin serving as concept artist, production designer, and costume designer while his sister Kirsten served as art director. I can certainly applaud the efforts done here for a film that is very ambitious but also a pretty average one. It isn't a laughable experience, in part because one does find some time to gaze at what is going on around the actors, such as giant robots, sky ships, and so on. There is certainly a wonderful look present here that springs to mind the styles of the past that even springs to the characters, which can be hit-and-miss. The story certainly seems like a blueprint for the modern movie era, where one can make a bunch of references that try to distract from its own familiar story; it at least isn't a self-aggrandizing kind of experience, goofy yet friendly to sit through its 106 minutes. Law is up to some of the tasks associated with an adventurer lead, having some charm that comes with the territory that makes him somewhat interesting to go around with. Perhaps the implied history he has with Paltrow's character should've been shown more (as opposed to sprinkling scenes where they talk about it throughout), since they barely have any kind of chemistry with each other. One could just describe their scenes as aloof, as if I need reasons for a reporter to come along to an investigation about missing scientists and giant robots that steal stuff. Paltrow is just okay. She is playing a mildly interesting but familiar type that she makes come out in bits and pieces.  It's amusing how mild these two are when it actually would be interesting to see the others more, such as a lingo-spewing, eye-patch wearing Jolie that proves useful for the five (or so) minutes she shows up, or the robot assassin in Ling that never speaks, or even just Ribisi with talking the tech of this odd world. One wonders what to say about the digitized appearance of Olivier (who had died in 1989) into the movie to serve as a hologram of someone who had (are you ready for this) died decades earlier. So yes, he is used to essentially play a ghost of a mad man, which is pretty amusing, really. It just means that there is no real villain to speak of, since all the other adversaries are just robots, all tasked to do a dastardly plan like this. Sometimes you really need a cackling over-the-top villain. I suppose at the end of the day one has to wonder if the film is worth spending time with. Does it serve as a fine experience with plenty of distractions fitting for sci-fi action/adventure films? In my mind, I shrug my shoulders and leave it up to you. Sometimes it proves good to say a movie is "fine", sometimes it doesn't. I guess that this works out in the movie's favor, playing well as a curiosity with mild expectations that won't be forgotten too hard among other sci-fi adventure films.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Matrix.

Review #1272: The Matrix.

Cast: 
Keanu Reeves (Thomas A. Anderson / Neo), Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus), Carrie-Anne Moss (Trinity), Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith), Joe Pantoliano (Cypher), Marcus Chong (Tank), Anthony Ray Parker (Dozer), Julian Arahanga (Apoc), Matt Doran (Mouse), Gloria Foster (The Oracle), and Belinda McClory (Switch) Directed by The Wachowskis.

Review: 
One wonders how a film likes this has endured for two decades. The answers may differ slightly from person to person, but it is likely the entertainment value alongside a fairly developed philosophical core that stays on a steady path for most of its 136 minute run-time. How many directors have their main cast read works such as "Simulacra and Simulation" by Jean Baudrillard? One can't fault the Wachowskis for being ambitious with their story ideas, but credit also must go to others such as Yuen Woo-ping for coordinating the fight scenes or the visual effects headlined by John Gaeta (most notably with the bullet time parts). It has plenty of style and just enough substance to not collapse under its own weight, which would've happened under lesser hands or interference over the intended vision of a sci-fi action film that has its own voice involving a dystopia. Looking at the rooftop sequence for the beginning is certainly interesting, one for the way it grabs the viewer but also because the scene is one that uses sets from Dark City (1998) - bad movies sometimes makes you want to pick other movies instead, but sometimes good ones help inspire interest for additional ones too, I suppose. Maybe it isn't as great as something like Blade Runner (1982) or The Terminator (1984), but it belongs up there as something worthy to be watched alongside those kind of films without needing to defend it so heavily, where expectations for a first time viewer can be moderately high without being obnoxious.

The characters don't seem as developed as they likely should be (name one defining characteristic of the supporting cast-mates), but at least the actors don't squander their time by looking completely vacant. One can barely even see the seeds of a romance between Reeves and Moss (maybe they just bond over blank stares over "lunch" or something). For all that can be made fun of the film with its philosophy at times, at least one can give credit to Fishburne for keeping to his convictions and selling this whole-handily. Reeves generally goes through the motions with an oddball plot, but at least he seems ready to engage with the film without being too dull or too quippy with what is meant to be an interesting journey. The what-ifs for this film certainly are interesting - Will Smith was a potential choice for Neo before he turned it down (for Wild Wild West, but also because he didn't feel he was mature enough for it), but one noted choice for Morpheus was Val Kilmer. Moss does fine with handling herself when it comes to the action (such as the noted beginning, although the second half doesn't leave her too much to go with, for better or worse. Weaving is pretty involving as the non-generic AI program adversary, seeming like a mirror to Reeves that works out pretty well. Pantoliano does pretty good with a slick role that always proves watchable when needed. The film sure knows when to have an action sequence, or show off an interesting effect or two, and while it may take over the film for its climax to where the philosophy it taking a break, at least things do not end up crashing down by the time it reaches its endgame. One retains interest in seeing more from this interesting world and what can happen next, which did happen with two sequels released four years later. It may prove to be an experience for the viewer in more ways than one if it reaches its high points, but even when it seems like it wants to collapse, there is enough conviction and craftsmanship to make the whole thing worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

It Chapter Two.

Review #1271: It Chapter Two.

Cast: 
Jessica Chastain and Sophia Lillis (Beverly Marsh), James McAvoy and Jaeden Martell (Bill Denbrough), Bill Hader and Finn Wolfhard (Richie Tozier), Isaiah Mustafa and Chosen Jacobs (Mike Hanlon), Jay Ryan and Jeremy Ray Taylor (Ben Hanscom), James Ransone and Jack Dylan Grazer (Eddie Kaspbrak), Andy Bean and Wyatt Oleff (Stanley Uris), Bill Skarsgård (Bob Gray / Pennywise), Teach Grant and Nicholas Hamilton (Henry Bowers), Javier Botet (Hobo / The Witch), Xavier Dolan (Adrian Mellon), Taylor Frey (Don Hagarty), Molly Atkinson (Myra / Sonia Kaspbrak), Joan Gregson (Mrs. Kersh), and Stephen Bogaert (Alvin Marsh) Directed by Andy Muschietti (#991 - It)

Review: 
I curiously anticipated this film from the moment that the last one had completed its run. Whether one had read the 1,138-page novel by Stephen King or not, there was certainly a chilling atmosphere brought by the filmmakers in terms of its direction from Muschietti and his three writers in Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman. The key difference now is that Muschietti has just Dauberman contributing to adapting the second film. With a run-time of 169 minutes (horror fans could compare it to Midsommar (2019), which was actually ten minutes shorter), my expectation was that it would try to cover all of its bases in terms of story and horror and do so just fine. Ultimately, the resulting film is an okay one. It only proves fitting that the film jokes too many times about a character's bad endings to his novels, since this film is the lesser of the two It installments, an example of a film stuffed to the brim in ambition but not quite up to task in delivering all of its goals safely. That's not to say I didn't like the movie, since I did feel that I got my money's worth when it comes to entertainment, but It Chapter Two is certainly going to be one of those sequels that will inspire discussion over how far it needed to cover with its adaptation material and where it could've gone a different direction. For all of the horror imagery that it delivers in terms of its monsters and dark corridors, it feels a bit weird in really trying to stick together. This is in part due to the humor that gets sprinkled throughout the film. It isn't so much that I don't love a horror comedy (Ready or Not was a pretty good dark horror comedy, and that came out just weeks ago), but it sometimes seems to actually get in the way of keeping a tense atmosphere. As mentioned earlier, the references to the bad ending does tend to get old. How many times do we need to hear about it before it gets old? The Peter Bogdanovich cameo? Jokes by the other leads? No, I think it really does go overboard when Stephen King shows up for a cameo and does that. Sometimes you really need a more tense film to keep you on your toes.

When it comes to a cast like this, where the adults have to live up to the previous (and current) portrayal by children, it sure is nice to see a main six that work out just fine. McAvoy is pretty good with walking into the shoes of the nervous yet capable head of this group, emulating what was without any sort of struggle. Chastain seems a bit more reserved, but she makes her echo count just fine. Hader steals the show at times, cracking a few lines alongside fighting the fear that goes with the territory. As much as the film should just relax with trying to be funny, at least Hader is not making an annoyance of it all, which would be the case in the hands of an unrestrained comic relief. The other members of the cast also manage to pin down the quirks from before with no reservations. Undeniably, the film really does hinge on how Skarsgård does with having a second act for his clownish character. In that sense, he does just fine with some creepy voice-work, even the physical side of his character perhaps doesn't feel as scary as before. Sometimes seeing the villain again just diminishes their effect. There are a few highlights, such as a scene in the bleachers, or the one involving fortune cookies, and while scenes may drag on a bit sometimes, there are more effective scenes than failures. The film likes to jump between the modern (well, 2016) time and scenes with the kids, which feels a bit like It 1.5, which does work out fine for the most part. Honestly, I am curious to see how a compilation of both films into one would look like (let's not forget that the miniseries was just three hours), but what would it have looked like as a show? Sometimes it just seems that the movie wants to spend a little too much time down memory lane (restoring their memories through artifacts), where nearly every character gets their own trip down the memory hole while barely spending much time around the town itself. The weirdos seen from the first one barely make an impression (such as an older reception lady who liked to tease Eddie back then), but it really becomes glaring when one does not see much of Grant and his character of Henry, who was pretty intimidating but isn't as such now (the mullet joke makes this apparent). The film spends so much time with this group that you barely even realize half of these folks actually have spouses (from what I've heard in the book, this matters especially for one couple). The fates may not change, but the circumstances certainly change to make for a slightly more optimistic if not simpler film (while the book involves things such as a "Macroverse" - yep). When you know a giant spider is on your way, one wonders what kind of expectation to have, and there certainly is enough a light show to make it try to seem creepy. Ultimately, this is a horror film that tries to cover as many bases as it wants with a lofty material (much like with its first installment) that goes up and down a roller coaster of loading the senses with attempts at scares and laughs that lands long enough to make it mostly worth it without a huge crash.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Rollerball (2002).

Review #1270: Rollerball (2002).

Cast: 
Chris Klein (Jonathan Cross), Jean Reno (Alexi Petrovich), LL Cool J (Marcus Ridley), Rebecca Romijn (Aurora), Naveen Andrews (Sanjay), Mike Dopud (Michael), Kata Dobó (Katya Dobolakova), Lucia Rijker (Lucia Ryjker), Oleg Taktarov (Oleg Denekin), Paul Heyman (Sports Announcer), and Janet Wright (Coach Olga) Directed by John McTiernan (#014 - Die Hard, #018 - Die Hard with a Vengeance, #080 - The Hunt for Red October, #325 - Predator, and #576 - Last Action Hero)

Review: 
1000 word score!

It should only figure that someone made a remake of Rollerball (1975). After all, one can only take so many things from the 1960s or 1980s to shamelessly make again without doing anything new or different (unless you decide to make a nostalgia cashgrab sequel, of course) before thinking about something as ridiculous yet memorable like that particular film and think you can do better. The original film, written by William Harrison from his short story with direction by Norman Jewison, was a film about one man fighting against a corporation's decision to force him out of the senseless (yet capably watchable) sport in the not too distant future. A sport that looked like a mix of hockey, football and roller derby looked pretty violent, but at least you could get the idea that the film had some sort of interest in actually saying something meaningful besides being a sci-fi sports flick. The remake, directed by McTiernan with a script from Larry Ferguson and John Pogue that was modified to emphasize the action and nothing else. Is this a joke? Did someone with such a distinguished career as McTiernan (at least until he got into legal trouble, which occurred due to hiring someone to wiretap one of the other producers of this film and then lying about it) really make a film with so many mind-boggling bad decisions? When the best presence in the film is professional wrestling advocate Paul Heyman, you really messed things up. Watching a hour of wrestling entertainment (take your pick) would likely be more convincing, since at least you can mostly tell what is going on, as opposed to slovenly films like this. You could just write a long screed of things wrong with this film and probably do it in less time than this 98 minute jumble, complete with one less editor than this film had (two, Robert K. Lambert and John Wright) and with less money and effort ($70 million, for which this made less than half back).

This is the kind of film where its friends are Gymkata and Stealth, where one laughs at it hard until they just can't do it anymore. It's the only way to try and make sense of a film that has jumbled action sequences and characters that don't even merit one sentence descriptions on the Internet. It isn't like the original was really great or anything, but at least one could actually say something nice about the lead played by James Caan and not have to immediately roll onto the ground laughing like with this film. Seriously, how could you not laugh at how ridiculous this film is with its main lead? Supposedly, MGM wanted Keanu Reeves to be the star, which is completely believable and also completely hilarious in hindsight with Klein, who looks completely out of his depth here. He isn't the individual fighting against the system here, he just happens to be the latest action figure (namebrand hockey player) being played with in a massive toybox, where things are being thrown around in an attempt at a story like a kid making the rules up as he goes, playing to a crowd of one that is in danger of losing its own audience. Reno seems completely vacant, which one could also say for Andrews, with neither inspiring any sort of adversarial presence that this desperately needs. LL Cool J (who apparently admitted to this film's suckage) is equally not spared from such lameness, and Romijn (with accent and scar in tow) is just as silly to be around. These characters really have as much energy and personality as play figures, where one can look at them and see some sort of expression try to come out. For the toymaster here, all that we can see is a mess that will have to be cleaned up later.

To point all of the severe flaws of this film may be an exercise in verbal spewage, but it is fairly appropriate for a film as sloppy as this one. How does one make a sport as ridiculous as this one (which we see played in Kazakhstan) struggle to get a cable deal in North America? If other sillier (but fairly competent) sports like soccer, e-sports, and cornhole have at least some sort of deal, how does this one fail? Maybe its in the rules, since it's barely comprehensible as a sport at all. The "Instant Global Rating" (one of the "neat" creations of this film's future of 2005, where nothing is different at all, the perfect hipster future) is just as silly, as if one really needs to tell us that "more violence = more curious viewers". Perhaps this sport thinks its biggest competitor is professional wrestling. The icing on the cake is the night vision sequence. It actually was a re-shot scene that was too dark the first time around. Imagine delaying a movie for months (from summer to February) because you couldn't do a chase sequence in the dark properly, then having it be in the film in night-vision for no apparent reason. Geez, the street sequence in the beginning looked more convincing than this. This is just a horrendous experience, through and through, where the unrewarding climax is just the cherry on top on the punch to the face that this movie gives you. This even was at one point slated to be an R-rated film, but bad test screenings led to the digital removal of blood (for sweat) and a romance sequence. I shudder to wonder how worse it was before cuts were made. You would think a film could be made that had some sort of commentary about an audience and their curiosity for violence that didn't turn into an excessive joke on the viewer. It may not be the worst experience one could have with a film, but it surely ranks up there as an insultingly stupid movie that deservedly languishes at pawn shops on the film stack, for good reason.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

You Kill Me.

Review #1269: You Kill Me.

Cast: 
Ben Kingsley (Frank Falenczyk), Téa Leoni (Laurel Pearson), Luke Wilson (Tom), Dennis Farina (Edward O'Leary), Philip Baker Hall (Roman Krzeminski), Bill Pullman (Dave), Marcus Thomas (Stef Krzeminski), and Jayne Eastwood (Kathleen Fitzgerald) Directed by John Dahl.

Review: 
One wonders what makes someone look up a film like this. This is an indie film, made on a budget of $4 million. It happens to be the writing work of Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, , who are likely more known for their work on The Chronicles of Narnia film series along with certain Marvel films such as Avengers: Endgame (2019) while having a cast-list that seems ripe for a few laughs. So what's the holdup in actually delivering laughs? The resulting film is one that is dry in most of the places that matter most, a movie too mild to actually work as either a crime or comedy film for its 93 minute run-time, especially one about a hit-man who undergoes Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and works at a mortuary. One really can't say its the fault of the actors, who sit there and say these milquetoast lines that don't impact as much as they should, as if eccentricity was nowhere to be found. It even finds time to be bland when it tries its hand at romantic moments (with a 23 year age difference, no less) between Kingsley and Leoni that falls down the stairs and never gets up. I feel like I really should care about an alcoholic hitman trying to adjust to AA meetings, and Kingsley seems game to make for deadpan fun, but it seems more like deadpan sleepwalking, which could also ring reluctantly true for Leoni as well. Less can be given for the rest of its cast, an utterly disappointing thing to say that starts with Wilson and ends with a lack of any true mob presence, where Farina and Hall can't even chew scenery properly. At least Pullman is fun to stick around with for a few minutes around and around. The film certainly has its own kind look it wants to go with, even if it sometimes seem a bit fake (such as its snow or its lone gun battle) to really make me think I'm watching a movie. It never sells its motivation (if it has one) to drive things along, slowing down in the middle and sticking in neutral for its climax, which ends about as convincingly as it began - with a great big meh. An imaginary point could also be subtracted for spending far more time in San Francisco than Buffalo than needed (sorry, let me fix that, a film set there but filmed mostly in Canada with occasional shots elsewhere). Is this a joke? Am I being pranked by a film that sticks itself in mud after taking too much of its own medicine, or does one need to pick more obvious comedy? In this case, it is preferable to pick something else. A walk in the park at night might give you more danger, but you surely will have more to talk about than if you sat through this average one.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Ready or Not (2019).

Review #1268: Ready or Not.

Cast: 
Samara Weaving (Grace Le Domas), Adam Brody (Daniel Le Domas), Mark O'Brien (Alex Le Domas), Henry Czerny (Tony Le Domas), Andie MacDowell (Becky Le Domas), Nicky Guadagni (Helene Le Domas), Melanie Scrofano (Emilie Le Domas), Elyse Levesque (Charity Le Domas), Kristian Bruun (Fitch Bradley), and John Ralston (Stevens) Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett.

Review: 
It can be fun to see what a group can do with a black comedy horror film. After all, this is a film of duos, having two directors (both part of a film collective called Radio Silence, which directed films such as V/H/S in 2012) while being written by Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy. With a budget of just $6 million, the film has already proven a fair success with audiences, and it really isn't hard to see why. It proves itself fairly adept at giving some laughs along with thrills, a crowd-pleaser for one who wants to see a bunch of wealthy people tear each other apart with blood and giggles. The premise is simple enough: hide from your new in-laws until dawn because they are compelled to hunt you down in a big old house. With various weapons and a whole bunch of hiding places, it is nice to have a film where you aren't besieged by an idiot plot or overt mugging of the camera (weak spots for either horror or comedy), where the 95 minutes pass by just fine. The cast is certainly game enough to go along with things, headlined by a resilient Weaving, who does a tremendous job with her surroundings that make her a worthy one to follow from the get-go. The members of the on-screen family do pretty well with generating moments that make for a mix of unsettling and biting fun, where they could fit into a family comedy, but they just happen to be tasked with hunting their new in-law down without a thought of not following tradition (well, almost no thought...). Scrofano comes out on top with delivering a dark laugh, but others like Czerny and Guadagni do come out to play just as well. There really isn't a weak spot when it comes to making some actual scares or laughs, and it doesn't skimp out on the intensity when it comes to gore. On the one hand you might see someone get into an accident with a dumbwaiter, on the other you might see a kid shoot at someone and hit. The climax is a fine one, even if it is a bit eccentric with delivering a satisfying conclusion, which might be felt to be a bit silly. To me, it worked itself out fine, in the sense that one won't have their whole experience ruined, as would be the case with a weaker horror film. In any case, this is an amusing scare that will please the curious and satisfy the appetite of those who seek some dark moments and capable production at hand to go along with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Mechanic (1972).

Review #1267: The Mechanic.

Cast: 
Charles Bronson (Arthur Bishop), Jan-Michael Vincent (Steve McKenna), Keenan Wynn (Harry McKenna), Jill Ireland (The Girl), Linda Ridgeway (Louise), Frank de Kova (The Man), and Takayuki Kubota (Yamoto) Directed by Michael Winner.

Review: 
Sometimes you need a good thrill. If there is enough action and interesting moments, you have a sure winner on your hands. Too bad this is a film that can't quite push itself to being a complete success. The teaming up of an seasoned veteran and a brash willing newcomer is a familiar one if you watch enough movies, so the real game is in the execution. The original script by Lewis John Carlino implicitly had the main two actors have a relationship. However, it became difficult to find a lead actor or financing for the film, with one notable rejection coming from George C. Scott. Carlino expressed disappointment with having to change the script, stating "I wanted a commentary on the use of human relationships and sexual manipulation in the lives of two hired killers. It was supposed to be a chess game between the older assassin and his young apprentice. The younger man sees that he can use his sexuality to find the Achilles heel that he needs to win." Honestly, if you did this with a man and woman, nobody would've objected. But this was 1972, so c'est la vie. The resulting film does tend to seem like a James Bond film at times (as reflected on by Carlino), with the dynamic between Bronson and Vincent seeming neutered to look like a father-son dynamic instead. I do wonder if the sequence with Ireland doing a girlfriend experience for Bronson was there originally, since it doesn't really seem to matter to the actual plot in the long run. Actually the whole film seems like a scattershot experience, having a plot that never completely gels to anything meaningful. It isn't tense enough nor diverting enough, with the only notable sequence being an opening that is without dialogue for sixteen minutes (in an elaborate death sequence), which goes off fine I suppose. This is a film where our main assassin is a loner who likes classical music, squeezes a ball on occasion, and  someone racked with anxiety and depression. In that sense, Bronson is okay with the role. He has a fine rugged charm that rolls with action without too many smirks or outbursts. Vincent seems to need something more to this role, where he only seems there to give a quip and bare moments of actual brash confidence. It should be a cat-and-mouse game, but it seems more of two cats clawing lazily at cardboard that looks like cheese. The other actors have little presence either, with Wynn leading out the scene count with two (all in the first half, naturally). What's the point of making an action thriller if there isn't an interesting hero or villain? Even with the re-writes, you could still have had an okay movie if provided a real sense of stakes. The best this film has to offer is a swift ending involving the main characters before its 100 minutes are up, which is actually pretty amusing. As one can expect from mining the depths of films to revitalize for "new audiences", this film has had a remake, released in 2011 starring Jason Statham and its own sequel five years later in Mechanic: Resurrection (creative title, for the 1990s). On the whole, this is just a very okay action film that seems a bit too fixed-up in the wrong places to really generate the right kind of entertainment. It has some explosions, moments of gritting teeth, but not much else.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Fire Maidens from Outer Space.

Review #1266: Fire Maidens from Outer Space.

Cast: 
Anthony Dexter (Luther Blair), Susan Shaw (Hestia), Paul Carpenter (Capt. Larson), Jacqueline Curtis (Duessa), Harry Fowler (Sydney Stanhope), Sydney Tafler (Dr. Higgins), Owen Berry (Prasus), Rodney Diak (Anderson), Maya Koumani (Fire Maiden), Richard Walter (The Creature), Norma Arnould (Fire Maiden), and Sylvia Burrows (Fire Maiden) Directed and Written by Cy Roth.

Review: 
Fire Maidens from Outer Space (released in the US as Fire Maidens of Outer Space, because...I shrug as to why the name change) is certainly an interesting curiosity. How often do you see a implantation of classical music in a science fiction film? Sure, maybe a few films come to mind, but this is probably the silliest sci-fi film this side of the United Kingdom. The man behind the film is Cy Roth, who directed, produced and wrote the film while collaborating with a small production company in Criterion Films, with separate distribution companies for the two regions. What can I expect from a film that starts with narration about a secret US-UK project that is designated plan thirteen (I take it the ninth plan from outer space wasn't successful) - having ten minutes of exposition before the ridicule to follow in the next seventy minutes sure is something, though. How many times can you cover dreck and write about silly moments before it gets old? Watching terrible films does tend to make one feel a bit better, as if seeing misery makes the hope of finding something better to do seem fruitful. That, or it gives me a chance to write some silly highlights and make fun of things. Whooshing meteors should be an early indicator. One particular favorite is when the space crew are trying to land the rocket in a forest (while on the 13th moon of Jupiter) and they superimpose stock footage of a V-2 rocket landing (or perhaps launch in reverse) onto a shot of some trees, which is about as convincing as the space set itself. Wait a minute or two, and you'll get a shot of the rocket (where the trees are seen through the tail-fin) that looks hysterical, and the fact that the crew gets out of the space rocket through a everyday ladder makes me giggle internally. Do you want to see a sequence of the crew hearing a scream and then hiding in the bushes while someone takes a photo of the space maiden (who lives among the rest in what they call "New Atlantis" - yes I am serious)? You are in luck, then, particularly with the silly creature that we know is probably going to be a treat to see later up close. Nobody really seems to come out of this with too much dignity, as if they have already reached the stage of acceptance (if one replaces grief with bad movie appearances, anyway), although maybe the fire maidens seem to have a fine time being in "New Atlantis" garb and dancing on occasion. There never seems to be a moment where one can really take this seriously, and when it comes to space women, even Cat-Women of the Moon (1953) seems preferable. The fact that the monster is a slender beast in a dark costume (with zippers) that can't be shot is just as funny as the growl noises and his final fate - being hit by a gas grenade that makes him stumble onto some flames. As one would expect from silly films like this, they actually decide to bring back one of the maidens with them to Earth, with the idea of future missions to fulfill the "promise" from their "father" for mates for the maidens (or something like that). On the whole, this reads like a joke to a science-fiction fan, belonging in the cellar with other dreck aptly fit for MST3K mocking but also aptly fit for a laugh if in the right mood. It isn't the worst by any means, but it sure is a stinker.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Natural Born Killers.

Review #1265: Natural Born Killers.

Cast: 
Woody Harrelson (Mickey Knox), Juliette Lewis (Mallory Wilson Knox), Robert Downey, Jr. (Wayne Gale), Tom Sizemore (Detective Jack Scagnetti), Tommy Lee Jones (Warden Dwight McClusky), Rodney Dangerfield (Ed Wilson), Edie McClurg (Mrs. Wilson), Sean Stone (Kevin Wilson), Russell Means (Warren Red Cloud, Sr), Lanny Flaherty (Earl), and Evan Handler (David) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street and #1090 - Platoon)

Review: 
It is interesting to look upon this film today, 25 years after its release. It is a notoriously famous kind of film, one that was modified from its original script by Quentin Tarantino (the second of two scripts he had sold, with the other being True Romance) to the point where he was given a story credit while screenplay credit went to Richard Rutowski, Oliver Stone, and David Veloz. Tarantino wasn't a big fan of the final product, and the film is certainly an easy one to rage/rave about. The resulting film is one that is bold in its violence and its attempts to make a statement about society and so on and so on while also serving as a twisted romance - two hours of chaotic energy that is frantic, satirical, and a bit of a mess. Honestly, it must be real hard to fall along the middle ground with this particular film: One can appreciate the technical aspects of the film and yet still take issue with its approach for the message it wants, or one can really, really feel that it is a tiresome and ridiculously shameless attempt at satire that goes over the top to where it hits the moon with jagged edge front and center. One film that came in mind when viewing this was Bonnie and Clyde (1967), which in itself was a controversial film for its violence with its lead characters while being a seminal film for a burgeoning generation. This is definitely a film that is trying to be the kind of thing for its type of audience, with its decade certainly being a polarizing one in terms of the landscape of media and the world as a whole. One can certainly see that effect today, for better or worse (the less said about quote-unquote fake news, the better). It is the kind of loud film that probably seems right at home with the loudness that can accompany our lives if one allows it (or even if they don't).

No one seems to be safe from Stone's grip on message-making, or his grip on spectacle violence (or whatever you really want to call it), and they make for a cumbersome cocktail that when sipped manages to hit the consumer on the head and make for a fuzzy feeling all at once. This is especially apparent with the editing (which took eleven months as opposed to the shoot taking just 56 days) and look of the film, which can go from color to monochrome or just be filmed with a dutch angle (or most notably superimposing images of the 20th century in the background). Am I watching an crime movie or an art film? Really, you could say it is a bit of both. Does it go over the line when it comes to actually making a point? Sure, and it does that with no real sort of regrets, much in the same way a shock jock can hammer the hot take home till the cows come home to call the complaint hotlines. For me, it is a well made film that comes off okay with its approach while scoring points for capable film-making (moreso in the first half than the second) and its cast. Each of the core five has some sort of oddity to them (the headlining couple need no explanation), where being over-the-top is more like being over the rails and into the weird aisle, which generally works out fine in showing some ooze. Harrelson and Lewis are a dementedly successful duo when it comes to performances. One always wants to know what they will prove to do, whether with each other or with someone else, a sort of hypnotic feeling really. Much like the others in the film, one can't help it. Downey Jr plays his role of prowler for the attention machine (or however one would describe a tabloid TV host who happens to have an Australian accent) with effectiveness, where one can see the thirst for something deep in us (or what have you) that manifest in a wildly weird climax. Sizemore surely proves to task with his unconventional conventional role, where you can see the powder keg show its cracks from time to time. Jones hams it up (this is apparent with the hairstyle), and it works itself out for a few laughs at a man meant to have control yet can't even control himself. Special scene-stealing consideration goes to Dangerfield, who actually wrote his lines for his dark part that is perfectly horrific for what is needed. In the long run, this is a movie that roars itself from the very beginning with an ax to grind about its topic of conversation that swings for the trees and manages to cut down the entire forest while also setting it ablaze. Its fury can prove a bit too much after a while when it comes to actually trying to contain itself to one frenzy at a time. It can prove to be a horrific, biting, infuriating, frustrating, or rewarding experience, depending on how one looks into it. It is a controversial film for a reason, but the curious film mind will certainly have quite the time with it, that much is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Accepted.

Review #1264: Accepted.

Cast: 
Justin Long (Bartleby Gaines), Jonah Hill (Sherman Schrader III), Adam Herschman (Glen), Columbus Short (Darryl "Hands" Holloway), Maria Thayer (Rory Thayer), Lewis Black (Ben Lewis), Blake Lively (Monica Moreland), Mark Derwin (Jack Gaines), Ann Cusack (Diane Gaines), Hannah Marks (Lizzie Gaines), Robin Lord Taylor (Abernathy Darwin Dunlap), and Anthony Heald (Dean Richard Van Horne) Directed by Steve Pink.

Review: 
Do you remember your path to college? The acceptance letters, the campus visits, et cetera, et cetera. Of course some of us didn't actually do these things, much like how not everyone simply just went to the college they wanted (or went at all). But I don't think I ever thought to make my own university to make up for previous failures, really. Whether one is big on their college lives or not, I'm sure we can all agree that this is a rather lame comedy that wastes its premise with inconsistent humor. Inevitably, one would probably make a comparison to Animal House (1978) because one really can just use that as the measuring stick for college comedies involving ridiculous stunts, preppy adversaries and people who look at least a decade too old to be in college (minus Lively, though). Actually, why stop there, why not just make a comparison to American Pie (1999) with its crude nature with a young cast? At least one thing can be said about that film - it wasn't completely predictable and it actually did something with its rating (R-rated, as opposed to being PG-13 like this is, which even bleeps out a curse word at the end). What is there to be expected from a fake university named the South Harmon Institute of Technology (S.H.I.T, get it, hardy har har so clever) that came out of an old mental hospital? These characters are more generic than soda simply named Tasty Soda, right down to the bad guys with the truly compelling goal of wanting to raze the aptly named fake university to make a...gateway to make their college more prestigious. Gee, and the only way to stop the plan is to try and fight their case for education accreditation in front of the state board. Really, this should be like one of those choose your own adventure things, where you don't know the obvious decision (or joke) from the get-go. 

But enough about the shaky foundation, how are the actors when it comes to actually trying to make laughs. Is a guy in a hot dog costume imploring people to ask him about his frankfurter (obvious word change from me because I felt like it) really amusing? No? Too bad, it doesn't get that much better from there. Black seems able with a grouchy curmudgeon role, at least, since he actually seems to be trying to say something interesting in his cynicism about the system. Maybe he actually would've been a better lead than Long (no guesses allowed over who thought Bartleby was a clever character name), who doesn't seem as persuasive with generating laughs as opposed to just making smirks. I never really seem to ever care about his scheme, which honestly could've just been some cheesy drama more than anything. Hill is fine, making more of a presence than Herschman, Short, and Thayer combined. How? Ask yourself this: can you remember any interesting "funny" moment with that particular trio as opposed to Hill? Welp, there's your answer. Lively is here and there, having as much chemistry with Long as a bag of hammers. Some people are just destined to be stars, it just so happens some get to be in a lame one to accompany their earlier work. This whole review can really summed up by me just sighing and looking at the run-time every ten minutes, wondering if I should check on my phone or make a doodle. On the whole, this is just a mediocre comedy movie, bland enough to have three writers attached to it (Adam Cooper, Bill Collage and Mark Perez) but not smart enough to really make an involving winner that matters more than just its 92 minute run-time. Not every comedy needs to be a smart one, but I'll be darned if one has to suffer through a lame one when there is always a better choice somewhere else that doesn't waste my time as much as the next viewer.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Roaring Road.

Review #1263: The Roaring Road.

Cast: 
Wallace Reid (Walter Thomas "Toodles" Waldron), Ann Little (Dorothy Ward, the cub), Theodore Roberts (J. D. Ward, the bear), Guy Oliver (Tom Darby), and Clarence Geldart (Fred Wheeler) Directed by James Cruze.

Review: 
How many times can one pick a century-old film to give spotlight to? The decade saw Hollywood rise in stature for film-making in the United States, with several studios rising to the occasion to make their own films, ranging from shorts to roughly an hour. Who better to cover than a film from Paramount Pictures, one of the oldest film studios still in existence that also happens to be the lone major studio still located in Hollywood. In a silent era where plenty of films were lost to audiences after release forever, one can appreciate the ones that did in fact survive for someone to view (particularly for films exhibited for over 95 years, which make for fresh pickings in the public domain), and I would hope that a viewer picks at least one film from this particular era of film-making to look at once in a while. This is a year in which test screenings were only just beginning to be used to gauge reactions to film, after all. Not every film needs to be loud or expressive to be a true winner, although the reverse can easily be said when it comes to how films were back then, which certainly could be spectacular or ridiculous. In this case, this is an okay movie, filled will silly moments to boot aside from a few interesting directing sequences (done through Frank Urson) that accompany a relic like this. It just doesn't feel like the kind of film meant to endure as heavily as other films of its time, where Broken Blossoms and The Grim Game managed to evoke more emotion and thrills in the same year. Each film certainly looks like they came from 1919, but there is a certain energy in the direction or its star that really drive those two films to inspire curiosity that this does not.

What is this film, you may wonder. Well, it's about a automobile salesman who wants to race and also get the daughter of his boss - even winning the big race in the middle of its 58 minute run-time doesn't convince the dad to let go of his daughter to be married unless they wait five years, because...1919, I suppose. Marion Fairfax helped write the scenario based on short stories done by Byron Morgan (Junkpile Sweepstakes, Undertaker's Handicap, Roaring Road), which turned out to be such a success that it inspired a sequel named Excuse My Dust the following year. Reid does fine, even if one doesn't really see that much of him (the auto scenes with him count, I suppose), but what can one really do with a name like Toodles? In the same year that he did this film, Reid suffered an injury to his scalp while in production for The Valley of the Giants. Treatment to relieve his pain at the time meant addiction to morphine that would torment him for the following three years in which he kept working in films before his death in 1923 at the age of 31. Little is okay, although she doesn't really seem to show that much passion (one would expect that from a film that favors its race action a bit more, really). Roberts (introduced to us after a quick shot of a bear to open the film) is also okay, playing to the strings of the plot with reasonable unreasonableness. In the end, this is a fairly mediocre effort that just can't inspire a shift into second gear despite all the chances to do so. You wouldn't hate what you see on screen by any means, but you also wouldn't really like it all that much either.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Pursuit to Algiers.

Review #1262: Pursuit to Algiers.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Marjorie Riordan (Sheila Woodbury), Rosalind Ivan (Agatha Dunham), Morton Lowry (Steward), Leslie Vincent (Prince Nikolas / Nikolas Watson), Martin Kosleck (Mirko), Rex Evans (Gregor), John Abbott (Jodri), and Gerald Hamer (Kingston) Produced and Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, #1021 - The Spider Woman, #1040 - The Scarlet Claw, #1056 - The Pearl of Death, #1161 - The House of Fear, and #1216 - The Woman in Green)

Review: 
As the Rathbone-Bruce batch of Holmes films gravitates towards its end, one would imagine that this film (the twelfth of the series) would continue on the decent path of the others with its traditional pacing and fair quality alongside offbeat choices involving plotting or characters. After all, this is a movie that starts with Holmes getting a clue to a secret place from a menu with fish and chips and then being recruited to escort a prince back to his country on a plane that is too small for both Holmes and Watson (because one needs a famed detective to escort a prince home). At least one can't say these films have given up on making themselves sticking out (this happened to be released three months after The Woman in Green). Surprisingly (or not), Holmes is presumed to be dead (again) when the plane is shot down, but he shows up on the ship with Watson en route to Algiers because he doesn't like plans set up by others (I can agree with that).  Really, you could make a comedy about these assassination attempts at the prince (disguised as Watson's nephew, because he has quite the resemblance), ranging from trying to poison the tea to knife throwing through a port-hole (ouch) to exploding paper hat packages, but at least one can say they'll have some sort of smile when watching this film, which is mostly set on a ship. It even finds time for a song for Watson to sing, which goes along fine actually. There isn't much of a mystery this time around, since you get to know who the assassins and their plot very early on, so it really seems more of a quiet thriller more than anything, complete with red herrings (with diamonds that don't matter, no less) to boot. At least there are some references to previous Holmes works that will make it seem a bit interesting, such as Watson talking about a giant rat of Sumatra. The highlight of the film proves to be the duo of Rathbone and Bruce, who walk through this conventional kind of vague mystery film just fine, with the latter having his own moments that aren't just there to make fun of the character he plays, such as the aforementioned song or when he believes that Holmes is dead and has to collect himself. The other cast-mates are hit and miss, save for the main trio of villains, who don't even get a showdown scene with Holmes. Imagine watching a movie for 65 minutes and having a twist ending instead of some silly showdown where Holmes and Watson could outsmart three bumbling agents (one of them being wrestler Wee Willie Davis). This is a ridiculous movie, but in the collection of Sherlock movies, it is at least light entertainment that works itself out just fine. You won't find yourself frustrated at what you see, unless you are a strict enthusiast for the Holmes canon or really want something more from the 12th of fourteen movies from seven decades ago. For me, this is just fine. Can one strive for films more (or less) than fine? Sure, but this will work for those curious enough to look further.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ghost Rider (2007).

Review #1261: Ghost Rider.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Johnny Blaze / Ghost Rider), Eva Mendes (Roxanne Simpson), Wes Bentley (Blackheart / Legion), Sam Elliott (Carter Slade / Caretaker), Donal Logue (Mack), Peter Fonda (Mephistopheles), Brett Cullen (Barton Blaze), David Roberts (Captain Jack Dolan), Laurence Breuls (Gressil), Daniel Frederiksen (Wallow), and Mathew Wilkinson (Abigor) Directed by Mark Steven Johnson (#443 - Daredevil)

Review: 
What can you really say about something like this? If you've seen one superhero film, does it mean you've really seen them all? With the case of a film like this based on a Marvel comic character of the same name (created by Roy Thomas, Gary Friedrich, Mike Ploog that made its first appearance in 1972 - an oddly appropriate decade for a character like this), I really did have a curiosity to see exactly what was going to happen with a film about a guy who turns into a leather-clad flaming skeleton on a bike because he sold his soul to a certain individual. The execution, needless to say, does not exactly come off well enough to make this a solid winner. It seems to strive for a over-the-top kind of action glitz that films like Blade (1998) did with its outlandish premise, but it flails around with awkwardness that is more akin to other comic book films of its ilk like Fantastic Four (2005) or even Johnson's previous work with Daredevil. In going for a supernatural kind of comic book film with tinges of a Western and Horror, the resulting concoction is much like being told a long and winding story by someone hanging around your friends that you accidentally started: ridiculous and messy while having you learning what a waste of time looks like. Is there really a way to make a movie about a bounty hunter for the wicked seem involving? Perhaps there is a way, but this is really not the best way to make it happen. If I don't care about the stakes of what is going on with its main mystical plot or what is being fought for (some sort of evil contract that can't fall into the wrong hands because...reasons), then what chance does the cast have in making this stuff come alive?

Cage, who evidently lobbied hard to portray this character, surely does seem like he wants to bring eccentric charm to a Evel Knievel/growly skull man kind of guy. He does seem hammy, but at least he seems like he really wants to be there, even if he can't quite show much chemistry with Mendes, who seems as interested in this material in the same way one is interested in looking at the painter paint one side of the wall. Nobody has a completely terrible performance, but nobody really pulls off a show-stopper kind of fun time either. If only one could say much about Bentley and his adversarial role more than a sentence: his character is an undeveloped joke that is too laughably terrible to be taken seriously as a threat, with Bentley looking more and more like he picked the wrong film in each scene. Elliott is likely the one actor who comes off without much ridicule, in part because one feels the need to see him in more scenes besides being the deliverer of exposition (whether through his rich voice or not) who leaves before the climax can start (complete with a sequence with him on a horse and Cage on a bike that ends with him leaving). There is a certain curiosity to seeing Fonda on screen, wondering how he would play a man of the darkness, which is quickly extinguished by the fact that you don't see him enough. If one wanted to use an analogy, he is essentially three pieces short of a whole devil's food cake, if it were made out of some sort of weird cardboard. The film ultimately feels flabby with where it wants to really go with its story (also done by Johnson) and tone. The action sequences seem more something you have to struggle to take seriously, especially when it comes to its climax, where the stakes have never felt so mild. Maybe this could have been a tongue-in-cheek film, or a self-serious one that really wanted to be supernatural with some action thrown in. Instead, you get a film that doesn't really please anyone unless you need to kill two hours (110 minutes for the original cut and 123 for the extended cut because of course there is more) and don't have one of the other comic book films laying around. What kind of sentence can really close such a mediocre piece of dreck like this. Honestly, I have just six words: Ghost Rider is a flaming disaster.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.

Review #1260: Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.

Cast: 
Zoe Margaret Colletti (Stella Nicholls), Michael Garza (Ramón Morales), Gabriel Rush (Auggie Hilderbrandt), Dean Norris (Roy Nicholls), Gil Bellows (Chief Turner), Lorraine Toussaint (Lou Lou), Austin Zajur (Chuck Steinberg), Natalie Ganzhorn (Ruth), Austin Abrams (Tommy), and Kathleen Pollard (Sarah Bellows) Directed by André Øvredal.

Review: 
Horror can certainly be affecting for its audience, whether young or old. If anyone can speak to being scared, children certainly have plenty of stories to tell, even after they grow up. This is a film adaptation of the story collection of the same name (consisting of three short books that contained 25 stories each released from 1981 to 1991) that was written by Alvin Schwartz and illustrated by Stephen Gammell. I have a vague memory of checking out one of the books as a child, with one certain story lingering through involving a hook. One notable contributor to the film is Guillermo del Toro, who helped produced and co-write the story for the film, which has a modest budget of $25 million and a group of young leads that headline a film taking elements from the books into one cohesive narrative (as opposed to an anthology film). The final result is a decent movie, having a few scares that will work for its target audience of folks looking for some scares whether they know about these familiar monsters or not. Within its main group of castmates, there certainly isn't a weak link among the kids when it needs to focus on moments besides being scared; Colletti carries the film with charm and resourcefulness that makes her well to follow along with right from the get-go. Garza does just fine with following along without becoming too much of a quiet outlier to the film's detriment. Rush and Zajur contribute to a laugh or two as the other cogs in the film's young core (which also features brief moments for Toussaint and Abrams, albeit in the first half) that play just okay. On the whole, while the film doesn't have enough characters to really make for the possibility of a substantial bodycount, at least one does find themselves having a little investment into where the film will go without just waiting for a monster to show up. Of the ones that do appear, I would say that the Jangly Man is probably the most creepy, although there isn't a weak link in the weird bunch. The 1968 setting was a bit of a surprise, but at least it does utilize it to make a few timely scenes stick out just well without just seeming pointless. The narrative that is built around these monsters (and the stories that they come from) is decent, built on safe foundations without bordering on too many cliches to make things less than compelling, where the chills don't become withheld because of weak storytelling. It does set up some bait for the possibility of further tales, and I find that to be something I can look forward to without much hesitation. Whether accompanied with loyal friends or not, this will prove worthy for a look.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Serious Moonlight.

Review #1259: Serious Moonlight.

Cast: 
Meg Ryan (Louise), Timothy Hutton (Ian), Kristen Bell (Sara), Justin Long (Todd), Nathan Dean (Detective), Andy Ostroy (Police Officer), Kimberlee Peterson (Trashy Girl), Derek Carter (Man #1), and Bill Parks (Man #2) Directed by Cheryl Hines.

Review: 
Some movies are just meant to stay in the movie bin. This isn't even a case of just being dreadful - this is a movie is too lame for even ironic watching like someone could do for Troll 2. The film can be summed up through three questions: Where is the comedy? Who thought this would be a good idea? Why is the film predictably pathetic? The best answer I have for any of these questions is this: Someone really thought this was going to work. This was written by the late Adrienne Shelly, who had written/directed/co-starred with Hines in Waitress (2007), with her widow being one of the producers of this film. This was shown at the Tribeca Film Festival in early 2009 before being acquired by Magnolia Pictures, who released it through their Ultra Video on Demand program one month before theatrical release. I am curious to wonder how many people decided to check this out on the streaming platform (barf) out of curiosity and how long they lasted before shutting it off. It amazes me that one can make an 84 minute movie seem interminable to go through. This is evidently a black comedy, and I say evidently in the loosest sense because it is roughly at the enjoyment level of lemon juice squeezed right onto your face in terms of humor. It is a film that is filled with contrivances in order to drive a romance angle that never really takes off - maybe there could be something funny about taping up your husband until he is persuaded that he still loves you and not his mistress, too bad this isn't the one to do it with. I shouldn't have been surprised that this scheme actually works, but maybe I really thought someone facing consequences for something so stupid could actually lead to a laugh. Obviously I should know better from a film with a title not to be confused with a David Bowie concert tour.

Who does one blame for such a blandly derivative film? You really can't blame the quartet of actors saddled with this material, who either got a memo to scream in every other scene or just really thought this was the way to go. Ryan (years removed from mediocre rom-coms like Sleepless in Seattle) is stuck in such a thankless position, where the dubious honor of trying to serenade her husband with a guitar is compounded by him being taped to a toilet after being knocked out (again). She is meant to have some sort of high-strung energy, but it never really comes out in a useful way to make me care. Hutton (spending most of his time acting from a toilet, a sentence for which I have to compose myself before I collapse from laughing) is similarly stuck with either having to shout or trying to be snide, which could be funny if the film wanted to do so. After all, it is just these two for over half the film. To say nothing of Bell, energetic yet not in the film enough to make more laughs. Long playing a robber sounds like a punchline already, but he mostly spends his time either hitting Hutton or lazily robbing them with his friends, which isn't as fun as it sounds. It gets stuck between the gear of sentimentality and cynicism and never gets out, where the direction and the script harmonize into ridiculousness that disappoints and irritates the audience at once. Nothing ever feels like it matters, with no real sense of consequences in any sense to be found. Why should I care about this loveless marriage and the attempts to revive it? Why should I care about them being tied up in their own house? Why make an implication with the ending about the couple seeing the robbers in the street after reconciling if you won't actually go anywhere with it? Is this really a film that needed to end before it even reached 90 minutes? As the questions ride over my head like a never-ending drumbeat, I can only say that this is the weakest kind of terrible movie - a whimpering and pathetic piece that can be mocked to oblivion and still have the insolence to linger there in its defeated state until the magnifying glass is taken off. The best thing to say for this film isn't to yammer about how awful it is for an essay longer than needed - if you see it sitting somewhere on a shelf or as an option on a streaming service (again, barf), just ignore it. By not watching it, you've saved those minutes for something better. Whether spent alone surfing the Internet, or spending time at work, or spending time with friends (whichever seems realistic), Serious Moonlight makes the case for appreciating doing those things more often as opposed to seeing the film more than zero times.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.