Warren-Watched-A-Movie Reviews

The Wild Bunch (1969)

Not Bad. Not Great

[4/10 · 9 August 2021]

The Wild Bunch is not necessarily my cup of tea, but it was entertaining. This is a Revisionist Western and the characters in those are all terrible people and the goal is to subvert the tropes of the traditional Western. I prefer my Westerns to be more like cinematic comfort food. Maybe subverting tropes is why Westerns are not as popular as they once were. People like and find comfort in tropes. Subvert them too often and they no longer wish to view that genre. Anyway...

I have seen some Sam Peckinpah work such as the original Straw Dogs and The Getaway and this follows the character mold of those films. There are no decent people here really. They are all varying shades of terrible.

The acting is fine but then again these were all fine actors. In the gang of old timers we have William Holden as Pike Bishop who leads the aging gang. Ernest Borgnine is his righthand man Dutch Engstrom. Brothers Lyle and Tector Gorch are played by Warren Oates and Ben Johnson respectively. Angel is played by Jaime Sánchez. Old timer Freddie Sykes is played by Edmond O'Brien.

Robert Ryan is Deke Thornton who was at one point Pike's partner before Deke got arrested. Now, to stay out of jail, Deke has agreed to track his old gang for the railroad and bring them to justice. Deke probably would rather be with his old gang as the posse he currently has is clearly not of the caliber of his previous partners.

There is a lot of double-dealing and backstabbing in The Wild Bunch. I understand they are all terrible people but there is a certain level of backstabbing and double-dealing that makes functioning as a criminal highly improbable and that occurs often in the story. There is no way an outlaw from any era could be successful in that environment.

The action scenes are well helmed and over the top with tons of blood squibs. There must have been 15 to 20 gallons of fake blood used every time bullets started to fly. The final fight, one of the best in film, is insane and spattered with gratuitous amounts of red.

Just about everybody in this film dies by the end. Only two characters make it all the way to the final moments. The film certainly has its moments. I do not think I could have watched until the end if it did not have some good acting and some good moments in the story.

One of the themes in this film is change. Specifically the ending of one way of life and the beginning of another. Pike early on notes that they need to think beyond their guns because they are getting too old and their world is all but ended.

Another theme is betrayal. In the opening robbery they left T. C. (L. Q. Jones) behind as they made their escape, and it haunts them to one extent or another for the rest of the film. There are points where it seems like they are trying to make amends for that betrayal.

The Wild Bunch is certainly not my favorite film ever. If you are into Revisionist Westerns, then this is a must see but if you like the older style of Western then you can probably skip this one.

Star Trek: The Animated Series (1973–1975)

A great animated continuation of the original

[8/10 · 2 August 2021]

This is the first Star Trek spinoff series and was created as a response to the original series proving popular in syndication. I have heard it said at one point the original series was on some channel somewhere on the planet every hour of the day. Speaking from my local TV experience I could believe that. It was not impossible to have a Trek block at some point in the day just by changing the channel.

Star Trek: The Animated Series (originally airing as Star Trek and as The Animated Adventures of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek) however did not enjoy that level broadcast time. It was known but the first time I recall actually seeing this was when it was part of a Saturday morning animation block on Sci Fi (now Syfy). Those were the days on that channel.

You could call this show the fourth season of the original Star Trek. The episodes are extremely stripped down versions of what you would get from the original series. The pace is rapid and lacks some of the extra one might get from an hour-long episode that would slow things down. Not that I am calling that a bad thing here. The episodes are much deeper than what you might find on Saturday morning cartoons of the time despite their condensed structure. For example "The Counter-Clock Incident" is about a person not being useless in old age.

But it also has many of the hallmarks that made, in my opinion, the action-oriented cartoons from that time until the late 80s or so much better than what they pinch out today. The action is fast. The stories are to the point. The dialogue wastes nothing. And at no point were you talked down to as a viewer.

The animation was done by Filmation who used the cheaper style of animation of Saturday morning of the time. They were behind such shows as Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids and its successive iterations, Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle, The New Adventures of Flash Gordon, Blackstar, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe and its spinoff She-Ra: Princess of Power, and Bravestarr (their last production) just to name a smidgen of what they created. If you grew up in a certain era and watched Saturday morning cartoons with a bowl of high sugar cereal, then you saw something they did. This show was in good hands from the start.

The series often refers to original series episodes in some manner. Admittedly there was much less canonical Trek back then, but the show sparingly connected with its predecessor which is a wise move for any spinoff. You cannot rely too heavily on what came before but rather need to stand on your own two feet. David Gerrold wrote "More Tribbles, More Troubles" as a sequel to his original series episode "The Trouble with Tribbles." "Yesteryear" is an episode which features The Guardian of Forever from the episode "The City on the Edge of Forever." Harry Mudd returns and engages in another scheme in "Mudd's Passion."

The majority of the original cast returns to voice their respective TOS characters. Walter Koenig is the only series actor that did not return but technically he was not original cast having joined the series in Season Two. He did write "The Infinite Vulcan" which referenced the Eugenics War. Still it would have been nice to see him return as Chekov just once.

The show itself was considered canonical until Gene Roddenberry decided it was not though over the years bits and pieces of material that were used in the show have made their way into Star Trek canon again. A holodeck was first used in the show along with the "T" standing for "Tiberius" in Captain Kirk's name. Robert April was also named as the first captain of the USS Enterprise here and that was a bit of information used in Star Trek: Discovery. There are others but those are the ones that jump out.

I've heard it been said that Star Trek: Lower Decks is a way to introduce children to Star Trek. If you're going to introduce someone to something like Star Trek through animation, make it like Star Trek. Make it thoughtful. Make it like this. This is not silly or goofy (at least in the context of the day) but something more serious.

Star Trek: The Animated Series was a fun and interesting take on the Star Trek concept of the time. It perfectly re-captured the spirit and essence of the original series in Saturday morning form. If you have a chance to watch this, you should.

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

A great Cold War thriller

[10/10 · 31 July 2021]

The Hunt for Red October is one of the better Cold War thrillers out there. Calling it a classic is not out of bounds. One of the great strengths here is that the story doesn't fall into cliché or caricature and keeps you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end. And you are genuinely invested in the characters in the film. Each one gets an arc and their fate matters to the viewer. From the crew of the Red October to Jack Ryan, they all matter and are well defined in the film.

I'm pretty sure this was my first contact with Alec Baldwin. Maybe even the Baldwin clan to be honest and considering their number that is quite impressive. There are way too many of them out there. I had not seen Beetlejuice prior to this and would never have watched Knots Landing because, well, I have standards.

Baldwin plays Jack Ryan who is a CIA intelligence analyst, author, and Professor of Naval History at the United States Naval Academy. He is called in when the existence of a new type of sub in the form of the Red October is uncovered. The vessel and its revolutionary drive are seen as a significant military threat. On a side note, at the very beginning you'll notice that Ryan's wife is played by Gates McFadden who became famous for playing Dr. Beverly Crusher in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Just a fun fact for me.

Sean Connery stars as Captain Marko Ramius who along with some of his handpicked senior staff plans on using the titular vessel to defect to the US. They all have their own reasons, but Ramius's executive officer Captain Vasily Borodin (Sam Neill) is probably the most touching. He simply wants an American wife and a truck and to be able to drive around wherever he pleases. His fate in the film is the one that hits the hardest.

Tim Curry is known for dare I say being a little hammy as well as scene chewing in his acting, but here he is surprisingly muted as ship's medical officer Dr. Petrov. This was an amazing performance on his part. I'm not dissing anything he has done before or since but this was genuine acting and not just being trademark Tim Curry.

In other cast members we have the great Scott Glenn as Commander Bart Mancuso who is the commanding officer of USS Dallas, the legendary James Earl Jones shows up as Vice Admiral James Greer who is the Deputy Director of the CIA, Richard Jordan is National Security Advisor Jeffrey Pelt, Stellan Skarsgård is Captain Tupolev, and Fred Thompson is Rear Admiral Joshua Painter. Not bad.

There are no bad or mediocre performances to be found. But more importantly it does not feel as if any one performer is trying to steal or hog the screen. They all have an equal presence while on camera and that includes the legendary James Earl Jones. The man can steal a scene with his voice alone but not here.

While there are scenes of action in this movie the story is very much based around the characters and not action spectacle. It's a thinking person's film. It is tense with the characters surviving using their minds rather than guns blazing. While an explosion does solve their problems, it is not a reflexive solution to each issue they face in the story.

There are differences between the book and film, but John McTiernan turned in a great version of the Tom Clancy novel. Speaking of John McTiernan what happened to him? He turned in some really great films and then his life just fell apart. He should have been a legendary director still working today. What a loss. He made Predator, Die Hard, and this for crying out loud and this! They are all amazing works. The man had skill.

And I can't skip talking about the legendary Basil Poledouris. The man was behind so many classic film scores. Both of the original Conan films, RoboCop, and he also worked on this. The man was a genius and shows what you can get when a good composer writes music that is performed by an orchestra and not crafted on a keyboard.

The Hunt for Red October is a classic thriller. It's well acted and well scripted with great direction. It is most definitely a must see!

Spirited Away (2001)

WOW!

[10/10 · 31 July 2021]

Spirited Away is an amazing bit of animation from Japan. It is a mature yet family friendly film that does not talk down to the viewer. There are elements of fantasy, supernaturalism, traditional Japanese culture, environmentalism, and even an examination of western consumerism. That is some pretty weighty stuff for a film that you can sit down and watch with the kids.

Some have compared this to Alice in Wonderland as well as Through the Looking Glass in that both are set in an odd fantasy world. I side with the individuals that compare this to The Wizard of Oz in that Chihiro is transported to a strange and dangerous place and must get home. Chihiro also magically loses her name and must find a new identity.

The main location of events in the film is a Japanese bathhouse. Many creatures from Japanese folklore visit there. There is a character called No-Face that reflects the individuals around him. It is all surreal in my opinion.

Spirited Away examines traditional Japanese culture. At the time this was made Japan was experiencing an economic downturn and people were looking to reconnect with their society's past. Here Chihiro lost her past self when she came to this strange place and was seeking to reclaim it in much the same way Japanese society was trying to reconnect with itself.

Environmentalism is examined when Chihiro must deal with a rather potent stink spirit while at the bath house. This spirit was once a river but was so corrupted by pollution that it was unrecognizable. Haku is the spirit of a river that was destroyed and lost his identity because it.

Chiro's father dresses in a polo shirt and drives an imported car while talking about his credit cards and cash and her parents are turned into pigs when they excessively indulge at the eatery in a swipe at consumerism.

This is a deeper story than you might get from more popular animated films. All the things they touch on go down easy and are not shoved in your face. A mark of good message stories. Chihiro must also deal with change which is a natural part of life. She is moving to a new area and like any child doesn't want to. Her experiences in this bizarre fantasy world teach her how to deal with the changes in life.

The story starts out simple enough. After taking what they believe will be a road to their house the family finds themselves at the entrance to an abandoned and rather creepy amusement park. Exploring the bizarre place, they soon find it's a dark magical realm. There are spirits and talking frogs and dragons. It's all run by a giant headed witch that can transform into a bird.

But Spirited Away is also really weird. Like I said we have parents being transformed into pigs. We have giant headed witches and stink spirits and a Japanese bath house with the whole story taking place in what is made to look like an abandoned theme park. Those places are just creepy.

Too often family friendly films are shallow with little depth to them. There may be a touch of something there, but they are not as complicated or as deep as something like this. Children can handle deeper material.

The legendary Hayao Miyazaki was inspired to make a film for family friends that he regularly vacationed with. Through a friendship with a Pixar animator, Disney got western distribution to this film but poorly handled it. To be honest, given what I have read, it is amazing it became known.

Hand-drawn animation is so much more beautiful and enduring than purely CGI work. Computer assistance was used sparingly here to enhance the work. This movie is over 20 years old at this point and is still a beautiful work of art. There is 20-year-old CGI that looked sharp in its day but has definitely not aged well. Heavy computer animation loses its luster with technological advancement. Think about video games.

Things like Donkey Kong or Pac-Man or even some of the arcade racing games from the 90s looked amazing when they first came out, but the graphics today are not that good if they can be considered good at all. This film stands the test of time visually. It is art.

Spirited Away is a classic piece of animation that if you haven't seen it you should. This is a must watch!

The Hidden (1987)

Great film!!

[10/10 · 30 January 2021]

The Hidden is one of the better science-fiction films from the 80s. It is just so over-the-top and generally awesome and manages to be a fresh take on what was then the heavily travelled territory of the buddy cop film.

The buddy cop genre was big during that decade. They were cranking them out by the dozens then. Two mismatched people were thrown together on a case and they had to stop whatever bad guy was involved and that usually happened with the heavy use of guns and humor. Much like Alien Nation, which would come out the following year, this is a science-fiction spin on that very concept.

Michael Nouri (most notably of Flashdance fame) stars in this film as Det. Thomas Beck who during the opening scenes of the movie is shown trying to track down a man called Jack DeVries (Chris Mulkey), an individual who about a week or two prior was considered quiet and mild-mannered but abruptly went about murdering and stealing cars. Flashy high-end cars. Usually Ferraris. Fun fact: reportedly they destroyed four of them during production of this film and that is just impressive.

Kyle MacLachlan stars as FBI Special Agent Lloyd Gallagher who is hot on the trail of DeVries. Gallagher claims that DeVries is among several others who are all connected in a criminal conspiracy which he does not elaborate on and honestly until I started writing this, I did not think too much about him saying nothing. You would think a police officer would press on why they are all connected but given the events you just witnessed on screen you could understand why that question would not pop out immediately. Beck is suspicious of Gallagher but more along the lines of "Why is FBI agent horning in on my territory?" and not that he is hiding something.

This is a well-crafted film casually dropping important bits and pieces throughout the story until the finale. Early in the film a flamethrower is casually mentioned but not focused on as being confiscated during a gang arrest. Senator Holt (John McCann), a popular senator with possible presidential aspirations, shows up in a brief news blurb and lingers in the background via references due to an upcoming event in the area. He is important but how is not quite clear. You are not beaten over the head with anything. That is some very good filmmaking there. Nothing is out of left field. When it becomes important you are like "Oh crap!"

In this vein the film drops something rather significant in a rather casual character moment. Beck invites Gallagher over to his house for to meet his family at dinner. It is a moment meant to flesh out the characters, but it also establishes something for the final scene. They talk of the case and we learn that Gallagher's wife and daughter were killed by the "people" Gallagher is pursuing.

Det. Beck introduces Agent Gallagher to his young daughter and something important occurs here. At least it is important for the ending of the film. It is obvious by the daughter's reaction that she senses something is different with Gallagher. Think of it like the trope of children being able to see ghosts. She instinctively knows there is something not right which is what we the audience already knew.

Why is this important? I am not going to jump into it right away. First I'm doing to discuss the ending scenes because they are important before this is important. The alien wants to stay on Earth and even has designs on controlling the planet. It has set its sights on Sen. Holt and by the indications of the film that senator has a good shot at winning the presidency should he win. Not only would being president offer him indefinite protection from Gallagher, but it would give him a path to the level of power he craves. As the member of a body hopping species, he just needs to get close enough to literally find a way in.

And that leads to the finale. It is an insane explosion filled guns blazing body hopping action fest up until the ballroom at the press conference where Gallagher uses the flamethrower confiscated from the gang member earlier in the film to burn the senator's body and force the alien out so he can shoot him with his special gun that only works on the alien flesh and not on human flesh.

During the conflict Beck is seriously wounded. Gallagher sustains a few shots as well and both are taken to the hospital. This brings us back to what happened with the daughter earlier in the film.

Gallagher gives Beck his life. He saves his life-or so you could think. It looks all positive and happy. However the little girl's reaction to her father is telling. She reacts the same as she did to Gallagher earlier when Beck tries to get her to come over and hold his hand. It is not that Det. Beck was magically made better. It is that Beck died, and Gallagher took over the body. He took the place of Beck to get his old life back. A little weird. That is why the dinner moment is important.

One thing I appreciate is that these are not some human looking creature running around Earth as had been done many times before but rather they are body hopping thing that look like a cat hairball. And that is gross looking. We get our first look at the movie's villain early on in a scene shortly after the beginning of the film. DeVries is in the hospital and critically injured after the opening events. Knowing that his current body will not survive he hops into the body of a heart patient (William Boyett) in the bed next to him. Boyett is in a significant portion of the film as the thrill killing alien and deservedly earned a great deal of praise for his performance. It is bizarre and highly engaging and very entertaining.

This is all mixed in with the usual tropes of the buddy cop genre. And they come from Gallagher! His partner and family were killed and he is not only on a quest for revenge but a quest for justice. That plot point was more common back then than a DC hater among MCU fans.

It is obvious from the get-go that Kyle McLaughlin's Beck is also an alien, but they do not beat you over the head with it. It is little things mostly like his mannerisms that clue you in. One clue that he is an alien is that he is an FBI agent driving a Porsche (a flashy car) much like the man he is after who is driving Ferraris. Not only is it an indication that he is an alien, but it indicates that there is something about the species that draws them to sports cars rather than just a less conspicuous vehicle. Gallagher also has trouble with the small human things and that is what really lets the audience know what is going on.

The Hidden is a fun action romp. It is well acted and very well scripted with some themes of what it means to be human. More importantly they take time to build their narrative and do not waste time with pointless fluff. They leap straight into the action and story and do not stop. Director Jack Shoulder turned in a solid film from what should have been an otherwise forgettable story.

This movie when it was released slipped under the radar and I think still largely is unknown despite its unique take on the genre. Aside from our leads and the performance of William Boyett, The Hidden has a solid supporting cast with the likes of Ed O'Ross as Det. Cliff Willis and 80s film fixture Clu Gulager as Lt. Ed Flynn filling in significant roles with a young Danny Trejo making a brief appearance as a prisoner in a cell. There is just the right amount of humor and there is a consistent and strong internal logic which keeps you involved from beginning to end.

The Hidden is a fantastic overlooked gem. It deserves to be more than a cult classic. It has a great story and a great script and perfect use of practical effects. Watch it!

The Virginian (2014 Video)

Better Than Expected

[5/10 · 22 January 2021]

This movie is one of us numerous adaptions of the book of the same name. There have been multiple film adaptions as well as a long running TV show and even a stage show. The book is considered by many (with some debate) to be the first true Western novel outside of the dime store tradition.

I did a little reading after learning by accident that this film was not just a take a take on the 1962 to 1971 series or even some variation of one of the preceding film adaptions. One thing that jumped out at me here was that this film incorporated the bulk of the book's major characters and at the minimum aimed to get the characterizations close to those of the book from what I can see. I will not comment on specific differences between the source and the film since I had never heard of the book until now.

This version of The Virginian is pretty good. In structure and tone it is very old-school in its approach to the Western genre. This is no revisionist Western film. They do not try to undo the mythology of the Old West or just make everyone involved some shade of terrible. Our hero is an honorable man and those he keeps close are the same even if they fall short of being good people. They, like him, have a code by which they live.

These are good people in a rough setting during difficult times just trying to live. Too often in these days the characters are ridiculously flawed and those flaws contribute to the problem. The hero, flawed themselves, comes along and disrupts the plans of the significantly more flawed baddie. While the Virginian in this film is not a saint, he is not a ridiculous sinner either. And that is a good thing.

Trace Adkins is surprisingly good as the titular character usually referred to in the story as South or the Virginian (and once referred to as "Jeff" by his friend Steve who is played by Canadian actor John Novak). Adkins is a very good Western tough guy and if they were turning out this genre in the manner they once did with the quality that they once did I think he could own the genre. Alas those days are long gone, and everybody wants big budget science fiction and superhero stuff. Adkins is tall and silent and imposing in the film with moments of actual character toughness sprinkled sparingly throughout.

The Virginian's central nemesis (at least that he believes) during the course of the film is a man referred to only as Trampas (Steve Bacic). I first remember encountering Bacic in Andromeda and Stargate SG1 though his performance in SG1 as a fallen Goa'uld System Lord left much more of an impression. He channels the same smarmy jerk vibe here as he did then.

The Virginian begins when a young writer arrives in town. He is a guest of local cattleman Judge Henry (Ron Perlman). The character's name is Owen Walton (Brendan Penny) and that sounds very similar to Owen Wister who is the author of the book upon which this is based. Perhaps an homage to the gentleman? Possibly. Prior to writing the book, the author Owen Wister did head out West to work as a ranch hand to gain firsthand knowledge in much the same way as the Owen Walton character did.

The Owen Walton character is a bit stiff. The delivery of lines by Brendan Penny are a bit flat and monotone. I am not sure if that was the direction he was given or that it is completely because of the actor. The character of Owen Walton is there to be an outside observer and to react so this does not too negatively affect things. He is important to the story but not necessarily front and center.

The character of Judge Henry is no actual judge. He is just a powerful local individual that is able to apply his will to those in the area and often passes judgement on local criminals regardless of what the law says. He is the real power in the region. Judge Henry took in the Virginian when he was young after the death of his father. As the story progresses the Virginian's view of Judge Henry begins to change.

The set up with the romance with the schoolteacher Molly West (Victoria Pratt) is a little awkward. You can almost see the lead up to her arrival as South trying to get a schoolteacher in the town so he has somebody to date. But once you get past that part in the film how it is handled very old school in comparison to newer westerns or just films in general. I had forgotten that Pratt and Adkins are married in real life. That chemistry translates very nicely to their characters.

The Virginian starts out as a simple enough story involving cattle rustlers but becomes a bit of a mystery when South discovers a journal written in a cypher and decides he must figure it out. Along the way he must also confront the code by which he lives and quite possibly need to change all the while romancing the local teacher whom he is drawn to but feels he is not worthy of.

The film is on the lower budget side but still looks pretty good though. The only issue I draw is at the very end when South is confronting Trampas who he has been after for so long and Sheriff Broyles (George Canyon) is shot and falls to the ground. You see tan/yellow surrounded by black on the soles of his shoes. Those are obviously very modern pieces of footwear. And that moment took me out of the narrative. I had to watch the rest of that scene looking for those shoes to pop up again. Other than that not bad.

The Virginian is a good and entertaining film. It is not the greatest Western ever, but it is an entertaining one. Watch it!

Star Trek (2009)

okay

[3/10 · 8 October 2020]

I have problems with this movie. While the 2009 reboot gave Star Trek the big budget it needed to best tell its stories.

Supposedly the point of divergence for the Kelvin Timeline was when Nero showed up and attacked the USS Kelvin. I am cool with that but where is Sam Kirk? It was established in TOS that Captain Kirk (Chris Pine here) had an OLDER brother named George Samuel "Sam" Kirk. He was mentioned once and seen once where he was infamously played by William Shatner wearing a thin mustache. His OLDER brother is never seen or mentioned in this movie or the other two for that matter. Prove me wrong if you can. I know it is a small piece of Star Trek mythology, but it is something that is not hard to discover if you watch the original series. I think the writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman failed to do even the most basic of Google searches and instead relied on casual knowledge of the series.

Families on starships did not start happening until just before the TNG era due to the voyages being longer in that time. That was established during Season 1 of that series. Prior to that families resided off ship though it appeared childless married couples could be together on a ship. A few TOS episodes implied this. I bring this up because Kirk's mom (Jennifer Morrison) is in labor with her second (or not) child in this movie. Obviously she is VERY pregnant yet still hopping around deep space. Unless the timeline changed prior to the film then she should not be there.

Supposedly the goal of an alternate timeline was to open up new story possibilities but have the characters portrayed as they were originally. I am fine with that but several key moments, for example, in Captain Kirk's life are either altered or missing. They were important to the character. One is Finnegan. He was a Starfleet Academy boy that really affected Captain Kirk so much so that in a TOS episode he conjured up a copy of him in order to finally get the better of this nemesis.

Captain Kirk's time aboard the Farragut was also especially formative. That was when he encountered a cloud entity and the inability to stop it originally greatly affected him as his first encounter nearly killed him. These are just off the top of my head.

In this movie even though Pike states Kirk has a genius level intellect, Kirk is portrayed as a drunken idiot or just a dunce. In TOS he was a Starfleet Academy instructor for a time. "In Jim Kirk's class you either sink or swim" or so his friend Gary Mitchell said in "Where No Man Has Gone Before." They took the most superficial aspects when that was not what the character is all about. He was a charming intellectual that had a way with women.

The whole Kobayashi Maru scenario as they showed in the movie was just awful. It just did not feel natural or plausible that Kirk as he was acting could have pulled it off. The character was no even pretending that everything was normal. Conversely when they showed Spock (Zachary Quinto) rejecting joining the Vulcan Science Academy it was a very genuine moment. It felt authentic and not jokey as they did with the Kobayashi Maru. For some reason they took care with the latter and not the former.

Karl Urban gets McCoy right. I know actors generally do not like to emulate a predecessor's performance when taking over a roll, but he made a smart move in doing what amounted to an impression of DeForest Kelley playing Leonard McCoy. It accomplished the goal of the character being portrayed the same in an alternate timeline. I also applaud the writers for inserting a little bit of information about McCoy that was in the series Bible but never made it onto the screen. Bones was divorced. I also find that shocking since they totally missed Kirk's OLDER BROTHER but got the never mentioned divorce of McCoy.

Ben Cross and Wynona Ryder nailed it as Spock's parents. Cross was calm and cool and reserved but not stiff and robotic. He nailed the template as established by Mark Lenard in his portrayal. He portrayed him as more than a fleshy robot. Amanda was a loving mother who was in control of herself enough that she could function. Ryder hit that on the head.

I am old enough to remember the stink it caused when William Shatner paired Scotty and Uhura in Star Trek V. Personally I did not mind it. It did not seem to be illogical in my opinion plus it gave the actors a little more to do with their characters rather than be just background support for Shatner. Also this Star Trek V fling did not feel awkward or forced but the Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and Spock relationship here felt awkward and maybe even a little childish. These adult characters came off as high school kids.

It is clear that a certain portion of the ship scenes were filmed in buildings. That reality smacks you harder than an aluminum bat to the side of your head. You have a multimillion-dollar budget and you need to go location shooting for parts of your spaceship? Where is that budget going? It is fine to go location shooting for the alien planet or for some type of building, but it is idiotic to do so for your spaceships. It detracts from and does not enhance the film. Engineering looked like a water treatment plant but was actually a Budweiser plant in Van Nuys. Really?! Utter idiocy.

One of the things about Star Trek is the ships never had a lot of useless space on them. I know that had to do more with them being sets you had to construct but it also makes sense from a technical aspect. You do not want a lot of useless space on a spaceship. That wastes space in something where space is at a premium and requires energy to be used to provide an environment to something not being used. Engineering or the shuttle bays on the Enterprise or even on Nero's ship there is a lot of useless space.

And why is there water on the floor in Nero's ship? They are just traipsing around in a big puddle at one point. It does not look like any kind of processing area. There is just no logical reason for some of the set design elements other than them going for cool or alien looking over logical.

I know they want to re-design things. Give old stuff a more modern look if you will but maintain the design elements that connect it to that universe. It helps maintain continuity. Nothing has any design similarities to the original series stuff. It does not have to be an exact copy but the Enterprise bridge for example in an oft used descriptive was like an Apple store. I read that design was actually inspired by Abrams love of his new iPhone.

I would say designing similar to what was used in the original Star Trek movies would have been a better option than all the slick and shiny surfaces and massive amounts of white they used here. Those had a visual connection to TOS. This not so much.

With the Enterprise crew joining up they imply via a statement from Spock that all of them coming together on the Enterprise is fate but honestly, it is just coincidence. At least the way it is portrayed in the movie. There is no real implication of fate but some rather lazy writing to get the characters all on one ship. I am being kind initially calling it coincidence.

Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy appearing in an effort to lend this movie some cred with fans) seems super helpful in directing Kirk around...to a point. It feels like he holds back the most important information or help when it works best for the plot rather than what is most consistent for the character's stated purpose. He gives Scotty (Simon Pegg) those equations but fails to be really helpful when it comes to Kirk and his younger self.

Why didn't the Romulan Star Empire evacuate their seat of power? They knew the nova was coming. As of this writing I haven't seen Picard so I don't know if there's an explanation offered up there but it seems logical that even the militaristic and authoritarian Romulan Star Empire would see fit to begin evacuation of the population of their home planet knowing disaster was coming. A nova is not a surprise and there is generally plenty of warning from a star. With their advanced science they would have an even greater warning.

Say the Romulans were extremely stupid for some reason and did not evacuate their people because they thought they or Spock could stop the nova from reaching their planet. That still does not explain why Nero after coming back in the past decides to linger around space for 25 years waiting for Spock. Or that after showing up and realizing when he was did not make a beeline for Romulus. His spaceship is one big piece of evidence of anything he might say. Trying to find Spock and then decimating the Federation seems silly.

The story is...okay. It is just not a great story. And that is one problem. Another is there really is not too much to the story when you get down to it. Most of the movie is just retold origin elements. Some of it is nice to see. Some of it makes me cringe that they showed it how they did. The characterizations are close but not quite right more often than not.

Star Trek stories are to be about more than what can be gleaned from the surface. This should have been more than an origin story. What bigger things does this story touch on and explore? Nothing. It is all origin and spectacle with little substance.

Star Trek (2009) was a barely adequate start, but they could have done it so much better. Instead they give us this shallow piece of material that feels like fanfiction. I am glad Star Trek finally got a good budget again, but it should have had a worthy story. The movie has plenty of spectacle but not much substance. It is an okay watch but not a must see in any sense.

Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)

A genuinely hilarious family friendly Halloween comedy

[10/10 · 7 October 2020]

This film has an undeniable charm due in large part because it embraces the silliness of it all and just has fun with the idea of a vegetable chomping were-rabbit. The story follows most of the beats of your standard werewolf film. Wallace is ignorant of what is going on much like other werewolves with Gromit being the one that pieces things together. even the reference of a specific type of bullet (here one made of 24 carat gold-pun intended) must be used to kill the creature. Much like Universal's Wolfman there is even a love triangle occurring.

Aside from Wallace and Gromit we get Lord Victor Quartermaine (voiced by Ralph Fiennes) who is courting Lady Campanula Tottington (voiced by Helena Bonham Carter) and sees Wallace as a romantic rival-which he is. Her nickname is Totty which is supposedly a British term for an attractive woman. One of many of the silly jokes throughout this film.

The film is filled with over the top small-town British characters. Police Constable Albert Mackintosh or "PC" Mackintosh (voiced by Peter Kay) is the default vegetable festival judge and local policeman. Reverend Clement Hedges (voiced by Nicholas Smith) is the foolish local who first sees the were-rabbit. Dicken Ashworth and Liz Smith are Mr. and Mrs. Mulch who are clients of Wallace and Gromit and contestants at the festival. Mr. Growbag (voiced by Edward Kelsey) lives in their neighborhood. Miss Thripp (voiced by Geraldine McEwan) is one of their vegetable obsessed customers.

Wallace is an inventor and the machinery he creates is very fanciful. The devices take on a Rube Goldberg quality in this movie and that includes the suction device used to catch the rabbits.

There are plenty of visual puns and just generally idiotic jokes that you will laugh at. They keep the humor stupid and that is the film fun. The parody the classic British Hammer Films and other horror films as well as just going for the silly like using cartoon logic in the festival climax when Gromit and Victor's dog Philip are fighting one a plane from a children's ride. When the time is up the plane stops and they must find some spare change before continuing on with the fight. The planes themselves provide a reference to the classic King Kong and the 80s hit Top Gun.

One of the better jokes in the movie is where Gromit is sitting in the van waiting for Wallace and he briefly turns on the radio and the song "Bright Eyes" from the classic Watership Down is playing. It is a dark movie about rabbits. I just thought the bit was a quite funny nod to a classic British animated feature.

This is probably one of the funniest 100% family friendly movies that I have ever seen. And it is a Halloween movie to boot. Yet there is nothing dark or sinister about the story. It is actually very lighthearted and fun. There are no forces of darkness afoot. The closest we get is a bit of "harmless brain alteration" that goes comically haywire. In that sense it fits in with horror films where there are unintended consequences of the science.

This film, along with the preceding Aardman release Chicken Run, are two highest stop motion animated films of all time. Not that there are many.

Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit will please the entire family. Adults and children will have plenty to enjoy here. This is a must-see Halloween feature.

Christmas Vacation (1989)

A Christmas Comedy Classic

[10/10 · 7 October 2020]

Clark "Sparky" Griswold is quite possibly the role that Chevy Chase was born to play. Clark is Chase's signature role with Fletch maybe being his second best remembered. While he was Pierce Hawthorne on Community for four years, the former two are what come to mind first with his character repertoire. Heck, they even overshadow his career making stint on SNL.

No one could have been a better Clark Griswold than him. He can go from affable suburban dad to wistful daydreamer about a fantasy life with a woman out of his league to a father pushed to insanity in an instant. Clark is a well-meaning father who at times daydreams but in the end loves his wife and kids and just wants to give them either what he had or what he feels he did not quite get when he was younger. While the outcomes may be disastrous, Clark's heart is always in the right place.

A significant part of the staying power of this film is that many families have had that one crappy Christmas. There is almost always one that stands out because it did not go just right. They are going to visit relatives and things just have not worked out as well as planned. Or relatives come to them and nothing goes their way no matter how careful the planning. That is what happens in this movie, but it is taken to a hilarious extent. This is that rough Christmas amplified.

Despite all the craziness and all the insanity, the film at its core is sweet. It is about the season and the quirky dynamics each family has that may seem unusual to an outsider but are perfectly normal. This is exemplified in the moment when Clark gets stuck in the attic and he is reminiscing. It is a touching moment in a very outlandish comedy. Family moments get a comedic twist throughout.

There are just so many classic scenes in this movie. Aside from getting trapped in the attic, there's Cousin Eddie (Randy Quaid) shooting down Santa Claus. There is Cousin Eddie kidnapping Clark's boss Frank Shirley (Brian Doyle-Murray). There are the Christmas lights that Clark meticulously hangs causing a blackout. Clark and the family getting the tree at the beginning of the film. The squirrel that tagged along with the tree. That poor, poor cat. And it is all side splittingly funny. They even reference the original film with the Walley cups. Among the best and most comical is the sled scene when Clark uses the experimental lubricant. Anyone that has shot down a hill uncontrolled on a sled can relate to that scene.

The Griswold children get recast as they often do. Juliette Lewis takes over as Audrey Griswold who was previously played by Dana Barron who took over for Dana Hill. Johnny Galecki takes over as Russ Griswold who was originally played by Anthony Michael Hall with Jason Lively taking over for him. Most times the kids age from film to film but not here. Could you consider these kids never aging a running gag?

We meet some additional Griswold family members. All great actors that you know from at least one other thing. John Randolph plays Clark's father Clark Griswold, Sr. Prolific actress Diane Ladd plays Clark's mom Nora. William Hickey is one of those distinctive looking character acters with an equally distinctive voice. Here he is Clark's Uncle Lewis. Mae Questel, the voice of Betty Boop and Olive Oyl, plays Clark's hilariously senile Aunt Bethany. The legendary E.G. Marshall is Ellen's (Beverly D'Angelo) father Art. And finally, Doris Roberts appears as Ellen's mom Frances.

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation was written by John Hughes who based it on his short story "Christmas '59" that appeared in the National Lampoon magazine from which this movie gets part of its title. Despite feeling that this was only a vehicle for Chase, Hughes created an enduring classic that manages to be festive, have some heart, and is genuinely hilarious. Not an easy thing to accomplish under such circumstances. Factor in a change of directors from Chris Columbus to Jeremiah Chechik, it is impressive this has staying power. Those two behind the scenes things tend to make a mediocre movie at best.

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is a classic Christmas disaster comedy. It is funny and well written with great characters and tons of classic moments. It is an absolute Christmas classic.

Coraline (2009)

An amazing animated film that is not for young children

[10/10 · 6 October 2020]

Coraline Jones (voiced by Dakota Fanning) is an adventurous young girl who is absolutely miserable in her new town. Her parents, Mel (voiced by Teri Hatcher) and Charlie (voiced by John Hodgman), are more wrapped up in their gardening catalogue than they are in how their daughter is doing which makes her susceptible to Other Mother (also voiced by Teri Hatcher).

The story is populated with quirky characters. April (voiced by Jennifer Saunders) and Miriam (voiced by Dawn French) are two former burlesque performers. Wybie (voiced by Robert Bailey Jr.) is the grandson of the building's owner who has a connection to the goings on there. Mr. Bobinsky (voiced by Ian McShane) is training circus mice that apparently talk to him. These actors also voiced their counterparts in the Other World.

I do wish the rivalry between Other Mother and The Cat (voiced by Keith David), a nameless neighborhood feline that is a persistent thorn for Other Mother, was played up a bit more. I am unfamiliar with the Neil Gaiman book upon which is this is based so I do not know if there was more there than here but it just kind of was a thing in the film. I do not need an entire backstory. Just enough to give me direction. Does not hurt things. I just feel it would have been interesting.

This is definitely one of the weirdest and creepiest animated films I have ever seen. Laika knocked it out of the park with their first feature. The film is a dark fantasy with its main setting being an old mansion that has been divided into smaller apartments. The film barely ventures beyond the building's grounds and yet still creates a rich and intricate world. There is just so much detail.

The detail is intense for an animated feature. For example, Mr. Bobinsky is wearing a Russian Hero Medal for Service at the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster. This medal is unique as it is the only medal in the world awarded for participating in a nuclear clean up. In a nod to themselves a bit and in their quest for detail, Laika had references such as the Oregon Shakespeare Festival noted in the background. I have read that "trolls" is slang for friends in Michigan where Coraline is from and she uses that in Other World when looking at a picture of her friends. That is serious detail.

The story is strong and there is a dark atmosphere throughout the film. This is definitely not a movie you pop in for the kids and forget about. I am not saying it is going to traumatize them or anything but if they are very young you might be giving them a nightmare or two. The imagery is intense and mildly disturbing. The pacing is slower and much less frenetic than in standard animation. There is no chaotic finale though the ending is exciting.

And that is why I love it. It is a more mature animated feature than what we normally get and it is done in stop motion form. It is an adult film.

The core of the story is the grass is not always greener. Coraline is presented with the life she wants. In the Other World, Coraline gets the type of mother she wants, the type of father she wants, and the type of neighbor she wants but it is not as good as she thinks it will be. And that is not just because it is an illusion created by a dark creature. She realizes the imperfections and shortcomings are what make her life special and good. She understands by the end that as imperfect as it was, it was just what she needed and wanted.

In a day and age where people are pushing for strong female characters, Coraline is one. She is intelligent and independent and a bit fearless though her fearlessness is what causes her problems. She alone though is the one that defeats Other Mother and saves her parents and frees the spirits of Other Mother's previous victims. The only point they fall short is when Wybie, who is not in the book, is important to the resolution at the well when in the book Coraline accomplished it all on her own.

The inclusion of Wybie was one of a handful of additions to the story in order to stretch it out into a feature film. Selick felt he could only get about 47 minutes if he was 100% faithful to the book and with the permission of author Neil Gaiman, he made some changes which mercifully are unnoticeable. Often additions are noticeable even if you are not aware of what they are as they slow the narrative.

Coraline is an amazing animated feature. It is enjoyable by both children and adults though if you have very young children be there for them the first time you let them see it. Regardless of your age, you will not be disappointed in this.

West of Hell (2018)

This is bad

[1/10 · 6 October 2020]

I went in to this film with high hopes given the names I recognized. Tony Todd and Lance Henriksen are two fine actors in general and two great genre actors in particular but even they could not save this meandering, disjointed mess. Having watched the film and read a little about it before writing this, I am still not sure of the plot or much involving the characters.

Jericho Whitfield (Tony Todd) is all about killing Roland Bursley (Michael Eklund) and Annie Hargraves (Jennifer Laporte) in the beginning then abruptly decides they should team up and investigate whatever weirdness is going on with the train even though the only thing we've heard are sounds that could be voices coming from a mysterious piece of luggage that is never really connected to events. I get how Jericho knows Annie but the connection between Jericho and Bursley is fuzzy at best. I am not sure if Bursley was after Jericho and using Annie as bait or vice versa or Yousef Abu-Taleb (story), Gabi Chennisi Duncombe (co-writer), Bubba Fish (really?) (co-writer), and Michael Steves are just bad at their job.

When the weirdness starts happening Jericho seems very accepting of it as if he were expecting it even though he was not there for the weirdness. He was there to kill Hargraves (primarily) and Bursley (secondarily-I think). And Bursley acts as if he was expecting it all too even though he was just hired to escort Annie back to her father. Or was this a trap for Jericho as well? Or is their meeting a coincidence but he was hoping to see him?

Lance Henriksen is in this movie as the Devil. I guess. He just kind of shows up abruptly talking to Tony Todd. For the most part he is not even a factor in the film. It is a shame because Henriksen, much like Todd and Eklund, is a fine actor that could have added menace to the film just by being in more scenes. The man has a sinister and foreboding delivery (even though he is fully capable of coming off much more jovial) and could have given this film more creep.

Grace McDowell (Jill Hoilles), Desdemona Lark (Jeryl Prescott), and Father Locke (Yousef Abu-Taleb) make out the rest of the significant cast but I will be a monkey's uncle if I can tell you much about the characters. They just were there to get gruesome ends. That is standard in low budget horror, but we got little explanation of them in any capacity until their demise.

I was left with the distinct that Todd and Henriksen took their roles to get a paycheck. Not that all involved did not try but Eklund was the one most involved in his material. Todd and Henriksen were just phoning it in. I cannot blame them though. We all need to eat, and this was not a very good script.

There are jumps in the narrative as well as in the scenes. There is no explanation or demonstration for example of the demon (?) getting tied up in the contraption with the chairs. Then they are all just in hell. I guess it is an attempt by the creators to join the audience that lasted that long watching this travesty. They just know they are in hell but there is a little explanation as to how they came to that conclusion. There is an ominous voice that talks but it is hard to understand. Maybe it mentioned they were in Hell but given the script I have my doubts.

Then the story becomes some kind of weird challenge with a demon before the Devil just shows up. I am not even sure exactly what the whole plotline of this movie is. It just kind of meanders around. The movie lacks cohesion or a discernable story flow. It is just a bunch of random things lumped together that someone thought should work but they really do not.

I am especially confused by Annie's desire to become a bounty hunter for Satan. She wishes to escape eternal torment but exactly how did she decide that being the Devil's bounty hunter was an option? Other than Bursley without real explanation offering himself if she went free, what was her motivation. And after saying he was only doing it for the money and he would not do anything to save her, why did Bursley decide to turn himself over to Satan?

Sometimes a script gets changed during production. It happens. Either a scene is not working, or something/someone abruptly becomes unavailable or a director inexplicably just changes things. Option three looks to be what happened here. Maybe he had an idea of where it was going but clearly had no idea of how to get there. Steves had his money and was going to spend it whether he made a passable film or not.

The production budget is bargain basement. I am not a budget snob. Low or high, I have watched good and bad ones at both ends of the spectrum. Money and quality are not linked but given a weak script a better budget would have been a good idea given the end product. The director did not know what to cut. A better director could have mined a good story from what was here.

I am not sure why they did not bother to rent out a train car or two at night at some historical railroad. Looks like they did it for the engine. Most countries have at least one. Instead they used sets that were obviously meant to be a house before they got re-purposed. Watch when they open a door. They talk about going to another car, but it is obviously the next room.

I picked this movie up at my local Dollar Tree. I knew nothing about it. I figured it was a win-win for a dollar. If I liked it then I got a bargain. If I hated it then I only spent a dollar. It was a confusing and unfocused 90 minutes I will never have back along with that dollar.

West of Hell has a lot of good elements that ultimately do nothing. And not because they are not used well but rather they are used in a poor and unfocused script. I had some adequate expectations for this film given the cast and what I could read from the case of it but it failed to deliver.

Star Trek: Discovery (2017–2024)

It looks cool but that is not enough

[1/10 · 5 October 2020]

This show is good looking television but bad Star Trek. It has impressive visuals but shallow stories. It is about nothing. No exploration of the human condition or issues of the day.

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (1980 TV Movie)

A Fun TV Adaption

[6/10 · 1 October 2020]

When I was little this for me was the definitive version of the story. It did not matter I never actually read it until I was in my teens. This was Halloween appointment television for me. By the time I remember encountering this I was familiar with Jeff Goldblum's turn in Invasion of the Body Snatchers and I love that movie so catching him in this was a real treat for me. I think this cemented my fandom of Jeff Goldblum.

And who better to play the character of Ichabod Crane other than Jeff Goldblum. Goldblum fits the literary description of Crane perfectly. He is tall, thin, and lanky just like the character is described. When it comes to Goldblum, it is clear by this movie that he had his acting technique down pat. Every nervous tick and stutter and inflection that he is famous for was on full display here.

In the book Ichabod was a believer in the supernatural as well as seeking a bride to better his station in life. Here he is a fervent doubter who eventually becomes convinced who is good guy just trying to make his way in the world. This is one of several differences between this TV movie and the source. As a child I was unaware of this but now that I am, I can forgive it. I just cannot see Goldblum pulling off being a believer in this role.

Meg Foster was cast as the object of Ichabod's love, the young Katrina Van Tassel. That woman has some of the most fascinating eyes I have ever seen. She is a deep voiced actress with very pale blue eyes. She turns in a fine performance as she often does. In the book Katrina is supposed to be 18 and I believe at this point Foster was in her early 30s.

Aside from the performances of Goldblum and Foster, the acting is pretty mediocre. Dick Butkus, while entertaining, was no great actor here. He was a well-known name, so I am assuming that is why he got cast. I will say though that further down the road his acting did improve. By the time Blue Thunder rolled around, which was not too far from this, he was much better than he is here. There was no emotion or inflection in his delivery. He sounded like a dad reading to his kids a story he hated.

We have an original character in the form of widow Thelma Dumkey (Laura Campbell). Her inclusion gives what can best be described as a romcom subplot to the film as she plots with Katrina. Katrina wants Ichabod while Thelma wants Brom. Why I am not sure. It just is. Brom is no catch here.

At times the film bordered on camp. In particular the actor playing the previous schoolmaster Winthrop Palmer (Michael Ruud) was just goofy in his performance. He was quite the ham here and not in the good John Colicos way. It was in a cringy, bad community theater by someone who does not realize it is just community theater way. Palmer is supposed to be crazy by the time of the film, but it just does not work.

The script though was better than expected. Even when I am unaware of changes to the source material, I tend to react poorly when it is done. It rarely works on any level. I never reacted like that. The changes fit in with the narrative and did not cause any significant deviations or halt the film's flow. Ichabod remaining in Sleepy Hollow and getting a happily ever after with Katrina worked largely because this change was not abrupt but rather the groundwork had been laid for it from the beginning.

I do not know if it is because of when this TV movie was made or what but during the day it is really bright in this movie and at night it's very poorly lit. It is the difference between 20/20 vision and Helen Keller at times. When filming, there is dark because it is night and dark to set a mood at night and dark because the budget limited the number of lights. I think the issue was the third item.

I do give them that the costumes looked good here. Not great but better than cheap costume shop items. My issue was that they were so dark in color that at night the characters tended to disappear into the blackness. It made the already difficult task of visually following the action that much harder.

The Legend of sleepy Hollow was a childhood favorite of mine that has not aged too badly. While it tries nothing new or inventive, it is a good piece of comfort food to watch. It is available in its entirety on YouTube.

A Christmas Carol (2009)

A Mature Animated Take

[7/10 · 1 October 2020]

Jim Carrey pulls an Eddie Murphy and aside from Scrooge he also voices the Ghost of Christmas Past who is depicted as a man with a flickering flame for a head and a candle body (Lumière?), the Ghost of Christmas Present who is shown as a tall man with red hair, a beard, and a green robe, and he had a hand in portraying the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come who looks like the Grim Reaper and occasionally chases Scrooge in a horse drawn carriage.

The rest of the voice cast is pretty good. They are all strong actors. The amazing Gary Oldman is Bob Cratchit as well as the ghost of Scrooge's former partner Jacob Marley, Colin Firth is Scrooge's nephew Fred, Bob Hoskins gives life to Mr. Fezziwig as well as a fence named Old Joe, and Robin Wright Penn is Scrooge's sister Fan and as well as Scrooge's fiancée Belle. Cary Elwes has a handful of parts and also was a stand in when necessary since this film was created in part using motion capture technology.

One thing I never understood is why do studios stuff animated films with so many name actors? Does that really draw in audiences? You are not actually seeing so and so in the part. You are just hearing them. And the character could have been modeled physically on anybody. Just cast competent voice actors. I think Peter Cullen or Frank Welker for example could do just as good if not better than some name actors that get hired for these films. Just a thought.

Once again, I must state that I have a consistent issue with CGI films as stated in other posts. My issue is that as the technology advances, the film itself usually does not continue to look as good as when it came out. Hand drawn animation has staying power that something done on a computer just does not. It is art while CGI is a special effect. So far so good on this one. The film is beautiful. It is a rich film that has a clear style rather than just a "look."

We have an immersive, detailed environment that could only be accomplished in CGI and not in hand drawn animation. This was the right way to go here. They do go a bit heavy in establishing the season though. I think they should have pulled back a little on the decorations and snow in the background because I cannot imagine anybody has that kind of decorating budget nor is there that much snow consistently on the ground.

The script is solid and aside from one extended scene that exists more to demonstrate the cool visuals you can do with CGI, we have a story fairly faithful to the original book. It is mostly drawn from the book, especially the dialogue, with some padding to certain moments to justify the story as a feature length film. Zemeckis did not try to put his own spin on anything here. The film can be darker at times than other versions, but this only occurs where appropriate. The story is not all lollipops and gumdrops. It is about a man being saved and that can go to darker places. While it is an animated film, it is more intense than most and definitely significantly more than traditional Disney material.

This is a story of redemption after all and they keep that front and center. Scrooge has lost his was as a human being and these spirits have come to guide him back. If Jim Carrey had been, well, Jim Carrey then the themes and message at the heart of the story would have been lost. He was very subdued and serious here. He turned in a performance rather than a caricature. It is clear he worked hard to get not only accents but performances right.

The performances are treated more like you would find in a dramatic live action presentation than in animated material. The characters are expressive in a natural way. The shots are framed for impact and dramatic effect. Robert Zemeckis treated this like a live action film and thus created something wonderful.

This version of the classic tale is visually strong and strong in script. Disney's A Christmas Carol is a fantastic addition to the Christmas Carol catalogue. It is a definite crowd-pleaser that could easily become a holiday favorite for you. Find it and watch it.

The Family Man (2000)

Who knew Brett Ratner could do a good Christmas movie?

[9/10 · 28 September 2020]

The Family Man is a very sweet Christmas movie that wallows in its sentimentality. It does not try to be ironic or downbeat on family or the season. I liken this film to a reverse version of It's A Wonderful Life. Rather than being taken from a good family life to see the world without him, Jack (Nicholas Cage) is put into a good family life to see what life could have been like. This movie does not talk down family or talk down suburban life. It does not take knocks at the family or at a middle-class existence which is what Jack would have had if he stuck it out with Kate. No luxury condo or fast car. Just a middleclass house and a van of questionable integrity.

Nicolas Cage stars as Jack Campbell who rather than staying with his girlfriend in the United States and building a life with her took an internship in London and became a lonely and wealthy financier. Why you would choose London over Téa Leoni (Kate), I have no idea. This was not a decision made for all the wrong reasons on the part of Jack even though it did turn out to be the wrong decision. They just grew apart even though heartfelt promises that they intended to keep were made.

What I like most though is that neither of the main characters is really a terrible person. They are just not living the happiest life they could. Kate is doing well as a woman that has chosen to focus on career over personal things. Jack too has taken a professional focus route but there is something missing in their lives and it is obviously each other.

This glimpse into what could have been is provided by a being named Cash (Don Cheadle). Whether or not he is an angel or something else is never quite made clear. He starts out as a man trying to cash (see what they did there) a lottery ticket that the store owner claims it is a forgery. Even though we should believe Cheadle initially as a thug, I just cannot. He does not look threatening or even shady. He feels like a good-natured conman. But once he becomes this film's Clarence Goodbody the character and the actor work much better.

As I said this is the reverse of It's A Wonderful. Jack is not taken from a family life during his time of crisis but thrust into one when things are pretty good. And by the end of it all he realizes that is a wonderful life. He may not be rich and powerful and an in charge hot shot, but it is still good. But this is just a glimpse and as such Jack cannot stay.

This is a rare style of performance for Nicolas Cage. In comparison to most of what he is known for, he is very subdued. He is not manic or crazy or weird. At the beginning he is just upset because he is in a situation he did not really ask for and he is a little upset, but he is not odd in anyway. He is playing it very straight.

I enjoyed Téa Leoni's performance in this movie. Both versions. She pulled off being a family focused mother as well as being a career driven corporate lawyer. She worked well with Cage in what was possibly his first "dad" role.

The supporting cast is great. Makenzie Vega as Jack's young daughter Annie steals most of the scenes she is in. She is the film's resident cute and while able to see this is not her father assumes he is an alien. Jeremy Piven is very Jeremy Piven-ish as Jack's friend and neighbor Arnie. Saul Rubinek shows up as Alan Mintz. I just love when I catch Rubinek in something. Do not know why though it stretches all the way back to his appearance as the collector Kivas Fajo in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Most Toys". I thought the character was just great and his performance was superb. Harve Presnell is Jack's father-in-law Ed Reynolds. Presnell was just one of those great actors that did so much and was a regular treat.

Brett Ratner is not a name that would spring forth if I were hiring a director for a family friendly Christmas film, but he does a good job here. He gives it a saccharine tone but not so saccharine that you will get diabetes. He created comfort food and that is usually what you are after at Christmas.

Eventually Jack does have to go back, and you really want him to stay. You are hoping that there is some loophole where the character can stay in the family world, but it is basically a fantasy to show him what could have been. And the ending of the film is not a definitive happy ending that points towards him getting what was in the fantasy, but it does put him potentially on that road and that is good enough for me. Not every ending needs to be definitive. Ambiguity is fine just as long as what information you do have allows for a conclusion.

The Family Man is a really sweet Christmas film and you should see it. It is sentimental and sweet and will warm your heart. Though a bit predictable it is an entertaining Christmas movie that should become regular holiday viewing.

A Christmas Carol (1984 TV Movie)

Quite Possibly The Best Adaption of The Story Ever

[10/10 · 28 September 2020]

This is quite possibly my favorite live action version of the Charles Dickens classic. George C. Scott is simply amazing as Ebenezer Scrooge. Scott was an amazing actor who knew just how much of what to give for each scene. Scrooge is not comically greedy in Scott's portrayal but rather a jaded individual that has chosen the reliability and safety of material possessions over people.

Scott is not British, but I first saw this movie on CBS when I was a young child and did not know too much about him other than he was in Patton. He did the accent well enough that I was convinced he could be. That is kind of important actually in my opinion. A British accent much like a genuine Southern accent or any accent really is difficult to fake and if you try too hard or have never been exposed to a particular accent, mimicking one can be difficult if not impossible without sounding like a parody.

We have a fantastic supporting cast as well. Among them is Edward Woodward who was cast as the Ghost of Christmas Present. The man was an amazing actor. Present was a boisterous a**hole here that you found charming. Noted actor David Warner appears as Bob Cratchit. The legendary Susannah York is Mrs. Cratchit. And Roger Rees is Scrooge's nephew Fred Hollywell as well as serving as the film's narrator. That right there is a good group who were supported by a fine group of actors in the other roles. A fun fact is that in this film is British character actor Derek Francis, who here played Pemberton, also appeared in Ronald Neame's 1970 musical adaption "Scrooge" starring Albert Finney as Scrooge. There he played a Gentleman of Charity.

And the acting was just fantastic. Not overly saccharine and not campy at points. They took this as a serious drama. You even felt bad for Tiny Tim which I find astounding. Call me heartless but normally I do not feel bad for Tiny Tim. I actually find him a little annoying. He's a sickly child designed to make Cratchit's life more tragic and to pull at your heartstrings and the trope has been duplicated so much since this book came out in order to generate pity for a particular family in a story that I just can't take it but here they make it work. They made the character sympathetic and not a cheap ploy.

We have a good script that remains largely faithful to the source. What changes there are appear minor to the best of my memory when it comes to the book. Most importantly they retain the tone of the story and try not to put their own spin on it. If the material is not good enough to be faithful to in your opinion, then why are you filming it? Creators that "reimagine" material need to ask that.

The movie is beautifully filmed. The movie looks stunning throughout and, for lack of a better way of putting it, it looks like Christmas. It might be a little silly to say but it has a visual Christmas feel without hitting you over the head consistently. There are not decorations throughout to the point of looking as if Martha Stewart vomited Christmas all over the place. There is just enough to set the mood and that combined with the music set the season. Based on its overall quality one would think this was a theatrical release, but it was presented on television only in the U.S. with a theatrical release in Great Britain.

The visitation by Jacob Marley (Frank Finlay) borders on horror in its presentation and that is when this particular scene from the book when done on film works the best. Scrooge is frightened and by extension you should be a little frightened as well or at the minimum a little uncomfortable. And much of the dialogue in the scene here is taken from the book.

The three visitations are very dramatic, and you can watch as Scrooge realizes what changed him and where he's going wrong and at first he doesn't even want to believe it. But the moments with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come (Michael Carter) are perhaps my favorite. That thing is still frightening to me to this day. It has that out of tune screech whenever it does something and those creepy kids underneath the cloak. More importantly the ending depicted for Scrooge is pathetic. He dies unloved and alone and his indignity is made worse because he is robbed by his housekeeper.

When I first saw this adaption, we had just read the book in my English literature class in school and in my opinion, this is one of the most faithful adoptions I have ever seen. They make a few changes and add a scene or two but nothing overly significant. You can follow along with the book with little problem. I think this is more accurate than the Albert Finney musical that my teacher a year or two later touted as the best.

This version of A Christmas Carol is an amazing film bolstered by great performances and a strong script along with fantastic direction. In my opinion it is one of the more faithful adoptions and one which can help elevate your holiday spirit. Check it out.

Alien: Resurrection (1997)

Declawed Alien Menace

[8/10 · 23 September 2020]

I think they should have left Ripley dead. I am not sure with who or how they would have replaced her but once a character falls into a vat of molten metal it is time to call it a day. You destroyed the body and it is obvious the actor had no interest in returning at that point. But we get Ripley back in the form of a clone. It is not a bad idea as resurrections go but the problem is Ripley more or less remembers everything that happened before because of genetic memory because her DNA is merged with the alien DNA. That whole bit struck me as lazy writing in an illogical expansion of the mythology that allowed for a fully functional adult character. The xenomorph having genetic memory makes sense (these are an organism we know nothing about) but getting bits of human memory encoded there too seems a bit nonsensical. I get the Alien taking on certain characteristics of the gestational host, but this seems like a bit much.

Having said that Alien Resurrection is not a bad monster killing movie. Once again the horror elements are missing. I gave up hope of ever seeing another horror-oriented Alien movie by this point and I still have given that up. Disney has never produced anything frightening and though future films would not be produced directly under House of Mouse, I do not see them doing anything like the '79 film.

Alien Resurrection is also not as polished as any of its predecessors. The 90s were a low point in the visuals of science fiction film. This was just before the Star Wars prequels breathed new life into special effects. The original Star Wars films were game changers for science fiction. After they came out companies were willing to invest more money in the genre but more importantly they were wanting to do genre movies that looked better than they had before. There were one or two that came before it that were good looking, but they never sparked interest in studios to do anything that good looking on a regular basis. But as studios turned out more science-fiction films that never caught fire they started to pull back and at this point studios were not putting effort into effects. Just my theory.

But it is not a bad movie. In style it is a bit closer to a direct to video release of the era than it is a feature film, but it is still entertaining as a monster hunting actioner. The Aliens are a bit more creative than they were before and appear to be a bit more adaptive. The underwater alien is pretty cool and helps produce intense moments.

My long-term celebrity crush Winona Ryder shows up here as Call. Reportedly she took the role to not do another movie in a corset. She is probably the most talented of the bunch right behind Weaver. I enjoyed her performance here though I think the exposition when the truth about her character was revealed felt a little clunky and perhaps a bit lengthy.

We have Dan Hedaya as General Martin Perez an incompetent general conducting what are implied to be illegal experiments. I am not sure you can really go wrong with Dan Hedaya. He is just one of those consistently entertaining types. He even helps improve stuff he appears in. I think he was one of the more important reasons besides Schwarzenegger that the movie Commando worked but I am getting off track here.

Ripley is brought back as stated before through cloning. She is some kind of hybrid with traces of xenomorph DNA in her. She has acidic blood and black fingernails and is much colder with only fragmented memories. I think she should have just stepped away and the producers should have gone with a new character. One of the pluses with Ellen Ripley was that she was a working stiff going up against a system that cared nothing for her survival. More importantly she was merely human. Here she became superpowered. I think that changed lowered the stakes of the scenario. She was now on a better footing than she was before with her nemesis.

In my opinion this movie is notable for being one of the few Alien films where a significant chunk of the cast survives. How often does anybody survive these movies beyond three people. If you are lucky you might get an android to go with them. The xenomorphs were hyper efficient killing machines that required everything the characters had in order to be stopped. Sure they took out the nameless staff of the USM Auriga but beyond that the main cast was largely untouched in comparison to the three previous films. This made them less threatening as people should have been dropping left and right. Basically the idea is throwing a steak at a pursuing dog with the steaks being characters not intended to survive. These dogs really did not need steaks. They were easier to beat as indicated by a lower body count. Joss Whedon significantly declawed them in his script.

The story in Alien Resurrection is definitely more action oriented with the horror elements all but forgotten. Frights have been replaced with gore and bullets. If anything, there is more weird than there is fright. From Dan Hedaya's death to the birth of the new type of Alien to that moment where the Ripley clone is getting tender with the hybrid there is plenty of weird. And who can forget when they walk into the room filled with failed Ripley clones. That was a WTF moment if there ever was one.

The story is not bad. They manage to generate some tension and a nice level of excitement and it is an engaging addition to the Alien franchise even if they make the threat less deadly. Alien Resurrection is a good film but unfortunately it was the end of the original iteration of Alien. Rather than continue the story, 20th Century Fox decided to create the mediocre Alien versus Predator followed by the abysmal Alien versus Predator Requiem. At some point I will get into those.

Alien Resurrection is an enjoyable science-fiction action romp. It is nothing too deep and can be a little pretentious at times when the characters expound but it is entertaining. While you do not necessarily have to watch it, it's worth watching. You will enjoy it.

Dumplin' (2018)

A great adaption of the young adult novel

[8/10 · 23 September 2020]

Jennifer Aniston was convincing as single mother Rosie Dickson who is still stuck in the accomplishments of her past. Whether intentional or not Rosie's daughter is left with the impression that in her mother's eyes she does not quite measure up. I was left with the impression though that from the perspective of Aniston's character she was just trying to protect her daughter but that was not what the daughter was understanding. She assumed her mother was ashamed when she was just wrapped up in her world and maybe at times emotionally neglectful.

The dynamic between the Will and Rosie felt real. Too often I will see an actress up on screen and she will have the obligatory child in the story but her moments with the child do not feel real. It is as if the actress has no idea how to connect with this young actor in front of them. I am thinking specifically of Ashley Judd in Double Jeopardy here. It is a good movie that falls apart when Judd must interact with the actor playing her child. She looked uncomfortable. Aniston came off as natural and quite comfortable. I give her credit for that.

Danielle Macdonald does an amazing job. She gets you to invest in the character. I felt bad for Will as she was struggling with self-image problems and her relationship with Rosie that both had been avoiding dealing with while her aunt who recently passed was alive. The aunt was a surrogate mother to Willowdean and now that she didn't have that relationship to hide in she had to actually deal with the problems in their relationship.

One perpetual thorn is that all of Will's friends call her "Will" with only her mother using "Dumplin'." I can empathize with this as I had a childhood nickname that my parents used in front of everyone wherever we went, and it was always quite embarrassing. Macdonald's reaction as the character was authentic. Will also deals with feelings of inadequacy when it comes to workplace hunk Bo (Luke Benward) who is clearly interested in her but she cannot understand why.

Willowdean and Rosie must also confront their feelings over the loss of Rosie's sister. She was the glue that apparently held everything together and her loss is exposing old wounds. This movie does a good job at exploring the void that the death of a loved one can create in a family.

This is all set to an obsession Will and her late aunt had with the singer Dolly Parton which is shared to an extent by Will's best friend. It is a sweet and quirky little connection that is played very effectively and provides for a great soundtrack but then you really cannot go wrong with Dolly. Fitting in with the Dolly theme in this movie is a drag biker bar that was an important part of the life of Will's Aunt Lucy (Hilliary Begley).

The movie is about the assorted characters coming into their own. They are either being who they truly are or coming to terms with emotional baggage. Will is finally confronting apparent resentment she never realized she felt towards her best friend Elle (Odeya Rush). Meek Millie Mitchellchuck (Maddie Baillio) is inspired by Will to finally pursue her dream she had since she was eight years old and enter the pageant despite feeling that her weight was a hindrance as well as stand up to her overprotective mother (Kathy Najimy). Hannah Perez (Bex Taylor-Klaus) gets to just be herself in front of the world. I felt her part was the least developed. Too often she was just the sarcastic friend.

Dumplin' is done in such a touching way here. Normally these types of films can get overly saccharine or overly downbeat but neither happens here. You feel the character highs and lows, but it is never downbeat nor is the film a knock-on parents or families or institutions. It is merely the story of a young woman and those around her and the growth they go through during a certain period.

The best part is they do not go for the obvious ending. Too often it is eyerolling and totally unrealistic. Dumplin' does not win the pageant, but she is still victorious in her own way by bridging the divide with her mother and finally willing to believe it can work with Bo along with making amends with Elle.

There is a word that got tossed around quite a lot a few years back, but I have not heard it used too much recently. It is dramedy. That is what this movie is. It is a drama with plenty of comedic elements. It is serious but the seriousness is balanced out by lighthearted moments. You will laugh and it will tug at your emotions.

Dumplin' is a very enjoyable heartwarming film adaption of the young adult novel of the same name. It has a great script with plenty of jokes and a significant amount of heart. If you get a chance you should watch this.

Dead Again in Tombstone (2017 Video)

Trejo kicks behind and that really is what you are here for

[7/10 · 22 September 2020]

Danny Trejo returns once again as the western outlaw Guerrero. The movie opens better than the first one did which I like. It is much more ominous and feels like they are discussing a legend. A mysterious and bloody cowboy rides into town and walks into a saloon and tells the story of Guerrero de la Cruz and what he does. Perfect execution there.

Guerrero is still doing the Devil's work by sending the damned to hell. Strangely the Devil is not ever seen in this movie in any real form. It is a real disappointment because Mickey Rourke was pretty good in the first one. He is talked about a lot, but you never see him. Not even a flashback clip. This film is sorely missing the presence of Mickey Rourke as the Devil. He was menacing and dark and a good foil for Trejo.

Dead Again in Tombstone also rehabs Guerrero by making him a dark good guy who was tricked by the Devil. I find fighting for your soul much more interesting than being God's hitman. Then again, I guess if you cannot get the actor that played the Devil in the last movie you need to do something that takes the character out of the narrative.

While Trejo was a little more tough here, I am bothered that they made him work for God. It is a serious rehab that could have been left for a third film rather than the second. It would have been better to have him fight the Devil's mechanizations than to have been tricked. I think it steers the film towards those boring Pureflix movies. If the reason for this was indeed the loss of Mickey Rourke in the part then send another demon to do his bidding as a middleman.

Jake Busey is pretty good as the villainous Jackson Boomer. He plays him as a little bit of a cocky jerk which is more or less how he plays most of his characters. Boomer is very much a Southern gentleman here of old-style Westerns but also very evil. He apparently learned of the bone box that is the focus of everything before the beginning of the film from Guerrero's half-brother Red Cavanaugh. From my perspective there was implied supernatural knowledge by Red in the opening scenes of the original, but nothing ever came of that. It felt like Boomer was tossed in at the last minute because they could not get Hall to show up. I think if they had waived a little bit more money in the face of Anthony Michael Hall he could have been brought back, and we could have had another showdown between Trejo and Kavanaugh.

Mother de la Cruz (Michelle Rios), Guerrero's mother, looks younger than Trejo. Something about her just did not look older than Trejo. Elysia Rotaru as the daughter Alicia was not too bad. She was a tough character and gave as good as Trejo.

Guerrero gets some help this time from Dr. Goldsworthy (Dean McDermott) who resurrects him when he gets killed by Boomer. Boomer joins forces with a local brothel owner named Madame Du Vere (Elizabeth Lavender). That alliance along with this woman's ability to "see the truth" feels a little out of left field. It just happened. Even more awkward was that this prostitute seemed to abruptly become the arch nemesis of Guerrero's daughter. She had a few bad things to say about Alicia but nothing suggesting they would punch it out in the end.

I draw issue with the interior shots which were very dark. Night or day it was hard to see. Get some lighting in there. We accept a little unrealistic lighting in film but usually in the direction of seeing better. I am not sure if Reiné felt that serious darkness added authenticity or the lighting guy quit before those scenes were done.

The story is not too bad but a little disjointed. Some of the events feel made up as they went along as if they could not film what they wanted but still had to do something since the cameras were there. The acting is better than you would expect from a direct video release. Trejo once again is great as a Western tough guy. But then again Danny Trejo is always good.

Dead Again in Tombstone is a decent supernatural Western. It is not Academy Award material, but it is not a complete waste. They play up the supernatural elements a bit more here than in the last film which is good, but we are missing Mickey Rourke which is not so good. Enjoyable but far from perfect.

Monster House (2006)

A kid friendly horror film

[8/10 · 22 September 2020]

This is a great kid friendly horror themed animated feature. The story remains strong to this day because while it takes place at Halloween with elements of the supernatural, it deals with universal themes of adolescence and fitting in along with themes of love and obligation. Many small towns still have a creepy neighborhood house. We have all gone through puberty and our first attempts to attract someone were probably quite awkward as in a fashion similar to what these boys did with Jenny.

These are "authentic" children here. They get caught up in the moment and go off on an adventure without considering the consequences. These were children coming of age but not quite ready to do so.

Nebbercracker (voiced by Steve Buscemi), unbeknownst to everyone, has spent the past 45 years protecting the neighborhood from his wife's angry spirit which has merged with his home. Even though Constance (voiced by Kathleen Turner) was part of a freak show and tormented by other she was no saint. I would even postulate that the relationship between her and her husband was emotionally abusive with her being the abuser. Constance was definitely the one in charge and while her husband decided to protect her in life in death, he was forced to protect others from her. Even though she was dead he could not move on with his life because there is no way he could bring anyone around him without risking their safety.

The environment they create in the movie is reminiscent of the late 80s or early 90s in a small town. Or at least what movies from that time would have you believe. Having grown up in a small town I cannot think of ever encountering anyone in any of the takeout places that resembled supernatural "expert" Skull (Jon Heder), but characters like him were in many movies of the time. And the look where the action happens was of an older development much like the Halloween or Nightmare on Elm Street films took place in. I am curious if these things were an homage to this movie's live action predecessors.

We even got a horror movie babysitter with Elizabeth or "Zee" (Maggie Gyllenhaal) who also has the boyfriend that she brings over that she should not named Bones (Jason Lee) who ends up getting killed. But not really since this is family friendly. He along with the doubting cops Officer Landers (Kevin James) and Officer Lister (Nick Cannon) are old school horror film tropes.

The script is well written end contains the efforts of Dan Harmon who was responsible for shows like Community as well as Rick and Morty. With his talent in part behind the screenplay, I guess that's part of the reason Monster House still holds up. Those are some fantastic shows.

You can feel the awkwardness of the two boys as they try to figure out how to deal with a girl. It is a romantic triangle that only has really two participants. Yet it ends on a sweet note and without either D. J. or Chowder necessarily getting smacked down by Jenny.

The CGI animation still looks okay and that is my only real complaint about this. Everybody insists on doing movies with computer animation but as technology advances the animation generally ages poorly. I really wish people would stop making so many CGI movies.

Look at the Disney movies. I think Snow White has its issues, but it was as far as I know it was the first feature length animated film ever so a lot can be forgiven there. When you do something pioneering it may not be perfect, but it can still look good long into the future. What has come since from Disney and other companies in the realm of hand drawn animation has aged quite well because in the end hand drawn animation is art. It is crafted in a fashion similar but not identical to any form of drawing and drawings when done well retain their beauty because that kind of art is timeless. CGI is only as good as the year in which it was made. Very little ages well beyond that. Because CGI animation is not pioneering at this point any issues are not forgivable. Monster House is getting to the point of looking bad.

Monster House is a great Halloween treat for the kids. It is not necessarily a horror film, but it is intense enough for children that they will get the same vibe. And it is entertaining enough for adults that they will not want to stab their eyes out or fall asleep while watching. It is a great animated Halloween movie that everyone can enjoy. I highly recommend this.

Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

The First Classic Sequel To A Film

[9/10 · 22 September 2020]

This is one of the first sequels that could probably be considered a classic along with its predecessor. The Bride of Frankenstein expanded upon the first film without changing a thing other than the hair color of Henry's bride from blond to brown. The character's hair also got significantly longer even though the movie occurred immediately after the first film. Mae Clarke was suffering some health issues (though what I cannot find) and Valerie Hobson who was 7 years younger than Clarke replaced her as Henry's fiancée, Elizabeth.

One thing this film continues doing that the first one did was be impressionistic with its sets. The world is rendered to create a feel rather than rendered to be realistic. The sets bend and look like they were pulled from someone's feverish mind rather than be constructed.

The Monster (Boris Karloff reprising the role and billed simply as Karloff) survived the fire by falling underground. Universal makeup artist Jack Pierce changed the eyes a little bit and removed the drooping eyelids. The Monster was even given skin burns and the hair was shortened to indicate it was burned as well. Pierce, during the course of the film, made changes to the makeup to indicate it was healing.

Karloff this time was given lines having become even more famous. By now he was a horror icon have solidified that in the original The Mummy. The Monster is more a character here than just a simplistic sympathetic figure.

There are a few things closely associated with Universal Pictures take on the Frankenstein Monster character that do not appear on film together. The first is Little Maria (Marilyn Harris) tossing flowers into the water and being drowned along with "It's ALIVE!" Those are in the first film. Next is the Bride and the scene with the hermit (O. P. Heggie) which doesn't occur until this film and quite possibly the thing most strongly associated with Frankenstein and the monster other than Henry is the character of Ygor (usually spelled Igor in non-Universal versions) who doesn't show up until the third film and is played by Bela Lugosi.

Speaking of Elsa Lanchester, what an iconic creature design. Somehow they took random pieces of cloth and a tricked out wig and made an image that has stuck with audiences from the time it hit the screen until now. She did more in the opening scene as Mary Shelley than she did as The Monster's Bride, but everyone remembers her as just The Monster's Bride.

The Monster was a little more tragic here. He was unaware of his own brute strength to an extent, but now he knew he was alone. Hence he forced the doctor to craft him a bride who upon being brought to life rejected him with a hiss. In the hermit he made a friend but the people that were hunting him would not let be with that friend. He had gone from a murderous beast to a misunderstood individual. He was truly alone.

I, like many others, enjoy the story a little more here. It continued the narrative begun in the first film as well as expanding the mythology. The Monster was made into something a bit better than before with the simple addition of speech. Whale felt he could not duplicate what he had done previously so he decided to make it "a real hoot" in his words. And it most definitely is. He just went all out here and decided to have fun. And sometimes that is the better route than trying do an exact copy of what was done first. It certainly was here.

Bride of Frankenstein is one of the best sequels ever and definitely one of the first sequels to ever be considered a classic alongside the original. It is a wonderful movie that while not scary is still as good as the original was. You cannot go wrong with this classic.

The Punisher (1989)

Ridiculous, Violent, and Entertaininly Bad

[7/10 · 22 September 2020]

Dolph Lundgren stars as the Punisher/Frank Castle. Physically he is the look of the character at that time aside from the even then famous Punisher skull. Unfortunately, his performance comes off as kind of sleepy. I'm not talking about his physical performance but rather every time he speaks a line, he mumbles and it sound like you just woke the guy up. Get the man a cappuccino! And he does Rambo face when he is shooting his guns. You know what I am talking about. It is the most intense sneer coupled with a squint you ever saw.

Louis Gossett Jr. was just about everywhere for a time and here he is Jake Berkowitz. He is a cop that Frank rescued from self-destruction and is convinced with little to no evidence that this mysterious character only referred to as the Punisher that has been wiping out the underworld is actually his former partner. I am not sure how he came to that conclusion because it is never elaborated on. Was family man Frank Castle the kind of guy he could see flying off the handle and going on a killing spree in revenge after being presumed dead? Think about it. I would assume that since Frank's body was never found that was how he came to the conclusion but then why does the police department think he's dead? Berkowitz gets a spunky young partner in the form of Sam Leary (Nancy Everhard) that believes Frank Castle is alive and as well as being the Punisher. She thinks of the one thing that Berkowitz did not that puts them hot on the trail of the Punisher. Apparently Berkowitz wasn't the super cop that Frank Castle thought he was. Even though she is the one that sets everything in motion by figuring out how to find him she is probably the most two dimensional of the characters. She is all generic spunk and then just quickly disappears from the story before the climax. She was pretty integral and then nothing.

Jeroen Krabbé plays underworld kingpin Gianni Franco who I'm assuming is supposed to be an Italian mafioso but given his accent he doesn't quite sound like it. The guy plays great villains and he is a generally good actor but that accent just bothers me here. Franco comes off as a bit more complex than the others and that is all because Jeroen Krabbé's skill.

At the time most of the Punisher stories took place in and around New York City and there are one or two instances that imply this movie is set there but everything else implies that it is taking place in sunny Florida. (It was actually filmed in Australia.)

Frank must go against the mafia and the yakuza. The 80s had a bit of a love affair with martial arts and oriental villains. Just look at the action movies of the time and there is usually some kung fu guy or ninja assassin in many of the action films of the era. This came out at the tail end of that craze and I assume that is why they tossed in the yakuza when mobsters would be more than enough. Given the character at the time, mobsters would have been appropriate.

The yakuza has decided to aggressively expand into the US and decided to subjugate if not eliminate local organized crime. Apparently because of Frank's efforts they see an opening. Lady Tanaka (Kim Miyori) goes through excessive trouble just to kill the heads of the crime families. It is very elaborate. She gets them to switch sides and become loyal to her by kidnapping their children who she then sells into slavery in Asia and then kills the assorted crime bosses when they come to a restaurant to swear loyalty and pay the ransom. While at the restaurant she poisons their drinks and shoots the one guy that did not drink anything. That is a lot of work.

The action is not bad by the standards of the era. It is exciting enough and visually entertaining even if it is a little over the top. Maybe you have heard but the film is approximately 92 minutes long and there are over 80 deaths on screen. The second time I ever watched this me and my sister did a kill count and I cannot remember the exact number. Roughly a kill a minute is high even by 80s standards.

This should have been a better movie than it was. This was the heyday of such testosterone fueled action movies. Revenge powered shoot 'em ups were turned out a dime a dozen back then and most were better than they should have been. This wasn't one of them. It amounts to little more than a well-produced basic cable film than it is a theatrical release. They really missed a chance here.

But somehow The Punisher manages to have a charm about it. At least for me it does. Perhaps it is because they were not trying to make a purposely bad movie with The Punisher. They put a lot of effort into this and you can feel it. It does manage to be an entertaining film if not a good comic book film. It gets the style of the character right if not the character itself right. He does all of things the Punisher does or did at the time but the way the character acts is not right.

The Punisher is an entertaining enough film. If you take it more as an 80s revenge film than as a comic book film, you will enjoy yourself. If you are looking for an accurate depiction of the character, then this movie is not for you. It will definitely appeal to action film fans but comic book movie fans probably not.

Frankenstein (1931)

A Wonderful Classic Horror Film

[10/10 · 22 September 2020]

Colin Clive gave an amazing performance as Henry Frankenstein. He was perfectly over-the-top and manic as the mad scientist. You can see his ego and narcissism when the character brings The Monster (the legendary Boris Karloff) to life and he exuberantly exclaims "It's ALIVE!" Clive became the character here. The character of Henry moved from insanity to regret tinged with panic by the end of the film all courtesy to Clive's skill. This talented actor was gone far too soon at the age of 37.

Unlike most horror films of the time, Henry appears to have a specific scientific discipline in which he was trained prior to going over the edge and slapping together cadavers for giggles. Often the central troublemaker was called a "scientist" or given the title of "doctor," but a specific discipline was never hinted at. They appear to have just decided to science one day and create mayhem. Oops! Here Henry is a trained physician.

And then there was Boris Karloff. Karloff the Great! Karloff the Magnificent! The one and only Boris Karloff. There was no one like him before and there has been no one like him since. He turned in a star making performance with a script that contained only grunts and groans for him. How does that even happen? But it did. He had worked in theater and film prior to this but Frankenstein is what made this actor a household name.

The Monster (as it was called in the credits) was sympathetic and more than just a lumbering creature as people tend to think of it. You could empathize with it and even see it confused by the world in which it found itself. Everything was new and this simple-minded thing with inhuman strength did not know what to do. Its ignorance coupled with its brute strength and simple mind was a recipe for disaster. This was all owed to not only the direction of Whale but the performance of the talented Karloff.

The makeup is iconic to this day. We have the raised head with the flat cranium and drooping eyes and the well-known bolts in the neck. This was all topped off with the thick soled shoes that made the 5'11" Karloff menacingly tall. Jack Pierce was known as difficult but the man was a genius in his time.

This film is filled with memorable moments. One of the best known involves the young girl playing with flowers Little Maria (Marilyn Harris). Still shocking by modern standards and horrifying by the standards of the day, we watch as the simple creature who is finally experiencing kindness from the girl misinterprets things and ends up accidentally drowning her. This tragic moment was cut for the longest time from prints of the film and thought lost until it was rediscovered in the 80s and finally restored to the picture.

This 1931 classic from Universal Pictures is an amazing film. A true horror classic. This movie had a definite visual style. The lighting and the designs were such that they were to create a mood and a feeling. Look at the castle and the old windmill for example. Do they make structural sense? Do they look real or do they look more like stylized pieces of art? These designs were definitely influenced by German expressionist film of the time.

Some of the techniques used in filming and some of the choices made by Whale and crew may not pop with modern audiences but look at the number of films made in the five years before or after this film and you will see much of the same things done in the ones that are considered classics. This movie took those and tossed in horror and came of with something amazing and original that is still talked about to this day.

Like so many other movies at the time, Frankenstein was based on a play. Here it was a 1927 play by Peggy Webling and as such it was a broad adaption of the classic Mary Shelley book. It definitely had a much softer ending than the original story upon which it is based. You will get the idea of the book in broad strokes but not in specifics. I gripe about this often in modern films because what happens is you get something weaker that is trying to ride the coattails of something superior. I guess they knew what they were doing back then because what we have is something that is just as good and strong in its own right as the inspiration. Not quite like the original. Less a sibling and more a cousin.

The unfortunate thing about Frankenstein is so much of what they did with style and tone and even the monster makeup was copied repeatedly so now what was frightening is clean and even family friendly. Remember The Munsters and family patriarch Herman? He was based on this design. Frankenstein drowned a little girl that he was tossing daisies into the water with! That is not quaint and family friendly.

Frankenstein, while not as frightening as it was the day it opened, is still an entertaining film with a great deal of atmosphere and a wonderful story. It has inspired many imitators but none as great. You may not be frightened but you will enjoy it.