As soon as you hear those few opening chords to 'Old Time Rock & Roll', odds are, the first thing to spring to mind when hearing them is something along the lines of Tom Cruise (or *insert pop culture character here*) sliding into view with a popped collar, no pants, and an air of "freedom" about him as he's been left at home with his parents out of town. Most of the time, this would generally result in some sort of party gone awry, but 'Risky Business' takes the whole concept to the extreme. We are introduced to Joel Goodson (Cruise - get it? "good son?"). He lives with his parents (Nicholas Pryor and Janet Carroll), is a great high school student in all regards, and has plans (that are really more his Dads) to eventually go to Princeton University. Joel participates in an extracurricular activity involving the creation of small businesses in teams of students called "Future Enterprisers". Everything is on the up and up until Joel's parents leave on a trip, where his friend, Miles (Curtis Armstrong) tries to convince him to take full advantage of his parents absence, have some fun, loosen up, and just be able to say "F*ck it!" It all starts out with the typical - raiding the liquor cabinet, driving the "good" car, etc. But a whole new and weird door opens up for him when Miles calls an escort to Joel's house for a good time. At first, there's a misunderstanding, but Joel is given a different contact who might be what he's looking for. Joel goes through with things, only to meet Lana (Rebecca De Mornay), who asks after the deed is done for $300, which leads Joel to the bank in which he has to use some pretty important cash in order to pay for his one night of fun. When he returns, Lana is gone, along with his parents expensive... egg. They eventually meet again and have a confrontation that leads Lana to leave her pimp, Guido (Joe Pantoliano), and bascially end up squatting at Joel's house, only to introduce him to the concept of running a whole different kind of business. This will get him more money than the egg is even worth, and perhaps send him down a much darker path of destiny than he initially intended. But while this would be a cautionary tale most places, the thing about 'Risky Business' is that it, shall we say, "embraces the sleaze". We get that Joel is very uptight and cautious about where he ends up in the future, but we also get his reluctance about his situation and that maybe, just maybe, he's interested in something much more edgy. For yours truly, I kind of see this as the 'Boogie Nights' of the 80s (I dunno what it would be today). It shows a certain side to the whole sex industry, but does so with escorts instead of porn stars. For 1983, it was probably a bit heavier than it stands today. By today's standards, I've just plain seen more, and there's nothing shocking about this movie at all. But I also can't think of much like it that came before it, and it really does kind of stand alone in its overall concept. So it certainly gets points for being unique, and edgy for the time. I don't know that it necessarily holds up today, but it also is what it is - a sleazy 80s comedy drama involving escorts. So I enjoyed it for what it was, but I have to admit that I don't necessarily understand the hype behind it. It's perfectly fine, but it's not something I'd be able to throw on any old time, either. It probably worked better back then than it does now. But If nothing else, it has engraved the "Old Time Rock & Roll" image in the cinematic history books, and that's an image that has withstood the test of time in a major way. As I mentioned, that scene alone represents what's going on in a lot of teenage heads when their parents make the announcement that they're going away for a few days. 3/5
0 Comments
Here we have a fine example of a great movie that's slowly dying. One can find it, but they really have to dig - at least up here in the Great White North, where of course, we must dig through snow. Anyway, one can only rent it here from Apple TV or the Cineplex Store, and it really, truly deserves much more exposure than that. I think the idea is something that, while simple, isn't really something that has been repeated. I could be wrong, but as far as what I've seen goes, this feels like a breath of fresh air. A bounty hunter by the name of Jack Walsh (Robert De Nero) is hired by bail bondsman Eddie Moscone (Joe Pantoliano) to bring in a $450,000 bail-jumping accountant named Jonathan Mardukas, aka "The Duke" (Charles Grodin). The Duke's crime was to embezzle $15 million from Jimmy Serrano (Dennis Farina), a powerful Chicago mob boss. As a result, The Duke ran from LA and his bail. Walsh takes the job, demanding $100,000 for his return. When Walsh finally finds him, he ends up with more than the trouble seems to be worth, as The Duke happens to be a real talker and nit-picker. Although the character is pretty irritating, it all works when that personality clashes with De Nero's tough guy personality. Some of their exchanges are actually pretty hilarious. In the meantime, more people are chasing down The Duke for different reasons. FBI Agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto) wants to bring Mardukas in to testify against Serrano. But an angry Serrano also sends his goons Tony and Joey (Richard Foronjy and Robert Miranda, respectively) to intercept Mardukas for reasons perhaps a touch more lethal. Let's not forget Walsh's bounty-hunting rival, Marvin (John Ashton) who's a bit desperate for a bounty himself. To make matters even more difficult for Walsh's mission, Mardukas seems to have a panic-inducing fear of flying, so a lot of the return journey is on-foot or other various forms of transportation that don't "go down". This is a cross-country chase movie, jam-packed with a great cast. Some of the delivery these guys have is comedic gold. I particularly enjoyed De Nero responding to Grodin a lot of the time, and the entire side of the mob. Farina, in a way, is the cherry that really tops this sundae. He was making me laugh almost every time he was on-screen, and his two bumbling henchmen weren't far behind. It was further interesting to actually see Yaphet Kotto in a role that wasn't horror. Despite his filmography being fairly extensive, I know him best from 'Alien' and 'Freddy's Dead'. I didn't feel like he really stood out here, but he did manage to have a moment or two that caught my funny-bone, even if it wasn't intentional. It had been a while since I'd seen this, but I think I had more fun this time around than my first viewing several years ago. If you can find it, I highly recommend checking it out if you've never seen it. It's well-worth the rental cost, and it's easily one of the best examples of a mob comedy (mobedy?) I can think of. I may have a few nit-picks if I dig dep enough (like Grodin annoying me sometimes), but the truth of the matter is I had a lot of fun with this; certainly enough fun that it overshadowed any complaints I might have had - which I'd honestly have to look for. This one is hereby bookmarked as something I'll definitely be watching a few times over. 5/5 It's pretty much an established fact in my brain that 1984 is by far one of the best years in film history. This was a year that brought such personal favourites as 'Elm Street', 'Temple of Doom' (I don't care what anyone says), and of course, my nearest and dearest 'Ghostbusters'. I was only 2 years old here, though, so had to get to all of these movies at some point later in life. 'This Is Spinal Tap' was one huge hit from '84 I totally missed out on, until a friend showed it to me, and thankfully it was the right kind of friend - a very musically inclined one. Several years afterwards, I finally decided to give it another look on my own time. I'm sorry to say that I didn't get quite as much out of it this time around than the first. I still thought it was plenty funny, and a good time overall. But I wonder if I got more out of it the first time due to watching it with someone who has made a lifetime hobby out of music. Nevertheless, it's well worth a watch, especially if your any sort of metal fan. This is a mockumentary style film, created by Martin Di Bergi (Rob Reiner) as he follows Spinal Tap on their 1982 US concert tour, promoting their new album 'Smell the Glove' - an album made extremely controversial due to its cover art. While on tour, interviews are done with bandmembers David St. Hubbins (Michael McKean), Nigel Tufnel (Christopher Guest), Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer), Viv Savage (David Kaff) and drummer-for-now, Mick Shrimpton (R.J. Parnell). As the mockumentary unfolds, we get to know the bandmembers and their manager, Ian Faith (Tony Hendra) as they deal minor issues like food that's too big for the bread; major issues like a set piece gone very wrong, and turning things up to eleven with a lack of ticket sales due to offensive album art. The real humour here lies in a combination of the bandmembers' dimwittedness, and the idea that this is a purposeful comedy that still has a pretty average formula for true-story movies about music. This is a satire of other music documentaries like 'The Song Remains the Same', covering Led Zeppelin, 'The Last Waltz', covering The Band. In the end, there ends up being a lot of neat, interesting details about this movie. It coined the phrase "turn it up to eleven", and as a result, IMDb actually has its rating for the film out of eleven instead of its regular ten. Spinal Tap was featured on an episode of 'The Simpsons'. Most of the dialogue throughout the film was improvised, and apparently, hours upon hours of footage was initially shot for it. The film was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the Library of Congress, and selected by the National Film Registry for preservation, and to this day is recognized as the film that brought the mockumentary out into the mainstream. After checking it out this time around, I've developed an appreciation for what it is, but I'm not sure I'm ready to join the 'Spinal Tap' cult just yet. This is one of those movies I feel I don't get as much out of as others do. However, the potential for it to grow on me over time is most definitely there. One should bear in mind that 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' is what I consider my favourite all around comedy, but when I was first watching it, I only liked parts of it. I still think the movie is a great time, and it's a lot of fun to watch with friends as though you're watching a documentary on a favourite shared band - but it goes wrong in all the funniest ways. For yours truly, it's a good time, something to put on for a laugh, and I'll be revisiting it for sure in the near future. 4/5 This one comes to me as not so much a high recommendation as a title in which Simon Pegg and Nick Frost coexist. I am a fan, especially when they team up with Edgar Wright, but that is not the case here. Still, I did check out the trailer, and to me, it looked like a fun time, if nothing else. Much like I appreciate in so many other films, it seemed to be a bit of a horror flick with plenty of comedy, and looked as though it would be right up my alley. However, sadly, sometimes things don't turn out quite how we would like. Following the tragic death of his father, Donald Wallace (Finn Cole) enrolls in an exclusive school known as Slaughterhouse. There, he attempts to fit in among his peers, meeting (among others) the odd but friendly roommate, Willoughby Blake (Asa Butterfield), a hardened prefect named Clegg (Tom Rhys Harries), Head of their Sparta House, Meredith Houseman (Simon Pegg) and the school's Headmaster, they call "The Bat" (Michael Sheen). The school is home to a fair share of secrets, one of which involves the Headmaster's scheme of fracking ("the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc. so as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas"), Despite warnings from the local harbinger, Woody Chapman (Nick Frost), the fracking continues to the point where it eventually creates a sinkhole, unleashing horrible subterranean half-worm, half-dog creatures with an appetite for human flesh. Unfortunately, to get to this point takes a good long while, and the film really doesn't do anything special until that point. A lot of it is getting to know the characters, but no one really sticks out to me here; not even Pegg or Frost. Meredith spends his time pining for his far away girlfriend, Audrey (Margot Robbie) and Woody is just plain off his rocker, and not in the typically charming Nick Frost way so much as being all drugged up and serious. While it was easy enough to tell not to take a film like this seriously, I can't say I had as much fun as I wish I did. On paper, this sounds great - it's almost like 'Harry Potter' meets 'Attack the Block', except there's no magic and the aliens come from the underground. I can't deny that the gross-out creature effects were good and effective, utilizing a lot of practical over CG, but again, it just takes too long for anything to really happen. For almost the first hour, it's exposition and a sinkhole and then we finally get into the action. 'Attack the Block' is very similar in some ways, but it hits the ground running and you don't stop running until it's over. This was more like waiting for the timer to go off, and nothing particularly special happens in that time. I think this could have been a lot of fun, if it was only cut down a bit. I'm not sure I'd say the film was bad, exactly, but I would suggest that it's pretty forgettable, and that there are other films like it that are much better. As a British creature feature, I would still highly recommend 'Attack the Block' over this any day. This isn't something I feel like I need to go back and watch again, or show off to my friends, and there are several other better Pegg/Frost movies out there much more worth your time. However, if you don't mind waiting for the horror aspect of this to pop up, it does get fun within the last half of it regardless of how you might feel about the first half. It could be a fun thing to throw on absent-mindedly, but nothing very special. It's readily available on Netflix (Canada) if you want to check it out for yourself. 2/5 Finally wrapping up my 2018 catch-up, this title sort of seemed to come and go in the blink of an eye. It floats somewhat under the radar for most, it seems, as whenever i bring up the title, people either haven't heard of it, or if they have, refer to it as "that weird doll movie" or something along those lines. I, however, always knew it was something that dabbled in the area of mental health, and I'm always curious about such things, so to choose this as my final title was a bit of a no-brainer. We meet Mark Hogancamp (Steve Carell), who we learn suffers from acute memory loss and posttraumatic stress disorder, based on an attack from a group of homophobes that left him hospitalized for some time. The basis of this attack was the idea that he (Mark) enjoys wearing women's shoes, and it's plain and simply a hate crime against him. As a result, Mark now uses fashion dolls to create a fictional World War II-based village called "Marwen" in order to escape and cope with the world around him. All is basically well until he gets reminded of his court date, which leads to nervous breakdowns in reality, and Nazi attacks in Marwen within his imagination. Residing within the world of Marwen are namely himself as "Cap'n Hogie", and a handful of tough, protective women who represent his friends in real life; home caretaker, Anna (Gwendoline Christie); Physiotherapist, Julie (Janelle Monáe), Suzette (Leslie Zemeckis), Bartender, Carlala (Eiza González) and hobby store clerk Roberta (Merritt Wever). Nazi soldiers represent the guys who beat him up, but perhaps most strange is the green-haired Belgian witch named Deja Thoris (Diane Kruger), as she prevents Hogie from getting close to any of the women of Marwen, and insists she's the only one who can stop his pain. All seemingly has the potential to change, when his new neighbor, Nicol (Leslie Mann) moves in, and he becomes interested for the first time since bartender Wendy (Stefanie von Pfetten) found him after the attack. As one can probably imagine, the whole world of Marwen, and the animated sequences within, are symbolic to everything going on around him, and soon enough Mark has to face reality when it comes down to a court date that can hopefully put his attackers away. If you have ever seen the movie 'Sucker Punch', there are similarities with the extreme symbolism, but its all executed very differently - I'd even say probably a bit better here, as I found this much easier to follow. The animated sequences, themselves, are really well done. I enjoy the CG used to render each doll, and furthermore, how much the dolls represent the people in his life. That said, there is some oddball stuff here, like the idea that Suzette is actually based on his favorite actress and, as far as I can tell, is also a porn star, and she's barely a part of things. I don't know about real-world accuracy, but it did seem unnecessarily crammed in. On top of that, it does feel obvious to me almost right away what exactly Deja represents, although the film makes her out to be a mystery woman. It makes one question if they SHOULD have known all along, because once the big reveal happens you kind of end up thinking to yourself "well, duh". This isn't a movie I'd necessarily consider to be bad in any way, but it certainly didn't leave me with the impact that some of Zemeckis' similar earlier work has, namely as 'Forest Gump', which is still a personal favorite. Although, it does manage to deal with things like having to overcome one's anxiety to face one's fears head on - in this case, his court date and facing his attackers. I also enjoy that they don't really shy away from anything he does, and instead of making it a movie where he's frowned upon for playing with dolls, his community is actually very supportive and want to help him with his work. At the end of the day, it didn't entirely impact me, but I'm still glad I took the time to finally watch it. It's something one would have to judge for themselves, but despite a few holes here and there, it's not that bad. 3/5 This was one of those titles I missed because, to be perfectly frank, I got a touch lazy. But in my defense, I was just coming back the week of its release from a three-week trip to the UK. I did, however, promise myself that it would make it into my reviews some time down the line because it seemed like something up my alley as far as it being a fun, dark, family flick as well as something I've been told makes a pretty good Halloween movie (which we probably know by now I'm a sucker for) Upon finally viewing it, I got pretty much what I expected from it, although I might say it got a bit darker than I thought it might. Take a movie like 'Goosebumps', make it touch scarier, and this is pretty much what you get. For some, this movie will be a fun, albeit creepy family flick they enjoy every October for the spooky season. However, for others, I can just as easily see it being somewhat dismissible as, admittedly, there are several better films of its type out there. Once again, this is something I think is kind of just "fine". It didn't suck, but there wasn't much about it that truly stood out either. Taking place in 1955, New Zebedee, Michigan, our story involves 10-year-old Lewis Barnavelt (Owen Vaccaro) who moves in with his Uncle Jonathan (Jack Black) after his parents were killed in a car crash. The house is less than inviting to the fearful Lewis to begin with, but on his first night he hears a mysterious ticking coming from the walls. This leads to him finding out, perhaps the hard way, that his Uncle and a neighbor named Florence Zimmerman (Cate Blanchett) are respectively a warlock and a witch. Meanwhile, at school, Lewis lives a live of overall unpopularity as the new kid in town. He makes a friend named Tarby Corrigan (Sunny Suljic), who's running for class president. Upon his win, he then abandons Lewis like a jerk. However, Lewis convinces Jonathan to teach him magic, which he intends to use to impress Tarby and regain his friendship. This unfortunately leads to magic-gone-wrong, with the resurrection of a sinister warlock and former friend named Isaac Izard (Kyle MacLachlan). The man had a personal vendetta against Jonathan before his passing, which is a whole backstory explanation, but the clock in the walls is seemingly meant to drive Jonathan mad and now Jonathan wants to find the clock and figure out its purpose. I'd say for the most part this is a movie that gives us the old 'Spider-Man' chestnut of "with great power comes great responsibility". It certainly borrows from a few different things to create its magical world within the house (I still haven't mentioned the enchanted furniture). If I had to describe it, I'd say it's something along the lines of 'Harry Potter' meets 'Goosebumps' with perhaps a dose of 'Casper'. All in all, I enjoyed it for what it was, but I can't deny that there was an awful lot of familiarity to it. I'd aim it towards an audience of preteens, where it's family friendly, but just dark enough to have some real atmosphere to it. By far, the most interesting factor to me is the fact that this came from, director Eli Roth (one who may be considered the king of "torture porn" with his 'Hostel' movies) and writer Eric Kripke (known for the dark and suggestive superhero comedy, 'The Boys'). One might see shades of them through some of the darker parts of this, but I'm not sure it's quite dark enough to be considered "scary" for kids. Heck, it may even be a decent toe-dip into darker material for kids. It's definitely darker than 'Goosebumps', but much lighter than something like 'The Haunting'. I find the humor kind of falls flat sometimes, but again, for a younger audience, this could still be a lot of fun. 3/5 The 'Hotel Transylvania' series seems to be something very much met in the middle by the general public. Most people I know, including myself, tend to enjoy them. But it does seem that in present times, anything Adam Sandler and his crew touch tends to be poison to critics. The "Rotten Tomato" levels are downright fascinating. In order from first to third film, the critic ratings are 45%, 55% and 62%, but the audience ratings are very polarizing with 72%, 64% and 48%. So, according to critics, this is the best of them while according to audiences, this is the worst of them. And oh yes, I am with the audience on this one. The film opens with a bit of a simplified backstory involving Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Jim Gaffigan) and his ongoing hunt for our now familiar monsters; Frankenstein (Kevin James), Wayne the werewolf (Steve Buscemi), Griffin, the invisible guy (David Spade), Murray the mummy (Keegan-Michael Key), and of course, Dracula (Adam Sandler). We see how the monsters constantly thwart his efforts over time, and things fast-forward to present day. As most watching this would know by now, Dracula now runs a hotel for monsters (hence the title), and the first two films focus largely on a human named Johnny (Andy Samberg) stumbling into their world, and falling in love with and marrying Dracula's daughter, Mavis (Selena Gomez). When Dracula starts to get a little overwhelmed by things, including his loneliness, Mavis suggests a vacation. She books a special monster cruise so that Dracula can take his mind off work and spend more time with his growing family. He's not exactly thrilled at the concept of going somewhere just like their own hotel, but all of that is put on hold when he sets eyes on the ship's human captain, Ericka (Kathryn Hahn). Almost instantly, and without mentioning any spoilers, one probably already knows how the main plot of the film is going to unfold, and that's perhaps my biggest criticism. This chapter ends up being far too predictable. I'm not telling a lie when I say that as soon as I saw the ship's human captain, I knew where it was going - and that includes how it all ends. Nothing here took me by surprise, and I feel like it really lacks the overall charm of the first two. There's a few decent laughs, but in a way, that's also the problem. Where the first two seemingly had something to say (speaking more for the first than second), this one is obviously in it for the laughs above much else, and even saying that, some of these "laughs" aren't exactly spot on. It's fun, but I had a blast with the first one, while the second one made me laugh much more. This isn't without its charm, and it rounds out a trilogy, but I wasn't quite as on-board with this one as its predecessors. As far as recommending it goes, it all depends on your stance of the first two. I think if you really liked the first one, this won't be all that special. However, if you thought the first one was weak, maybe this one's worth taking a look at. That said, I'm not entirely sure about why critics consensus' on these movies keep going up as they go, and I feel like there's something I'm missing. But of the three films, while this is still perfectly passable, I can say with all honesty that I had much more fun with the first two. To me, this feels to me like it could have been a straight-to-video release from the get-go, and no one would have complained about it not getting a big screen release. 3/5 Once again, I'm opening the year (although this year's starting in February) with a catch-up on some of the films I wanted to watch and review at the time, but sadly missed due to whatever circumstances. Last year focused on 2017, this year will focus on 2018, and that's pretty well going to be the New Year Tradition from now on. First on the list, we have 'Blockers', which comes to us from a number of producers, but it's the likes of Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg awere eye-catching enough to get me intrigued to begin with. If I see the 'Point Grey' intro, with the classroom desk, I generally know I'll be in for a laugh. The plot here consists of two sides, consisting of the girls' side and the parents' side. Our lead, Julie (Kathryn Newton) lives with her now single mother, Lisa (Leslie Mann), and we see a sort of "best-friend" relationship between the two. Kayla (Geraldine Viswanathan) lives with her overprotective but sensitive father, Mitchell (John Cena) and progressive mother, Marcie (Sarayu Blue) and plays the brilliant comedy relief between the girls. Lastly, Sam (Gideon Adlon) plays the shy, closet lesbian character who is more or less the brains of the outfit. She lives with her unreasonable mother, Brenda (June Diane Raphael) and more down to earth, but perpetually ignored stepfather, Frank (Hannibal Buress). Meanwhile, she has a party animal father, Hunter (Ike Barinholtz) who has been separated from her mother based on an affair. The three girls make a pact to lose their collective virginities at their high school Prom (so female 'American Pie' in so many words). Through a series of unmonitored text messages, the three are unknowingly caught in their whole plan. In the girls' youth, Lisa, Mitchell and Hunter all became friends through dropping them off for their first day of school. Now the three parents team up to try to stop the girls from carrying out their pact, and potentially making a huge mistake. Although the basic plot is very similar to 'American Pie', as mentioned earlier, this is honestly better written, offering a much better parental perspective. It was like they said "let's take 'American Pie' and make it so the parents know what's going on". With that parental perspective comes a whole new range of comedy. One should probably remain forewarned that it is indeed a raunchy, late night comedy, and it doesn't really hold back with some of its humor. You're gonna hear plenty of F-shots, sure, but you might get some uncomfortable reveals along the way. Again, that's all part of that Point Grey sense of humor. You don't go into a movie like that expecting anything less than a raunchy, late night comedy of some sort. There's bound to be some sexually suggestive whatnot, but to Point Grey's credit, there's generally some very solid writing surrounding those raunchy bits. You'll get laughs with this one from both sides of the spectrum, and thankfully it's mostly from the dialogue (as usual). For my money, the best laughs through the movie are well-divided by each group. Geraldine Viswanathan really carries the laughs when it comes to the teens with her attitude and sense of humor. Similarly, John Cena is surprisingly one of the funniest things about the whole film. His sensitive nature and quick temper make for some hilarious moments, proving once again that a wrestler's acting skill isn't necessarily only narrowly focused on their mic skills. At one point, he damn near made me spit out my drink. Between the two actors, you'll certainly get your fair share of giggles, but they don't really end with them either. All in all, this was a great comedy that I'm sorry I missed out on a couple of years ago, but it's currently available on Netflix (Canada) for your viewing pleasure. 4/5 Closing the chapter of the Silver Age with 'The Jungle Book', we now begin the Bronze Age (and 4th age) of Disney animation. We begin with a title I haven't watched since I was a little kid, so this may as well be a first time for me. In fact, just about everything from the Bronze Age falls under that category except for 'The Black Cauldron', which I haven't seen at all. So this should make for an interesting era of review... when it resumes in April. Back to the film at hand, however, this is one of those titles that starts off kind of lame and dull, and from the get-go, I wasn't expecting to be very entertained. Taking place in Paris, 1910, a retired opera singer named Madame Adelaide Bonfamille (Hermione Baddeley) lives with her butler, Edgar (Roddy Maude-Roxby), and her precious cat, Dutchess (Eva Gabor) along with her three kittens, Berlioz (Dean Clark), Marie (Liz English) and Toulouse (Gary Dubin). One day, Madame declares in her will that her entire fortune is to go to her cats. Overhearing this, Edgar plots to catnap (not in a good way) the cats and abandon them somewhere. We hate Edgar and his ideas, which include drugging three cute, innocent kittens. You'd take Jasper and Horace over this guy any day. Edgar's plan is (somewhat) foiled, however, by two hounds named Napoleon (Pat Buttram... poor guy) and Lafayette (George Lindsey). In ambushing Edgar as just a couple of hounds chasing some guy on a vehicle, Edgar loses track of the cats who all wake up only to find themselves lost. The next morning, they meet the... almost Bruce Campbell-esque Thomas O'Malley (Phil Harris) who offers to help Dutchess and her kittens get back to their home in Paris. The lot of the movie is pretty much these cats having a homeward bound adventure, and running into interesting characters along the way. Meanwhile Edgar and the two hounds have a sort of ongoing thing, as the dogs now possess whatever evidence could convict him of the crime of stealing the cats. Much as I expected, a lot of the film ended up being about two things - overall cuteness involving the kittens, and the clashing of society. When the main story involves the wealthy and comfortable cat meeting the street smart alley cat, it only brings to mind 'Lady & The Tramp', and in a way, we've kind of done this story already - at least a very similar one. Hell, this title even comes with its own dash of racism in the form of a Siamese cat, just like 'Lady & The Tramp'! Once again, Disney Plus has the forewarning about certain depictions of society before the film gets going, and once again, I credit them for that. I think it's better to get an idea of a time when certain things seemed acceptable so we can learn from our mistakes, moving forward. This may be extreme, but it's not unlike why we learn about WWII in history class. By the end of the film, I consider this movie just sort of "there". I was certainly mildly entertained by several parts of it, but so much of it hasn't aged particularly well. The primary example is when O'Malley, Dutchess and the kittens visit O'Malley's swinging cat friends. The musical number they do is a lot of fun, and well-animated, but at the cost of portraying a racial stereotype or two. Beyond that, O'Malley's constant use of the word "baby" as a term of endearment along with Dutchess being entirely uninteresting in her female role can be somewhat cringe-worthy. Their dynamic would be criticized immensely if this was released today. However, it was 1970, and a lot of this was just the way it was. I guess if I were to recommend this, it would be the same as recommending 'The Jungle Book'. Kids could check this out and have a good time with it, but it might be important to let them know things like... don't ever call a woman "baby" if you don't know already know her AND have her consent to do so. Nowadays, that's the sort of thing that can earn you a kick to the nuts, a slap to the face, or your face to your nuts because she'll find a way to make it happen. As far as this one goes, it just sort of lingers as "okay" at best. There were moments I liked, but they were few and far between, and this is only mildly entertaining at best. The hounds are probably the best part, and they're simple comic relief, so I wouldn't approach this one with super high expectations. 3/5 Here we have a shining example of how much opinion can change over the years, from childhood to adulthood. Back sometime in the 90s, when this came out of "The Disney Vault" for a short time, I rented it, watched it and really enjoyed it. However, one should probably also understand that this was pretty much my introduction to King Arthur's legend - a legend that really isn't done justice in this film, upon seeing it now. This particular version begins with the death of the King of England, Uther Pendragon, leaving no heir to the throne. For whatever reason, a sword appears in London, embedded in an anvil (yes, anvil, not stone) with an inscription that states, whoever pulls it out of the anvil becomes the rightful King of England. No one ever does succeed, and that whole plot is dropped for the remainder of the movie. I'm not kidding, either. Things immediately go to the powerful Wizard, Merlin (Karl Swenson) and his meeting Arthur, commonly known in this movie as "Wart". He's the embodiment of the average underdog character, and the film generally revolves around Merlin giving Arthur an education. Throughout the film, Merlin covers such things as using brain to defeat brawn, lessons in love and heartbreak, and other general school material. That's quite honestly most of what the film actually is, just Merlin being a teacher to Arthur. Their meeting is by chance, and Merlin foresees it as a meeting with someone of great importance, but that's about all we have to go by. We further realize that Merlin can travel back and forth through time, so logic dictates he understands that Arthur is to become King, and therefore wants to make sure he's set on the right path. But I will admit that the story doesn't exactly flow; it's a chance meeting, a school lesson, a really cool climax involving a crowbarred in villain, and then about 3-5 minutes of what we actually came to see. The film does stay alive, however, providing some fun to go with the whole educational process. Usually this involves Merlin turning Arthur and himself into various animals to explore their lifestyles, and it's pretty much a land, water, air thing as said animals are a squirrel, a fish and a bird. So the magic is alive and well in this, and it all leads to that climax I referred to where Merlin has a "Wizard's Dual" with the evil Madam Mim (Martha Wentworth). She's not exactly at the top of the list of Disney villains, but for the short time she's there, she's perfectly enjoyable. It's just that she has little to nothing to do with the story; as I said, she's quite "crowbarred in". Yet, this whole fight between her and Merlin is probably the best part of the movie, so it's a strange love-hate criticism where I wish she was a bigger part of things. Along the way, we meet other likable characters like Archimedes (Junius Matthews), Merlin's stubborn, talking owl, and Arthur's foster brother, Kay (Norman Alden) who is being prepped to take over as King by his father, Sir Ector (Sebastian Cabot). Arthur, being the underdog through this, thinks it an honor to become Kay's squire, but a lot of the story involves Merlin trying to push him towards something more. I suppose the big takeaway from this one is something along the lines of "don't just settle, you can be more". The problem is, when Arthur does finally pull the sword (if that's a spoiler, you probably shouldn't be here) he does it in an attempt to arm his foster brother. He stumbles into kingship so abruptly, it happens, he questions himself, and then Merlin shows up to say "nah, you're king" and suddenly he's okay with it. I'll be honest, it feels rushed. All criticisms aside, however, I wouldn't consider this a bad movie either. It has flaws, but none so much that I feel like I'm walking on eggshells with my review ('Peter Pan', man. I'll never get over that). I would say that for young kids, this would actually make for a pretty good educational tool. But having said that, whether you enjoy this or not is gonna depend on what you're after. If you wanna see the legend of King Arthur, you're not really gonna get it. If you're the kind of kid who wants to see Arthur learn, in an almost 'Harry Potter' style, then it's perfectly fine. I think i have just seen too much of Arthur since my childhood that this doesn't really do it for me like it used to. It's interesting, but Disney's library certainly has better titles. 3/5 I can remember seeing this one a few times, growing up, and always enjoying it. It was a Disney movie that took time away from the magic of fairy tales and princesses who needed to find love with a prince. It's all well and good, but as far as this refresher goes, in its entirety, it's been quite a while since we've gotten away from the whole fantasy, fairy tale thing. I guess one could say there's something about this film that feels like a breath of fresh air. A Dalmatian named Pongo (Rod Taylor) is a bachelor dog living with his bachelor owner, Roger Radcliffe (Ben Wright). For this particular film, the roles of pet and owner are reversed for the narration, which is a pretty neat way of doing things considering Pongo is our lead. Anyway, Pongo is determined to find Roger a partner in order to spice up their dull lives. Spotting a lovely woman across the street, walking her own Dalmatian, Pongo gets Roger to take him for a walk. He tracks down the woman, Anita (Lisa Davis) and her dog, Perdita (Cate Bauer) sparks happen, and everyone seemingly gets a "happy ever after" setup from the get-go; that is until Perdita gets pregnant. Upon hearing that Perdy is having puppies, in walks one of the most detestable Disney villains of all time, Cruella De Vil (Betty Lou Gerson). Cruella's obsession is fur, and she makes attempt after attempt to buy these puppies (of which there ends up being 15), believing that everything has its price. However, Roger stands up to her, tells her off and sends her on her way. This of course leads to her arranging a dognapping, along with her bumbling henchmen, Jasper (J. Pat O'Malley) and Horace (Frederick Worlock). Pongo, Purdy, Roger, Anita and eventually most of London (or at least the pets of London) then make every effort to locate the puppies, and try to bring them back home safely. This is one of my personal favorites of the Disney collection, if only because it does everything I already mentioned. I remember renting this one a few times, growing up. We also had a dog of our own, who we adored as a family. So there's certainly a childhood connection to it, along with that of just being a dog-owner and being able to relate. I mean, to put a morbid spin on things here, just imagine a rich and wretched woman coming to your door, offering you a sum of money to take your dog off your hands. You don't know why, but you do realize that fur is her life. I always found myself relating to Roger the most in this, as he just plain knows. Anita, in all honesty, is pretty naive when it comes down to it. While the puppies are altogether cute, and you can't help but empathize for the family through this, oddly enough, the villains are still by far the best part of the movie. It's a neat twist on a Disney movie that most of the comedy relief actually comes from then. While the puppies make you smile, along with a few side characters, these three baddies are totally off the wall. Jasper and Horace are probably funnier in the live-action version of this, but they're a bit less dumb here and a bit more like normal henchmen. It's Cruella that really gets me in this. When she loses it, she really loses it, and you can tell that Betty Lou Gerson is having a blast doing this voice. She really lets it all hang out, and is possibly the craziest villain we've seen yet. Up until now, they've mostly just been dark. For as awful as she is, she's a lot of fun to watch. This is a Disney classic I'd recommend to most people out there. It's just a lot of fun, and there's probably even further appeal to dog owners. There's a few dated things, perhaps, but in my opinion that's reaching just a little bit. This isn't like watching 'Peter Pan' and just feeling awkward about things when it's over. The truth is, this is one Disney classic I can keep coming back to (although I admit some of the barking can get irksome). I always have fun with it, there's some nostalgia attached to it, and once again, it just feels like a beath of fresh air. It's perhaps the most "realistic" story Disney Animation has done up until this point (as in taking place in the real world), and don't forget, '101 Dalmatians' did the Disney live action remake before it was cool - which, by the way, I also recommend for a fun time for the family. 4/5 This month's Kevin Smith catch-up wraps up with one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. I tend to cut Kevin a lot of slack, as he's an incredibly likable, inspiring, and does better on catering to his fans than critics. The dude's not out there to win an Oscar, he's out there to make his fans happy, and push potential filmmakers to just go for it. All that said, however, I really can't give this one to him, and to perhaps no one's real surprise, I'm on the negative side of it. Indeed, this was one of those movies I very nearly walked away from in the middle of it. We follow the two clerks from 'Tusk', Colleen Collette (Lily-Rose Depp) and Colleen McKenzie (Harley Quinn Smith); two teenage girls who study yoga with their teacher, Yogi Bayer (Justin Long), work for the Eh-2-Zed convenience store, and spend a lot of their spare time rocking out in their band, Glamthrax. They are invited to a senior party by Colleen M's crush, Hunter (Austin Butler) and his friend, Gordon (Tyler Posey). Eventually this leads to a would-be ritual Satan-worshipping sacrifice, but all is disrupted by a bunch of (and I'm not making this up) stereotypically German Nazi bratwursts dressed in Canadian Mounty garb. These things kill the guys in a most grotesquely odd manner, and the Colleens escape, but are immediately arrested for their murders. At school, the Colleens learned that the Nazi Party once influenced Winnipeg, and a branch of Canadian Nazis emerged from it, led by self-proclaimed Canadian Führer, Adrien Arcand (Haley Joel Osment) and his partner in crime, Andronicus Arcane (Ralph Garman). Arcand was eventually arrested, but Arcane disappeared. Of course this all leads to a weird explanation as to why the Bratzis are even a thing, and the girls are helped by Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp) who believes they are innocent, and upon acquiring Bratzi evidence, himself, helps them get to the bottom of things. And even that was almost too much explanation for a plot so strangely put together. It's abundantly clear that this movie is a bit of a middle finger towards critics - especially when you learn what the big villainous plan is near the end. It's something Smith seems to have made special for his daughter, and his die hard fans who all have the same reason for liking it; it's stupid, goofy fun. While that may be true, speaking as a Canadian, I can honestly say they went a little too overboard with the stereotypes here. Bearing in mind that's coming from someone who can freely admit that he eats Canadian stereotypes up, that's saying something. The whole "Aboot" thing is used to an absolute fault, and knowledge of Canadian music seems a bit lost here as "Oh Canada" seems to be the front-running song throughout the film. I further just have personal beef here, as it seemed to really be trying to be 'Scott Pilgrim vs The World' with the way it introduces characters, and a lot of visuals accompanied by quick humor. The difference is 'Scott Pilgrim' is actually much closer to what some Canadians are like. Taking place in Toronto, it seemed they clearly did their homework. This is really much more of a stereotype thing, which again is great a lot of the time, but here it felt so forced. Then I realize this is Part 2 of a trilogy ('Moose Jaws' is next) and I've gotta say, Kevin's directorial skills are fast-waning; although as a Jay & Silent Bob fan, I did still like 'Reboot', which was a great way to cater to his fans after this one. I think it's pretty safe to say that 'Yoga Hosers' is where Smith hits his rock bottom. I didn't like 'Tusk' a whole lot either, but at least I laughed in certain spots. This just didn't really give me anything, and I'd consider Guy LaPointe the only real saving grace. But I'm not about to rip apart Harley or Lily, as they are still a couple of fresh face to the industry and we all need to start somewhere. Harley has already been put in a Tarantino film ('Once Upon a Time in Hollywood') and Lily-Rose seems to be doing okay in the Indie film circuit. I hope to see them both make it, but as far as this particular film goes, it's a bit of a blotch on their resumes. I still love Kevin Smith, consider this a simple weak point in his career. Every director has something like that, eventually. His biggest fans know and love him best for his Jersey movies, so as long as we still have those, we're in good shape. 1/5 Right off the bat, we can safely say that knowing my particular tastes, this wasn't generally my cup of tea. It's just a little too messed up in its horror aspect, and I'd probably say that it's Kevin Smith's answer to 'Human Centipede'. The main plot of the story is very similar in that it involves a drugging followed by human biological experimentation. The thing about 'Tusk', however, is that it's based on a true story... well, not really, but kind of. More on that later. The film opens with podcasters Wallace Bryton (Justin Long) and Teddy Craft (Haley Joel Osment) who host a show called 'The Not-See Party'. Their podcast showcases humiliating viral videos; the latest being 'The Kill Bill Kid' in which a guy clearly parodying 'The Star Wars Kid' replaces lightsaber with katana, and chops his leg off. Upon reviewing the video, Wallace heads to Manitoba, Canada where the kid lives in hopes to interview him, but through certain circumstances, the interview cannot move forward. Not wanting to come to Canada for nothing, however, he decides to seek someone else out for an awesome story to share on his podcast. In the bathroom of a bar, Wallace finds an ad from a Howard Howe, offering a free room and the guarantee of interesting stories in exchange for a few chores. Howard is a wheelchair-bound, retired seaman, and claims he can't do certain things around the house anymore. Wallace answers the ad, and gets directions from Colleen McKenzie and Colleen Collette (Harley Quinn Smith and Lily-Rose Depp, respectively) to Howard's home, located smack-dab in the middle of nowhere. Arriving that night, Wallace gets some pretty cool stories from Howard that he could potentially bring back for his podcast; one involving a walrus that save his life, who he developed a friendship with. As anyone can predict, Wallace quickly gets more than he bargained for with a drugged tea, and waking up strapped to a chair, missing a limb. I won't sit here and spoil what else happens, but there are pictures all over the internet, and any Kevin Smith fan who hasn't even seen this movie has likely seen the end result. I knew that's what I was getting into as far as the main plot goes, so I can't pretend to be shocked by much. But once again, the whole human experimentation/shock horror thing isn't generally what I enjoy in a horror movie (even if it is a horror comedy). So right off the bat, I already knew this wasn't going to be a favorite. But I will admit, it's not without a perk or two. This is another American comedy that pokes fun at Canada in so many ways, with so many stereotypes. Even speaking as a Canadian, I'm all about Canadian stereotypes. Some are damn close to true, but some are so hilariously off that you can't help but laugh at them. To put the cherry on the sundae, Johnny Depp comes into the picture as Guy Lapointe; an inspector from Quebec (not the hockey player). The performance is very much a stereotype, but his delivery is pretty spot on, and I don't think he really says anything particularly harmful. Maybe it's just me, but being Canadian, I feel like I can embrace Canadian stereotypes far easier than I can get offended by them. That could be part of what makes us so "nice". One final note brings me back to that "true story" bit. The truth is, inspiration for the film came from a fake online advertisement very similar to the one Wallace finds. The ad was an old man, offering a rent-free room with the catch that the tenant has to wear a walrus costume and behave like one from time to time. To everyone's astonishment, the ad actually received over 400 responses, despite the fact that the ad was placed as a joke, written by Chris Parkinson of Brighton, England. So essentially, Smith took the idea and twisted it to that 'Human Centipede' standard, throwing in some fairly solid comedy along the way. Although it delivered a few solid laughs, however, this kind of thing is not up my alley as far as the horror aspect goes, and it's just plain weird and uncomfortable to sit through. To be fair, that IS the point, but I think it's safe to say that we all have something we don't like to see in movies. For me, it's basically any form of something torturous, and experimentation such as this totally counts. It had its moments, but for now, it's probably the Kevin Smith movie I'd furthest disassociate myself with. 2/5 This month for Catching Up, I have finally put my foot down on getting caught up on Kevin Smith's non- Jay & Silent Bob movie collection. I consider myself a Kevin Smith fan based on those movies, as well as his 'Evening' trilogy, but I haven't really bothered much with anything else he's made for some reason. Once I finish this month's series of reviews, I'll be all caught up on what I've seen. I also hope that some of the others turn out a bit like this one, in that, I find it's honestly not quite as bad as people let on. A media publicist in New York City named Ollie Trinké (Ben Affleck) is living a happy life with his wife, Gertie (Jennifer Lopez), but it only goes as far as the birth of their first child, where Gertie tragically dies in childbirth. At first, Ollie is distressed and puts his work in the path of his childcare, passing things off to his father, Bart (George Carlin). The stress gets the better of him one day when he flat out insults Will Smith in front of too many reporters, makes a public ass of himself, gets fired, and moves in with Bart in New Jersey along with the baby, who he names after Gertie. After his screw up, he promises the baby Gertie that he'll be a better father, and presumably becomes a great father over the next 7 years. Now 7, Gertie (Raquel Castro) has a bit of an obsession with renting movies from the local video store, where they both meet the lovely Maya (Liv Tyler) who soon enters their lives. To make a lot of this short, much of the rest of the film eventually leads to Ollie's struggle between the happiness of his old life and the comfort of his new life. Everyone he loves, including an impressionable Gertie, is perfectly happy with their lives, but there's a big part of Ollie that ends up wanting his old life back. It's a movie that plays with the ideas of parenthood, and just how complicated a situation can get. That said, it's pretty predictable as far as its ending goes, but at the same time, I do find it to be a sweet movie - even if it's a little over the top with the drama sometimes. Usually, this is toted as one of Smith's worst titles, but I sincerely think there are worse. I'd say one of the more important things to keep in mind as far as Kevin Smith is concerned is that he makes movies for his fans, not critics, and he also creates from the heart. There's a bit of a personal touch to his movies, no matter what he's creating, and this one was a dedication to his late father. It was also inspired by his own life as a new father to one, Harley Quinn Smith, so to truly criticize this movie just feels like a dick move to me. If I had to pull something from it to nitpick about, it's that it often gets a bit overdramatic, and some of it's heavy-handed. But I just can't reach that deeply into this to look for the dirt. I see it as a love letter to his Dad and his Daughter more than anything, and I can't bring myself to pick on that, or be selfish about not getting what I thought I was gonna get. Actually, I got pretty well what I figured. I just thought it was sweet, and though it's not without its problems, I've seen much worse. It's a simple slice of life kind of story, and I think it gets much more flack than it deserves. It won't be for everyone, but if you're a Smith fan and haven't checked it out yet, you might surprise yourself. 3/5 This film opens with a kindly dedication to all dogs, be they "ladies" (trained, housebroken dogs) or "tramps" (strays). It suggests that money cannot buy the wag of a dog's tail, and anyone who has ever owned and loved a dog really knows this to be true. To me, the beginning of the film is actually perhaps the most charming part of it, as it speaks a truth all dog-owners understand to be true. But for as promising as this sounds, there's a lot of stuff about the film that I'm not too fond of, and it's another title in the Disney collection I could totally take or leave. This one also opens on Christmas, at a household where a man named Jim Dear (Lee Millar) gives a gift to his wife, Darling (Peggy Lee); a cute little cocker spaniel with a bow she calls "Lady". The first night is actually pretty adorable, as Lady gets lonely and tries so desperately hard to join her family in their bed. She manages, but they lay down the law that it's JUST for that first night. Naturally, however, the trend lasts much longer, which was something I found they got pretty spot-on for dog-lovers, or even pet-owners in general. In this house, we let both dogs and cats up on the bed, as we appreciate the company, and I know many who do the same. At around six months, they get Lady (now voiced by Barbara Luddy) a dog license, and she shows it off to her friends, a Scottish Terrier (Bill Thompson) named Jock and a Bloodhound named Trusty (Bill Baucom), who has no sense of smell. We get the sense that Lady lives a very happy, comfortable, perhaps even spoiled life with her owners (by the way, do not feed your dog coffee and donuts like they do here!). Lady's owners are very fond of her, she's got them wrapped around her little paw, and life is good. Meanwhile, we are introduced to "Tramp" (Larry Roberts), a stray mutt who sleeps at a construction sight, eats the scraps from a friendly Italian restaurant (probably at least better for dogs that coffee and donuts - seriously, don't do that). He lives his life day by day, outrunning dog catchers and socializing with the local strays. One day Tramp comes across Lady having a conversation with Jock and Trusty about the baby Jim and Darling are about to have. Tramp warns her about what's going to happen, but his opinion is at first tossed aside. Some time after the baby is born, however, Jim and Darling go on vacation, leaving the baby with Aunt Sarah (Verna Felton) who, along with her racially insensitive siamese cats, treat Lady like some sort of unwanted mongrel. This leads Lady out onto the streets, taking her chances with Tramp, who seems to have been right in his opinion about humans the whole time. But will she be able to adjust to the Tramp's lifestyle? Or is she too adapted to her home life? Much like with 'Cinderella', this is one of those Disney animated films that isn't entirely up my alley, but that doesn't mean it's bad. If you take away some of the racial controversy, the story is actually pretty charming - that is, if you can make it past some of the dog noises that are way too overexaggerated here. The dog pound scene, for example, is pretty brutal - like watching one of those SPCA commercials but instead of being heartbreakingly sad, it's this odd combination of annoying, sad and even kind of scary. If you really love dogs, this movie might hit you harder than most. In many ways, the film brings back fond memories of the dogs I had in my life, who I developed very strong and close relationships with. A lot of the charm of the movie does appeal to dog lovers, but a lot of the darker moments here are actually kind of upsetting. I really wasn't a fan of the "taking the long walk" scene, where a very upbeat dog at the pound gets put down behind closed doors. It's a bit much, and doesn't really need to be there other than to pull at heartstrings. In fact, the film does a lot of that, some of it feeling quite forced. Other than a few things that haven't aged very well since 1955, this isn't a bad movie for the right audience. This will appeal to dog lovers easily enough, and has its charm despite not quite being everything I look for in a Disney animated film. It might make for a pretty good date movie, but I otherwise prefer something a little more upbeat because for as charming as this can be, it can get just as dark, and moments of sadness are really crowbarred in. It's made for that soft spot a lot of us have within us for dogs, but it's bound to work better for some than others. 3/5 Here we go for round three of my Disney catch-up. This is one that I've seen a few times before, but I tend to stick to the latter half for several reasons. While 'The Wind in the Willows' is okay for what it is, it's 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow' that seems to become most peoples' takeaway from it. On top of that, I'm a fiend for Halloween, and the last moments have left an impression on me that has lasted since I was a little kid. It's probably the primary source of my opinion that atmosphere outdoes blood and gore for a good scare. But of course, I'm here to review the whole movie, so allow me to get the first part out of the way (which was pretty much how I felt watching this). On the whole, the film could be likened to an average family meal for a kid. You wanna get through the first bit and jump straight to your dessert - you may even be willing to sacrifice some of your meal to get there, too (in this case hitting skip until you get to the good parts). So fair warning, I didn't care much for the first segment, and my heart isn't really in it. But I'll give it a whirl. 'The Wind in the Willows': Based on the story by Kenneth Grahame, the story bases itself in London, England in the early 1900s. We are introduced to a variety of critter characters, including J. Thaddeus Toad, Esq. He has a passion for adventure, with no regard to cost, which eventually brings him to the brink of bankruptcy. His habit of getting into all things popular peaks when he discovers motorcars, and Toad's friend, Angus McBadger convinces other friends, Ratty and Moley to try to help curb his habit. This all gets really weird and advanced for something aimed at kids. It involves a lot of financial mumbo jumbo, and even a court case that involves Mr. Toad's reckless driving. When describing it to a friend, i claimed it as being a very boring tale, but complete with some pretty funny visuals and dialogue. For me, it's not bad for what it is, but it's definitely not something I feel like I need to re-watch annually at Christmas (it takes place around the holidays). There are certainly some laugh out loud moments though, and that was enough to at least keep me mildly entertained. 3/5 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow': This segment couldn't have worked out much better for timing. These Disney Animation reviews are all being done in order, and taking place every month with five Thursdays until I'm done. It just so happened that 'The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad' lands on October 1st, and the last moments of the second segment here always, without fail, gets me into the Halloween spirit. Of course I refer to Washington Irving's 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow'. The first parts of this segment are intriguing enough as a sort of twisted love triangle story. Basically, we have Ichabod Crane; a school master who looks pretty gangly and has a certain charm to him that some of the local ladies fall for. However we learn that he's a bit of a jerk as well, going after women for their riches and good cooking more than for love. His competition is local tough guy, Brom Bones, who picks on Ichabod a little bit, but nothing too harmful. In a weird way, there's a very human balance between the two, and we see that the would-be gangly geek between the wto may actually be the jerk. Of course, this all ends with Brom Bones having enough with his competition, and sacring the crap out of him with the tale of the Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hollow. If you wanna get to what makes this whole movie great, skip to the last 13 minutes or so. It begins with a catchy song as Brom Bones tells the tale, and then it cuts to the best and most memorable part of things, involving Ichabod, riding home through the dark forest. Even as a 38-year-old adult, I can say that this is still effectively creepy and a fantastic way to dip your young children into the horror pool. It works really well as a "baby step" in that direction. The segment as a whole is interesting in its execution, and it has become an annual Halloween watch for me. 5/5 If you recall last month, I went through five of the six "package films" Disney made from a bunch of unused footage (at least for a lot of it). This is the sixth and final package film Disney made during this era, and things would go back to normal until 1977 with 'The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh'. On the whole, I definitely recommend checking out the last half of this, especially since we're approaching Halloween. It might stick with you better than some actual horror movies with the atmosphere it creates. As far as the first half, I could take it or leave it. It's good for a giggle, but not something to keep coming back to. 4/5 This film has provided me with a pretty good opportunity to express my feelings on Melissa McCarthy. I have always said that she definitely has the talent, but she's so terribly typecast that she's not given the room to be at her best. Of course, since 2015, when this film was initially released, we've all seen her come pretty far. This includes a Best Actress nomination for a very serious role in 'Can You Ever Forgive Me', and I really do hope to see more opportunity present itself to her in the future, as she's such an underutilized actress. I personally found that after watching this movie, 'Spy' may be that perfect balance of her talents. She does the funny thing, she does the serious thing, she does the badass thing, and it all comes together with a fantastic supporting cast, great dialogue, and a fair share of decent action. I can say with all honesty that this was a very pleasant surprise, as I went into it expecting something pretty bottom-shelf. I do love when a film proves me wrong though, and this is no exception. In fact, even thought it's a bold statement, I might currently consider this the most surprised I've been by a movie (although 'Jumanji' 2017 is a big contender). We're introduced to a desk-bound CIA agent named Susan Cooper (McCarthy); a techie for field agent Bradley Fine (Jude Law). Things go pretty well between them as a team, and we get that Susan has a bit of a thing for Fine's suave good looks and demeanor. However, long story short, when things go south, Fine is assassinated by a Bulgarian arms dealer named Rayna Boyanov (Rose Byrn). Having such strong feelings for her friend, partner and potential love interest, Susan eventually manages to get her first undercover assignment from her boss, Elaine Crocker (Allison Janney), to help with the capture of Boyanov. The running gag is that every time her identity changes, it's never anything flattering, and the disguises kinda just keep getting lamer but funnier. In the meantime, Susan has to go undercover due to the agency's top agent's names being revealed, and becoming easily identifiable. The two top agents in question are the seemingly fake-friendly Karen Walker (Morena Baccarin), whose confidence lets her get away with far too much, and Rick Ford (Jason Statham) who puts that cherry on top of this wonderful spy sundae. His running gag is bragging about various stunts he's done, and more often than not, I'm pretty sure they turn out to be something you may have seen him do in another movie at some point. The gag is that to hear these situations out loud is laughable, even if it all looks incredibly badass on screen. So it takes its jabs at typical Hollywood action with a modern "It" guy for the genre. Beyond having a great cast, this film is just really well written for a spy spoof. It seems abundantly clear by the way things unfold that writer/director Paul Feig has an appreciation for spy movies. For as much of a comedy/action that this is, it's a bit surprising, and a breath of fresh air, not to see it go too off the rails at any point. It's oddly believable as an actual spy movie with comedic situations as opposed to just a spy spoof like 'Spy Hard' or 'Austin Powers'. Yet as you get the gags going through the film, it's easy to tell that it's something that doesn't take itself too seriously either. It's kinda "just right" as far as a spy comedy/spoof goes. So, if you're anything like me and find Melissa McCarthy a little too typecast as a goofy character, you might find the trailer for this giving you pause. It just looks like Melissa McCarthy is gonna play Melissa McCarthy again, on the surface. But trust me when I say there is much more to this movie than meets the eye. But don't take my word for it either. Rotten Tomatoes balances the critic/audience rating on an average of 86.5%, with the critics liking it more! If you haven't seen it yet, and you appreciate a good spy movie, and are any kind of fan of Jason Stathom, this was made for you. Check it out. It's awesome! 5/5 This one floats a bit under the radar, but can be found on Amazon Prime (Canada) for those who are looking to quench that thirst for a good martial arts movie. It has come highly recommended by a few close friends as one of those movies that's just plain and simply off-the-wall awesome. I can say with all honesty that it doesn't disappoint in the least. I absolutely loved it. Renound Chinese professor, Jack (Jackie Chan) teams up with a young Indian professor named Ashmita (Disha Patani) to search for the lost Magadha treasure in Tibet. Together, they assemble a team or archaeologists and other specialists, Jones Lee (Aarif Rahman), Xiaoguang (Lay Zhang), Kyra (Amyra Dastur) and Noumin (Miya Muqi). Eventually, using modern technology, they locate the treasure under a frozen lake. Here, they are ambushed by a group of mercenaries led by Randall (Sonu Sood), but our hero team escapes with a diamond that could lead to the Magadha Treasure. Soon, it becomes a race to get to the lost treasure first, very much in the style of 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade'. In fact, this movie with all of its ideas borrows a great deal from 'Indiana Jones', but think of it this way; what if Indiana Jones knew martial arts? While the film isn't entirely original in plot, it's made up for with the idea of bringing the art of Kung Fu together with the art of Yoga, and the film shows they hold as many differences as they do similarities. They are both used quite a bit throughout the film, and you get you Jackie Chan fighting blended with other great martial artists and their individual styles. It's neat that it doesn't just stop at being a Kung Fu movie. This is another one of those movies that certainly isn't without its flaws, but the flaws are so overshadowed by the awesomely random stuff that keeps happening. I mean, there's a scene where Jackie's in a speedy car chase with a lion as his passenger. Read that out loud and tell me that doesn't sound like something that would be cool to see. There's actually a lot of animal use in this, but I'm pretty confident it's about 99% CG. You get wolves, elephants, hyenas, snakes, horses, camels, there's a zoo in this movie. The wolf part in particular was my favorite, involving Jackie and Jones doing some Kung Fu training in order to intimidate the wolves. It looks like a one-on-one fighting game with a cool wolf/tundra background. That actually brings me to my next point, the CG. You really have to watch this movie in a certain way, because the CG isn't what you'd call strong. You'll know everything you need to know in the opening sequence about it. My general impression was that though it looks kinda rough, it really pops with bright color and swift action, and I thought to myself that if it was a video game cut scene, it would look pretty awesome. With that, I just carried on watching the rest as if it was a high def game come to life, and it worked out pretty well. So, if you're on the lookout for a good action movie with a good blend of martial arts, I can honestly recommend this pretty highly. You'll need to go in with an open mind, and convince yourself to let a few things slide, but all in all this is a fun movie. I will forewarn that I thought it ended very abruptly though. If I have any real complaints about it, that's probably what it would be. There's a little lesson of positivity, and then it just kinda ends. But it ends with a dance number so catchy that you almost shrug off how abrupt the ending is because at that moment it's very clear that this was something made for fun more than anything. Sit back, relax, and get a taste of that classic Jackie Chan fighting. 4/5 I figured I'd close off Wes Craven month with what I consider a bit of an underrated treat - even though this was my first time seeing it. I admit, I consider it underrated for all the wrong reasons, though. Chalk this one up to a new guilty pleasure. It's all sorts of silly, but there are certain things about it that harken back to Craven's 'Elm Street' days. You sort of recognize that he develops a style of doing things, and the villain here may as bloody well be an early Freddy (he was much more sinister in the first film). The villain in question is the vile Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi - a lot of fun to watch as a horror villain) who is wreaking havoc in an LA suburb. Having killed 30 people, and being on the loose, everyone in town is considerably scared. But when detective Don Parker (Peter Berg) gets too close to Pinker, it results in the tragic murder of his wife and two foster children. It starts to get weird when it turns out that Parker's surviving foster son, Jonathan (Peter Berg) has some connection to Pinker, as he can see when and where he's going to strike next through his precognitive dreams. Without spoiling much, eventually these dreams do lead to Pinker's capture and execution, but at the cost of innocent lives. The horrific fun comes into play when we learn that Pinker has made a deal with the Devil that when he fries, he doesn't die, but absorbs and becomes electricity. Yes, you read that right, but it gets better. He's also able to carry on his body count by possessing other people. Does Jonathan have what it takes to stop him, which includes having more imagination than you could... imagine? Once the film gets into its climax, it doesn't just toss reality out the window, it drops it from a 50-story building with weights tied around its ankles. It gets so stupid but so fun all at once. I'm such an 'Elm Street' fan and there are tastes of it throughout this movie. It's fun to view this as though Craven's hinting at the directors who took the property over on how Freddy ought to be (he became a real wise-cracker). This was 1989, and 'Elm Street 5' had just come out a couple of months prior, so it would make sense. Pinker has so many similarities to Freddy, you almost wonder if they were once partners in crime. Upon everything else that brings up the original 'Elm Street', Heather Langenkamp cameos here as a murder victim. I think I see this as Wes Craven having fun with the genre, as was the style at the time. This film is all sorts of ridiculous, but I'm so happy I chose it to end this month with. On a bit of a more serious note, Craven left behind a legacy of horror when he passed most unfortunately and suddenly in 2015. He covered just about everything, going from the uncomfortable snuff film that was 'Last House on the Left' all the way up to making fun of the slasher genre he helped create with 'Scream' (although he only directed those). Fans of the franchise, including myself, will say that the best Freddy films were the original, 'Dream Warriors' and 'New Nightmare' - the ones Craven was involved with, and there are more titles on his resume to cover. Having seen some of them, I can recommend a few from his directorial resume. 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' is quite scary, and based on a true story of Haitian Voodoo; 'The People Under the Stairs' is perhaps his most underrated film, according to some sources; and 'Red Eye' as a great bottle thriller on a plane. I'm glad I sat through all of these, but it's a little sad that I could only ever "break even" with them. But even if they come out as average to me, I think I'd still recommend horror fans going through his work. Wes Craven is a name synonymous with horror, covering a lot of different sub-horror genres, and these movies deserve a good look. Five years later, rest in peace, Wes Craven. Thank you for providing us horror fans with some great material that would often haunt our dreams, and succeed in the scare. 3/5 Back in 1990, I can remember watching those Saturday morning cartoons of ours, and coming across an ad for 'Swamp Thing'. It was something I bypassed, and to this day, I have no idea if it was any good. I'm gonna guess probably not, since no one ever talks about it. But unbeknownst to me, there was also a live action series during this time, so for some reason, it was a real "thing" for some people. It even came back last year for the CW. Well, to be fair, this is based on a DC comic series, so one has to figure it has its audience. To be honest though, I'd probably still have put this on the back burner if it weren't for this month's Wes Craven theme. 'Swamp Thing', from my perspective, seemed like someone threw together Frankenstein and the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and in 1990, I was way too busy with my Ninja Turtles to give a damn. I never did bother with "Swamp Thing' until now, but I gotta say, I'm pretty glad I did. Here we have a 1982 comic book film that seems to be a pretty self-aware comedy, and it comes to us from horror legend, Wes Craven, whose previous two films are relatively brutal for their time. To make a long and complicated story short, botanist, Dr. Alec Holland (Ray Wise) is on a quest to wipe out world hunger, and is placed under the protection of special agent Alice Cable (Adrienne Barbeau). Another scientist named Anton Arcane (Louis Jourdan) attempts a heist to steal Holland's research, which leads to an accident, turning Holland into the Swamp Thing - an odd blend of plant and human who defends Alice from Arcane and his henchmen, who remain constantly after his research. Apparently, Craven had a desire here to prove to Hollywood that he could take on something bigger and better than his usual harrowing formula, and much more different. Some similarities can still be seen, as it still dabbles in some horror aspects, and uses its environment as a part of the characters - which was apparently criticized, but I tend to admire it. If you can make the setting as suspenseful as the characters in the setting, you've really got something. 'Last House on the Left' used the family home, 'The Hills Have Eyes' used the desert, and this obviously uses the swamp. Hell, even 'Nightmare on Elm Street' uses 1428 Elm Street. So how is the film, as a whole? Well, it's bloody weird. This is one of those films that you watch and you don't know how to feel about it. One perspective sees it as so bad it's good, with a bunch of jokes and dialogue that just do not land, but another sees it as a positive message about environment and world issues in general. For me, I just can't see it as anything too deep. I personally find it campy and cheesy in all the right ways. This is a guy in a rubber swamp man suit, and it's about as easy to take seriously as the 1966 Adam West 'Batman' movie. It's a situation where the stupid and silly Dad jokes are kinda what make it so likable. I therefore can't finish this review without bringing up Jude (Reggie Batts), who, to me, was both the best and lamest part of the film all at once. He's meant to be the comic relief, but the dialogue is often about as funny as a standard knock-knock joke, which in a roundabout way makes it funny. Unfortunately, saying he's what's best about it doesn't give the movie much headway in terms of seeing it as "good". But I think it can easily be seen as one of those guilty pleasure movies that a lot of people can share. I enjoy that the film seems to embrace its tacky charm, and understands what it is, not trying to be anything more. The style is fairly comparable to 1960's 'Batman', as I mentioned earlier. Thinking about that, 'Swamp Thing' is also a DC property, and in 1982, the best superhero movie was either 'Superman' or 'Superman II', depending on your perspective (I'm a 'Superman' guy). Until Tim Burton's 'Batman' came along, changing the face of comic book movies forever, the cheese was what we not only got, but accepted. So for that, 'Swamp Thing' is a perfectly charming, silly, superhero time capsule. It drags at points, but all in all, not bad for a Wes Craven attempt at a superhero movie. Regardless, a couple of years after this, he created one of the biggest super villains of a generation. So consider this one of the higher steps on his ladder to success. 3/5 |