Coming Soon...

No movie review today, but February is going to be 

"70's Month"

28 days looking back at 28 films from the 1970's!

Back in 2017 I did a whole month of just 80's movies and I thought it was a fun thing to focus on a single decade for a bit so, I decided to do it again. 

You can check out those 80's reviews here 

https://onlyinthemoviesblog.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_18.html 

Made for Each Other

Made for Each Other is a 1939 film starring James Stewart and Carole Lombard and, while it didn't quite make my list of '10 James Stewart Movies Everyone Should See', it is a pretty good movie. 

The film is about a couple (played by Stewart and Lombard) that get married after only knowing each other for a day. Although they start out as a happy, idealistic pair they are quickly faced to deal with a series of domestic issues. From people questioning they're rushed marriage, to a newborn who later becomes severely ill, to money woes and Stewart's character not being made partner at the law firm, the two's marriage is tested but they're bond is strong enough to get them through. 

There is a lot to like about this film but it is a bit of a mixed-bag. I think the chemistry between the two leads works and the film moves along at a decent pace. For those familiar with one of Stewart's best known characters, George Bailey in 1946's It's a Wonderful Life, his role in this film as the everyman just trying to do his best while obstacle after obstacle is placed in front of him is going to feel very familiar, but he plays it so well. My main criticism of the film is its structure. At times the movie feels a little disjointed, less like a complete narrative and more like a series of scenes in which two people are encountering problems stitched together to form a feature length film.

Overall, I like Made for Each Other. It isn't one of those 'must-see' Jimmy Stewart films but, all in all, I think it's entertaining. 
I give this one a 3.5 out of 5.

Today's Movie: Dark Blue

Directed by Ron Shelton, (who has directed an number of films I really like, most notably 1988's Bull Durham and 1989's Blaze) and starring the always likable Kurt Russell, 2002's Dark Blue is a movie right up my alley. 

Set in Los Angeles in 1992, during the days leading up to the verdict in the Rodney King trial, the movie is a thriller about corruption at every level of the L.A.P.D. Kurt Russell is fantastic in the film as Sergeant Eldon Perry, a seasoned officer who is teaching his young partner Bobby (played by Scott Speedman) how to plant evidence, lie on reports, and cover up cold-blooded murders. Of course a film about a bad bunch of cops usually has to have a good cop who wants to weed out the corruption and in this movie that role is played by Ving Rhames. I really like Rhames in most of his movies but one of the shortcomings of this film is that he just isn't given much to do. It's a nearly 2hr film with only about 80-90 minutes worth of story and I personally think it would've benefited from removing the subplot about Perry's failing marriage, because that never really goes anywhere, and instead ramp up tensions between the good cops and bad.

 Overall, I enjoyed this one. It does have it's flaws but I'll definitely end up watching it again and I recommend checking it out. 

3.5 out of 5 

Today's Movie: The Ministers

The Ministers is a 2009 movie starring Harvey Keitel, Florencia Lozano, and John Leguizamo pulling double duty as twin brothers. Until today I had never heard of this film which is unsurprising as, according to Box Office Mojo, it's theatrical release only included two theaters and it made a grand total of $4,447.

So, what's this one about? Well, the basic setup is about a rookie detective named Celeste (played by Florencia Lozano) whos father was murdered when she was teen, with the killers leaving only one piece of evidence; a religious pamphlet. Fast forward 13 years and the killers have started up again. Seeking justice for her father, Celeste and her partner Bruno (played by Harvey Keitel) are on the case to uncover the identities of these murderers. Then things get really interesting when Celeste becomes romantically involved with a man that turns out to be one of the killers.

This one isn't a bad movie, but it isn't great either. It's only about 90mins long but, it's stuffed with a few too many twists and turns, it never gets all that tense and the film often just seems to meander from plot point to plot point. 

Entertaining enough, but not worthy of a recommendation.

I give this one a 2 out of 5.

Today's Movie: Leatherheads

2008's Leatherheads was not a movie that connected with critics or audiences overall. The film lost money at the box-office and currently only holds a 52% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 6/10 on IMDb. Sure, within the genre of sports films it's no Rocky or Field of Dreams, or The Wrestler but, with that being said, I liked the film when I originally saw it in theaters and re-watching it today I still thought it was pretty entertaining.

Set in 1925, the film stars George Clooney as Dodge Connelly an aging pro football player who plays for team that, like so many others, is broke and about to fold. However, there is a war hero/stud football player out of Princeton named Carter "The Bullet" Rutherford (played by John Krasinski) that Dodge convinces to join his Duluth Bulldogs in an effort to save the team and legitimize pro football. There is one wrinkle though; this 'war hero' may not be a hero after all and reporter Lexie Littleton (played by Renee Zellweger) is determined to get the real story. The film, I feel, blends it's sports, screwball comedy, and love triangle aspects all pretty well. It's well shot and well acted with good chemistry between the three leads, but it probably didn't need to be nearly two hours as it does seem to drag at few points. 

Overall, this is a film I enjoy and if you like sports movies then this is one I recommend checking out if you haven't seen it.

3.5 out of 5.

Hamlet & Hutch

I'm a big fan of the late, great Burt Reynolds, and I even wrote a piece a while back about 10 of his movies that I recommend people see (you can check that one out HERE). However, until today I had not seen the 2015 Direct-to-DVD film Hamlet & Hutch. 

In the film Reynolds plays Papa Hutch, an old theater actor who is suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's. This forces him to move from New York to the Georgia and in with his granddaughter and his 11 year old great granddaughter, Liv. Hutch and Liv quickly develop a bond based on their mutual love of both acting and a greyhound appropriately named Hamlet. Toward the latter third of the film both Hamlet and Hutch go missing. Hutch turns up at a church relatively quickly, but Hamlet remains missing until the sappy, predictable, 'if you believe hard enough' conclusion.

Overall, it's not a great movie. The production quality is low and the acting is hit and miss (mostly misses). I wouldn't recommend it, but it's not completely unwatchable.

 I give this one a 1 out of 5.

Lions for Lambs

Released in 2007, Lions for Lambs is an interesting time capsule with regards to the War on Terror at the six year point. While not the critical darling those involved probably had hoped it would be (the film currently holds a 6.2 /10 on IMDb), it does star a good cast who all give respectable performances. Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise and Andrew Garfield all make the film watchable and it is an interesting approach with Meryl Streep playing a liberal reporter, Tom Cruise playing a Republican senator, and Robert Redford playing a college professor that served in Vietnam. However, it just doesn't capitalize on it's own premise and the majority of movie consists mostly of people just sitting in offices talking about morality and philosophical view points regarding the war. If done just a little better it could've ben compelling but, as is, it ends up feeling like a series of lectures and it wears thin after about 45 mins with the movie never really going anywhere. 

I give this one a 2 out of 5

Mary Poppins Returns

So, last night I finally go around to seeing Disney's latest film Mary Poppins Returns. Now, I love the original Mary Poppins from 1964; It's great fun, the songs are catchy, and Julie Andrews is perfect in the film. While I was excited to see more Mary Poppins, I was a bit nervous about a sequel to an iconic film that came out more than 50 years ago. 

In the film, a now grown up Michael Banks has hit a rough patch in his life. His wife passed away about a year ago, leaving him to take care of their three children and he is at risk of losing his family's home on Cherry Tree Lane to the bank. Of course, Mary Poppins comes floating in to look after the Banks children, bring them some joy, and maybe teach Mr. Banks a thing or two by the end. 

Overall, I really enjoyed this one. I thought the cast was solid, Julie Andrews is one of a kind but, I felt like Emily Blunt still did an outstanding job and Lin-Manuel Miranda's character Jack (who serves a similar purpose as Dick Van Dyke in the original) was on of the highlights of the film for me. Is it one of the best movies ever? No. It's not Vertigo or Citizen Kane or Singin' in the Rain, but I do think it's a worth-while follow up to the original Mary Poppins. I keeps with spirit of the first film and I found myself smiling and tapping my foot along with the songs the whole time. It not perfect, but it's the type of movie that reminds me why I love going to the movies. It's an escape from the ordinary and a chance to see something fantastical. 

I give Mary Poppins Returns 4.5 out of 5.

Some Brief Thoughts on the Blade Runner Films

I really like Ridley Scott's 1982 film Blade Runner. For those who don't know, it's an adaptation of the 1968 Philip K. Dick novel 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?', and takes place in the futuristic time of 2019... No, I don't love it like some people do but I do like like it. The themes are interesting and visually I find the movie captivating. It does however lack a little bit on story and there are some scenes that drag on way too long. I think that it's 2017 sequel (Blade Runner 2049 directed by Denis Villeneuve) takes what works about the first film and does it just a little better, and thus, I feel like it's a slightly better movie. Also, I personally think Ryan Gosling's Officer K is a more interesting protagonist in the sequel.

 I didn't see the first one until about two decades after it's initial release and by then numerous people had given me their synopsis of the film. When I finally did end up watching it, there were several things that I took away that no one had even mentioned. That speaks to what turned the original into a cult classic, everyone seems to get a little something different out of it. It's a fun movie to discuss with friends and to revisit every so often. I don't know if Blade Runner 2049 will eventually earn that same cult status because, now more than ever, movies have become about pure spectacle. As of writing this the film came out over a year ago and I know very few people who have seen it. I hope that over time, through Blu-ray and streaming services, it becomes a beloved as the original.

Overall, as a double feature, I wouldn't recommend watching the two back-to-back. By design the films are both atmospheric, slow-burns that combine for a 4.5+ hour runtime that you will feel every minute of. They are very good, some would even argue great, films but neither one was a hit at the box-office and they are definitely not movies I'd recommend to everyone. If you like sci-fi films that make you think a bit (rather than the good guys and bad guys just shooting space lasers at each other kind) and you don't mind movies that take their time then you will probably really enjoy these.

I give Blade Runner a 4 out of 5 

-and-

I give Blade Runner 2049 a 4.5 out of 5.