29) A Clockwork Orange (1971)

(4  's out of 5)

"Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man."

Director
Stanley Kubrick

Cast
Malcolm McDowell - Alex DeLarge
Warren Clarke - Dim
James Marcus - Georgie
Michael Tarn - Pete
Patrick Magee - Frank Alexander
Michael Bates - Chief Guard Barne
Adrienne Corri - Mary Alexander
Carl Duering - Dr Brodsky
Paul Farrell - The homeless man

While I've seen director Stanley Kubrick's 1971 dystopian movie, "A Clockwork Orange" two or three times before, I haven't watched it recently. I normally watch the movies I want to comment on just before I write up my comments, even if I've seen the movie before. 

However, I just finished Anthony Burgess's novel of the same title which the movie is based on. So, now I want to comment on the movie having just read the book. 

I admit I've had a fascination with the "A Clockwork Orange" which, after first watching it out of complete curiosity several years ago, has stuck with me since. 

I tried reading the novel a few years ago but didn't finish it. Now, I did. 

While I want to watch the movie again for the sake of this entry, I find some of the imagery in the film pretty uncomfortable. I mean, I've seen it more than once. I know the story. And I just read the novel. Plus, I know what I want to say about, "A Clockwork Orange." So, here I go.

I was initially curious about the movie having heard of it many times but not knowing much about it outside of scenes, the strange title, and images from the movie I'd seen immersed throughout pop culture such as Malcom McDowell's sinister glare with his eyelash, bowler hat and strange outfit. The "heighth" of fashion, as Alex refers to it in the novel.

(L to R): James Marcus, Warren Clarke, and Malcom McDowell in "A Clockwork Orange."

"A Clockwork Orange" takes place not-too-far in the future, but it isn't necessarily futuristic in the sci-fi understanding of the term. 

In this future, the world is a much more violent place though the law and order of England still stands. 

The story centers on a kid named Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell) who leads a gang which he calls his "droogs: - Pete (Michael Tarn), Georgie (James Marcus) and Dim (Warren Clarke). 

Like the novel, Alex, "your humble narrator" tells the story. 

He begins immediately with his introduction, "There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, and we sat in the Korova Milkbar trying to make up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening. The Korova Milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence."

After Alex and his droogs drug themselves up, they go around committing acts of horrific violence on innocent people for the mere thrill of committing violence. 

They assault a homeless man whom they find sleeping under a bridge. Then they fight a rival gang of theirs. 

Alex and his droogs also fool a writer named Frank Alexander (Patrick Magee) and his wife into letting them into their home by pretending to be in dire need of medical assistance. Once they're let in, they severely assault Alexander, and rape and murder his wife all while singing, "Singin' in the Rain." 

At one point, the droogs protest to Alex that they're tired of committing acts of petty crime, and want Alex to stop mistreating them, especially Dim. 

Alex responds by beating them up in order to assert his authority.  

Later, he and his droogs attempt to gain entrance into the home of a wealthy "cat-lady" to ultimately rob and beat her up. Alex knocks on her door pretending to need of medical help. The lady is well-aware of gangs attacking innocent people by tricking them to open their door, so she refuses and calls the police. 

Not to be denied his thrill, he manages to break in and does what he set out to do. However, he takes it too far and ends up murdering her accidentally. His droogs, meanwhile, are waiting for him outside. 

When Alex tries to escape, Dim smashes his face with a bottle in retaliation for constantly beating on him. 

His droogs ditch him there for the cops to arrest him. And arrest him, they do.

Alex is sentenced to 14 years in prison. 

But two years in, he's offered an opportunity to be a test subject for a new rehabilitation method endorsed by the Interior called the Ludovico technique. It's an experimental aversion technique designed to break criminals from their addiction to violence in whatever form that might be. 

Alex agrees so he can get out of prison. 

The experiment has Alex strapped to a chair with his eyes clamped open. He's forced to watch films depicting acts of violence and sex. While watching, he's injected with certain drugs. 

This process conditions Alex to become physically ill at the thought of committing a violent act.

Alex, by the way, is quite the afficionado of the music of Ludwig van Beethoven, which he listens to as the perfect cap after a night of violent excursions. 

"It had been a wonderful evening and what I needed now to give it the perfect ending was a bit of the old Ludwig van," he says in one scene. 

Well, it just so happens that the doctors putting him through the Ludovico are playing Beethoven during the films. So, now, he's inadvertently conditioned to feel sick when he hears Beethoven's music. 

Once he's through with the Ludovico technique, Alex is released from prison and returns back to the streets from whence he was picked up. 

The prison chaplain complains that the technique has destroyed Alex's ability to choose right from wrong and thereby has destroyed Alex's free will. 

The state, however, says Alex's inability to commit the heinous crimes he once did will be a benefit to society. It'll also cut crime and decrease prison populations. Machiavellian stuff!

Returning home to his parents, he finds they sold all of his belongings as compensation to his victims.

His parents have also taken in a border to, in a sense, replace Alex. 

He later runs into one of his previous victims  - the vagrant whom he beat up under the bridge. A group of vagrants retaliate by beating Alex up for what he did him years ago. 

Two cops arrive and break up the ruckus. As it turns out, those two cops happen to be Georgie and Dim who have since turned themselves around. 

Of course, they instantly recognize Alex, and he recognizes them. So, they take him to a secluded area nearby and beat him up pretty bad. 

Now, in true need to medical attention, the exhausted Alex knocks on the door of the first house he comes across, begging to be let in. Little does he realize that the house belongs to none other than Frank Alexander who now is confined to a wheelchair.

He doesn't recognize Alex at first and does have sincere sympathy for the kid. He does, however, know that Alex is the boy he read about in the papers as having undergone the Ludovico experiment.

Feeling even more sympathetic for Alex, he wants to introduce him to his colleagues whom, like Frank, are opposed to such a method of rehabilitation. 

He allows Alex to have a bath while his bodyguard (played by Darth Vader himself, David Prowse) prepares dinner for him.

However, while in the bath, Alex starts singing "Singin' in the Rain" at which point Frank realizes without a doubt it was he who assaulted them years ago. 

In retaliation, he drugs Alex, locks him in the bedroom, and starts blasting Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which makes Alex violently sick. Unable to stand it, he jumps from his bedroom window in a suicide attempt. Alex ends up in the hospital after this suicide attempt. 

After a variety of tests and such, Alex awakens to find he no longer has any aversion to violence. 

While the movie ends there, the novel has one more chapter. 

At the final chapter of the novel, which was omitted in the U.S. publication of Burgess's book, the results of the Ludovico technique are reversed, but Alex decides to give up crime and all that "ultra-violence." He doesn't find it as pleasurable as he used to. Instead, after running into Pete who reformed himself and now has a wife and family, Alex contemplates starting a family of his own and becoming a productive member of society. He thinks about the possibility of his own children taking up the violent life he once led which is a terrible thought, indeed. 

The film ends with the scene right before that omitted final chapter in which, while lying in a hospital bed, Alex has thoughts of violence once again along with a lewd fantasy about a young woman who happens to be standing in front of him. In his fantasy, he has his way with her while a crowd cheers them on. Over the scene, Alex is heard saying, "I was cured, alright!" 

One of the differences between the film and the book occurs when Alex and his droogs attack the old vagrant within inches of his life. Later, after Alex is released from prison, a group of vagrants retaliate and beat up Alex as I mentioned in the synopsis. 

In the book, however, he doesn't attack a vagrant. Rather, he attacks an old man returning from the library. After his release from jail, that same old man recognizes Alex who's in the same library researching painless suicide methods. The old man and a group of his colleagues beat Alex up pretty bad. That's when he's reunited with Dim and Alex's rival Billy Boy who are now cops, and who beat him up in the secluded part of the woods. 

While the story is certainly violent, there's a huge difference with how Burgess presents it compared to how Kubrick does. 

Kubrick, whose movies are mostly (if not all) based on novels, often puts some sort of sexual tones in his films. 

I can't think of a Kubrick move that's not based on a book. I thought "Dr. Strangelove" was the exception, but evidently, it's loosely based on the 1958 thriller novel "Red Alert" by Peter George. 

Watching Kubrick's movies, it's clear he has this running theme of unabashed sexual elements in his films. It can be uncomfortable to sit through. Maybe that's what he's trying to instill in his audience?

For instance, there's the ghost of the attractive woman in the bathtub Jack encounters in "The Shining." She turns into a decaying hideous old woman with a cackling laugh when embraces her.  

There's the furniture shaped as lascivious women in "A Clockwork Orange," plus a few other lewd images.

There's the two obvious homosexuals bathing in the river in "Barry Lyndon."

There's the entire premise of "Lolita." 

There's the talk of protecting the "precious bodily fluids" of Americans as well as the sexual innuendos in "Dr. Strangelove" such as the refueling planes in mid-flight as the opening credits role to the romantic tune of Vera Lynn's "We'll Meet Again." 

There's senior drill instructor, Gunnery Sergeant Hartman's boisterous obscene jargon in "Full Metal Jacket." 

There's also the secret society activities and orgies in "Eyes Wide Shut."  

These sexual depictions in Kubrick movies are often done in a way that makes them disdainful and reprehensible. But they're still explicit. It's not the sex that's evil. It's the manner and the timing the characters are engaging in it that's evil. It often takes place solely in obedience to the lower passions and for completely debased reasons in some degree or another. 

Meanwhile, Burgess's novel with all its "ultra-violence" and "dratsing" and "drencrom" and "devotchkas" and "lubbilubbing" provides a premise that seems to be the kind thematic stuff Kubrick must have been interested enough in to make a movie out of it.  

In a video posted by the International Anthony Burgess Foundation, Burgess comments seeing Kubrick's film, mentioning specifically Kubrick's depictions of the sex and violence.

"I was appalled because what I merely suggested in the book was now explicitly in the film. I took great trouble in the book to hide the violence and sexuality by using a very strange language so the reader has to fight his way through the language to get to the juice, or to get to the physical reality. Here on the screen. we're getting the physical reality in a big way." 

Like the other movies of Kubrick's, and thanks to Burgess's novel, "A Clockwork Orange" carries a lot of intellectual consideration and plenty of social commentary that Kubrick must think justifies all the violence and sexual depictions. I mean, honestly, there is a lot of social commentary which is what draws me in. And though the violence and sex are explicit, it's not glorified. Violence for violence's sake is violence, indeed. Alex is a sadistic murderer. You can't water it down. It's "real horrorshow" as Alex often says in the novel.

The novel masks it with Alex's futuristic English cockney slang when he talks about the things he has done. 

There's so much I can say about Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange." There's a lot that has been said about it. There's a lot of audiences seeing it for the first time 50 years after its production will say about it. 

It's not a movie someone can leisurely watch. It's not a movie I would recommend for a Friday night flick. But it's most definitely not a terrible movie, content considered. 

There are strong themes of free will, contrition, redemption and the state. It's a tale of mechanisms and robotic morality, or simply robotic obedience versus sin, grace, and healthy consciences. 

"If you need a motor car, you pluck it from the trees. If you need pretty Polly, you take it," Alex tells Dim in the movie. Such a claim continues to echo within our own current lawlessness, and insistence to be overly merciful towards the cruel which, as the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith said, is cruelty to the innocent. 

In the introduction to the novel I read, Burgess says, "A human being is endowed with free will. He can use this to choose between good and evil. If he can only perform good, or only perform evil, then he is a clockwork orange, meaning that he has the appearance of an organism, lovely with color and juice, but he is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the devil or, since this greatly increasing both, the almighty state. It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil. The important thing is moral choice. Evil has to exist along with good in order that moral choice may operate." 

Burgess later states, "Unfortunately there is so much original sin in us all that we find evil rather attractive. To devastate is easier and more spectacular than to create."

He didn't care much for Kubrick's film. And his purpose in the book wasn't to explore unhinged, titillating evil but to stress the importance of moral choice. 

For all his indulgence in violence and sexual perversity, Alex is left an empty shell. He's left a slave to his passions and desires, even after the psychological conditioning which considers man to be nothing more than a bag of flesh rather than a body with an immortal soul. 

That final chapter of the book has goodness touch Alex's soul -finally. That's when he considers embracing a wholesome life. The movie, like the book without that final chapter, ends with Alex back to being a slave to his lusts while mocking his state-sanctioned psychological cure which didn't inspire in him a true desire to be good. It just left him incapable of actually committing terrible acts like a programmed machine...or a clockwork orange. "I was cured, alright" he says condescendingly at the end.  

Sin is an act of the will. Accepting God and His laws is also an act of the will. It's not necessarily profitable for a soul to be forced not to commit sin like one programs a computer. 

There's a Catholic theology at play here that contradicts the more Calvinist doctrine (as depicted in the state) that some souls are fated to sin and Hell, while others are fated for Heaven. Predestination. 

That's no surprise as Burgess comes from a Catholic family, though I don't know how much of a practicing Catholic he was towards the end of his life. But he certainly seemed to know Catholic morality and theology. That's the impression I get, anyhow. 

As a practicing Catholic, I was taught that men can work out their salvation. However, it's Calvinistic Protestantism to think as men are sinful, they can't avoid sin. So, why bother trying? They're predestined for Heaven or Hell, anyways. 

So, men need to be forced to do good.

Burgess observed in a 1973 essay republished in the "New Yorker" back in 2012, “Catholicism rejects a doctrine that seems to send some men arbitrarily to Heaven, others—quite as arbitrarily—to Hell. Your future destination, says Catholic theology, is in your hands. There is nothing to prevent you from sinning, if you wish to sin; at the same time, there is nothing to prevent your approaching the channels of divine grace that will secure your salvation."

There's the premise that grabs my attention in "A Clockwork Orange."  

The score, by the way, is hands down among my top favorite movie soundtracks as it utilizes a lot of classical composers such as Gioacchino Rossini, Beethoven (of course), Edward Elgar along with a score from Wendy Carlo who also composed the score to Kubrick's "The Shining." 

I have to compare this soundtrack to other magnificent movie soundtracks such as "Amadeus" and Charlie Chaplin's "The Kid" as it gives the audience real insight into the mind of the main character. In this case, a sociopath. 

For instance, Gioacchino Rossini's, "The Thieving Magpie" plays as Alex beats up his droogs while they casually walk along the Flatblock Marina. They previously tried to stand up to him for always beating up on poor Dim. 

As Alex says in his narration during this scene, "I was calm on the outside, but thinking all the time. So, now it was to be Georgie the General saying what we should do and what not to do. And Dim as his mindless grinning bulldog. Suddenly I viddied that thinking was for the gloopy ones and that the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends. For now it was lovely music that came to my aid. There was a window open with a stereo on. And I viddied right at once what to do."

I can say this is a good movie for the story's theme. Kubrick does respect the source material and depict that theme well. Alex is a sadistic kid. A real "horror show" sinner. And if you're going to make a movie about such a character, it's going to show just how sinful this character is. The audience has to see just how evil he is if his turn-around is going to be significant.

However, Burgess can hide the sins behind a futuristic cockney slang while still making thos sins obvious. No doubt that wouldn't work on a movie platform, unfortunately. So, Kubrick's movie has some blatant depictions of sex and violence.  

It's easier for audiences to work through the movie than the book. While the movie gave the story's premise some strong imagery that stuck with me, the book put sense to it all. 

28) Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

(3.5 's out of 5)

"This is Thanos we're talking about. He's the toughest there is." 

Directors
Anthony Russo
Joe Russo

Cast

Robert Downey Jr. - Tony Stark/ Ironman
Chris Hemsworth - Thor
Mark Ruffalo - Bruce Banner/ Hulk
Chris Evans - Steve Rogers/ Captain America
Scarlett Johansson - Natasha Romanoff/ Black Widow
Jeremy Renner - Clint Barton/ Hawkeye
Don Cheadle - James Rhodes/ War Machine
Josh Brolin - Thanos

The stakes are higher in this third Avengers movie - the 19th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). It feels like this Avengers thread of movies within the broader MCU is finally narrowing in on a worthwhile and entertaining story. Plus, the heroes that make up the Avengers, played by the same actors as before, are up against their greatest threat, Thanos (Josh Brolin). 

"Avengers: Infinity War" tries to out-Avenger the previous Avengers. And being the grand spectacle that it works so hard to be, I'd say it succeeds in outperforming the other movies at least as far as the entertainment factor goes. It feels more focused than the previous movies, and it seems to know where it wants to go. 

In this movie, the evil alien warlord, Thanos (Josh Brolin), continues his efforts to acquire the infinity stones - six gems that when brought together give the possessor power over existence. Once he acquires all six stones, Thanos plans on using them to erase half of all life in the universe. All it will take for him to do that once he has all six stones is the snap of his fingers - literally. 

Each of the infinity stones control some specific part of existence - space, the mind, the soul, reality, power (as vague as that sounds) and time. Personally, I would think control over reality would, ipso facto, mean control over the other parts of existence. I guess that cynical mindset is why I don't write movies. 

Josh Brolin as Thanos in 'Avengers: Infinity War.'

Thanos has just got his hands on the power stone when he intercepts a ship carrying survivors from Asgard's destruction. That's where Thor is from for those wondering where Thor is from. 

He and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) clash, and Thanos gets the upper-hand. He then takes the space stone from the Tesseract which I've mentioned in my previous Avengers reviews. 

Thanos kills Loki and Thor's Asgardian pal, Heimdall who while dying sends Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) down to Earth. 

When Hulk/ Bruce Banner hits Earth, he crashes into Sanctum Sanctorum in New York City where Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) is residing. He warns Strange about what Thanos has planned. 

Bruce and Strange get Tony Stark/ Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) to help stop Thanos from destroying half the universe. 

Peter Parker/ Spider-Man (Tom Holland) also joins the effort as do none other than the Guardians of the Galaxy. That part got me excited as "The Guardians of the Galaxy" vols. I and II are my favorite flicks in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. So, I was all in with their inclusion. 

Anyways, more Marvel superheroes assemble to keep Thanos from fulfilling his evil plan. 

When they all fail and Thanos ends up destroying half of all life in the universe including several members on the Avengers and other important superhero characters, the stakes are raised to a level with seemingly no solution. 

As far as the Avengers are concerned, there is no solution. What's done is done.

Dr. Strange jumps around other universes, called multi-verses, to see how the Avengers could have prevented Thanos from destroying everyone he did.  

Out of the millions of ways this event could have gone, only one of those ways has the Avengers defeating Thanos and preventing the snap from occurring. Getting to that solution is impossible, though. Stay tuned for "Avengers: Endgame." 

To me, this is where the Marvel movies reach their Zenith (continued onto the next movie, "Avengers: End Game.") The rest just can't climb that high, or it would look like Marvel is trying to make lightning strike twice. Everything after this and the next Avengers movie doesn't seem as monumental or exciting enough to have to run out and seen it. 

"Avengers: Infinity War" carries an intensity that increases as the story progresses. It keeps the audience more and more invested. 

What's impressive about the movie is how many characters are packed into the story, yet it's easy to recall what each character is doing while the story transitions from character to character, from one scene to another. The story is taking place in various locations. It other words, it's not hard to follow nor is it confusing. 

Thankfully, to the movie's credit, every character has something worthwhile to do that's neither forced nor superfluous. It's all necessary for the plot. And it's entertaining for the audience. That certainly deserves praise.

The story balances all the plot points carefully for the sake of the audience's attention. 

This movie has really big ambitions and makes it a priority not to strain the audience, nor burden them with such interwoven plot points and storylines. It's impressive. 

This is Marvel's equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" minus the comedy. The story packs in a lot!

But as the story ends on a major cliffhanger after two and a half hours of so many superheroes fighting and doing superhero things, only to pick up again with the even longer "Avengers: Endgame" it feels like an excessively drawn-out pretentious flick. Maybe that's why producers tossed the word "infinity" into the title? 

I'm being generous with that half a star..or half a Thanos... up there. I want to give this movie three Thanoses, but it's better than the last two movies. So, three and a half Thanoses it is. 

For the number of characters and the interwoven subplots making up the entire story is quite an accomplishment. It manages to be entertaining and very well assembled. Still, there's truckloads of action, split into two movies, just so some good guys can take down one bad guy! "Avenger: Infinity War" certainly takes itself too seriously. 

Spaceballs 2 - My trailer reaction...

 A "Spaceballs 2 - official announcement teaser" dropped June 12 for the truly shameless sequel money grab to 1987's Mel Brooks "Star Wars" spoof, "Spaceballs." It's a sequel 40 years in the making that people wanted, but didn't know they wanted, or maybe they did know but why bother saying anything because everyone figured it would never happen. 

I guess "Spaceballs 2" is a thing...officially. Or, will be a thing next year as mentioned in the announcement. 

Though the trailer is one long word scrawl in the spirit of "Star Wars" satirization which is on point with the comedy style of "Spaceballs," it got laughs out of me. Even my wife laughed though she's not much of a "Spaceballs" fan.  

I keep seeing articles and other posts on social media mentioning that not only is 98-year old comedian Mel Brooks, who wrote and directed the first "Spaceballs" (I can't believe I'm using the word "first" in the same sentence as "Spaceballs") and plays various roles in the movie, returning to this upcoming sequel, so is Bill Pullman who plays Han Solo spoof, "Lone Starr." I also saw an article that his son, Lewis Pullman, will appear alongside his dad in this movie. 

I think the biggest news surrounding the cast is the return of actor Rick Moranis who stars as "Dark Helmet" in the first. 

Moranis has been very selective in the last several years about what roles and venues he takes. Fans were hopeful to see him take on the role of Louis Tully once again in the last two "Ghostbuster" sequels, "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" (2021) and "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" (2024). Sadly, that didn't happen. 

Moranis did however return as the voice of Dark Helmet in an episode of "The Goldbergs'" back in 2018. So, as I said, he is certainly very selective about roles and such. I don't know if I'm more excited to see a sequel to one of the best satirical films "Spaceballs" or to see Rick Moranis appear on screen again. 

Based on his filmography, Moranis's last on-screen appearance was in the 1997 direct-to-video movie "Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves." He has done some voice work after that, including the Disney animated movies "Brother Bear" (2003) and "Brother Bear 2" (2006). 

Daphne Zuniga, who plays Princess Vespa in "Spaceballs" is returning as "Queen Vespa" in the sequel according to her filmography. And I'm glad! Glad! Glad! Glad! Glad! Glad! 

The last I saw Zuniga pop up on screen was on an episode of "Masked Singer" back in 2023. (I watch it with my wife.) So, she's still ever popular. 

In the Spaceballs universe, she and Lone Starr, who got married in "Spaceballs" will have children. Que Lewis Pullman. That's my prediction. 

Actress and singer, Keke Palmer is also set to star in this new movie. She has been in a number of movies, including Jordan Peeles' 2022 sci-fi horror flick, "Nope." Curious to see who her character will be. My guess is she'll take on the role of C3PO spoof, Dot Matrix, previously played by the late, great Joan Rivers.

I love satire as I've mentioned a few times in previous movie reviews. "Spaceballs" is one the best satirical movies, with quotable lines still quoted today. It's one of few comedies that still make me laugh pretty hard even though I already know the joke. "Ludicrous speed." "This is now, now. Everything that's happening now, is happening now." "Spaceballs, the flame thrower. The kids love this one."  Even after 40 years, whenever I do something stupid, like try to exit a car without first unbuckling my seatbelt, I'll throw out the exclamation, "That's gonna leave a mark!" It's also among one of the best movies from Mel Brooks, up among his top five movies along side "Young Frankenstein," "Blazing Saddles," "History of the World, Part I," and "The Producers." I'd also thrown in his slightly underrated comedy, "Silent Movie" among his best stuff. Brooks as pretty much lampooned every genre of movie. 

I, like probably so many other fans, will miss the presence of the late, great John Candy. His hilarious and highly popular performance as Chewbacca satire "Barf" (a mawg who's half man-half dog) is ingrained in pop-culture. It's certainly one of the more well-known Candy performances that really established his comedic talent. 

I'm curious to see how John Candy's character will be referenced in this new movie. I'm just as curious to see what the updated humor will be like this time around, what has happened in the Spaceballs universe since 1987, how the merchandising business has gone for Yogurt all this time, what happened to Lone Starr and everyone, and how it'll all be thrown in to tell a story 40-years after the first movie. I just have to see this.  

No doubt it'll lampoon the "Star Wars" films and spin-offs that have since come out. And I bet the trend of reboots and remakes to long-past movies will be kicked around. 

I was really disappointed with Mel Brook's 2023 "History of the World, Part II" - the sequel to his 1981 movie "History of the World, Part I."  The jokes were lousy. The writing was lousy. I hope the writers for "History of the World, Part II" haven't been anywhere near the writing table for "Spaceballs 2." Brian Grazer, Jeb Brody, Josh Gad and Josh Greenbaum are producing this thing, along with Kevin Salter, Adam Merims, Benji Samit and Dan Hernandez working as executive producers. So, fingers crossed. I don't know anything about them, honestly. 

Speaking of Josh Gad, I don't see the movie listed in his filmography. If he does have a role in the movie, maybe he'll play offspring or a relative of some kind to "Barf." Maybe Barf hooked up with a lady mawg and they had a litter of mawg puppies? And one of those mawgs is set to continue in the legacy of Barf. The legacy of Barf? That doesn't sound good.   

Regardless, after 40 years, and with Mel Brooks being 98, now is the time to carry on that search for more money. The schwartz awakens...from its nap, I guess. 

Also, Michael Winslow - please come back! 

 

27) Forbidden Planet (1956)

(4's out of 5)

"Another one of them new worlds. No beer, no women, no pool parlors, nothing. Nothing to do but throw rocks at tin cans, and we got to bring our own tin cans."

Director
Fred M. Wilcox

Cast

Walter Pidgeon - Dr. Edward Morbius
Leslie Nielsen - Commander John J. Adams
Anne Francis - Altaira Morbius
Warren Stevens - Lt. Ostrow
Jack Kelly - Lt. Jerry Farman
Richard Anderson - Chief Quinn
Earl Holliman - Cook
George Wallace - Bosun

The 1956 sci-fi action film "Forbidden Planet" holds a lofty spot as a foundational film in the sci-fi genre. While watching this movie for the first time, it left me with some wonderment about its place among other well loved and highly popular science fiction movies. 

I think this movie has left a trail of theories about its meaning and what its saying about society at the time among audiences since its premiere in 1956. It has left a cultural impact. That's for sure.
The story takes place centuries from now. The all-man crew (the best kind of crew to have) of the United Planets starship C-57D have been travelling well over a year through space on a mission to investigate what happened to another ship called the Bellerophon. That ship took off 20 years ago on its way to the planet Altair IV. Whatever happened to the ship has been a mystery. 

The C-57D crew reach Altair IV. Before landing, scientist Dr. Edward Morbius (Walter Pidgeon) who was onboard the Bellerophon warns them from the planet's surface via radio communication that they better not land for the sake of their safety. 

However, the ship's commander, John J. Adams (Leslie Nielsen) ignores the warning and lands anyways. 

Once on the surface of Altair IV, Adams and his crewmen meet a robot calling itself Robby (voiced by Marvin Miller) who transports them to Dr. Morbius's house. 

When they arrive and have a chance to meet and greet, Dr. Morbius fills them in on what happened to all the other crew members of the Bellerophon. Basically, they're all dead. 

He says each of them was killed by an unseen planetary force. This force was so forceful that it completely vaporized the entire ship in a truly forceful manner beyond their own forces. 

Thankfully for Dr. Morbius, he and his wife survived. However, his wife has since passed away, but their gorgeous young daughter, Altaira (Anne Francis), is still alive. 

So, Morbius and Altaira have been living a secluded life in a futuristic house that's as futuristic as the late 1950s can conjure up. 

Morbius cordially offers to send the Adams and his crew back to Earth. 

However, this all-male crew haven't seen a girl in over a year. So, a few of them would love nothing more than have a few minutes alone with Altaira. For instance, Adams finds one of his crewmen, Farman (Jack Kelly) trying to "teach" Altaira how to kiss. Being alone on the planet with no one else but her father has kept her pretty naive.  

Adams not only chastises Farman for his behavior, but he also barks at Altaira for her choice of revealing clothing. It's worth mentioning that Adams and Altaira fall in love by the end of the movie. 

During his isolation on Altair IV, Morbius has been studying artifacts from the planet's ancient civilization called the Krell, who were highly advanced, but not advanced enough as they mysteriously disappeared over night (literally) thousands of years ago. So, how did that happen? 

One of the Krell artifacts Morbius now has is a device that increases human intellect. Morbius previously used on himself. Though it nearly killed him, he's now a lot smarter than before. 

The last thing he wants to do, despite Adams adamant insistence, is share these advanced Krell technologies with Earth.  

Shortly after, an invisible and destructive living force is discovered. Adams creates an invisible force field to protect his crew, but this invisible monstrous creature breaks through it and kills Adams' Chief Engineer. 

Morbius has some kind of premonition that this creature will return with it a lot more destruction and death. 

Not only does "Forbidden Planet" have a grand production design, a decent cast, a lovable robot named Robby that's still iconic nearly 70 years later, and animated effects by animator Joshua Meador who was on loan to MGM from the Walt Disney Studios, "Forbidden Planet" also has quite a legacy. 

A large handful of science fiction space adventure franchises take inspiration from "Forbidden Planet." While watching the movie, I can see where Gene Roddenberry's "Star Trek" and George Lucas's "Star Wars" are derivative of "Forbidden Planet." 

And some of the wide-angle scenes and space-scapes surely gave George Lucas ideas when making "Star Wars." There's a lot of wide-angle shots to really make sure audiences take in the futuristic other-planetary atmosphere and space setting. 

Plus, Robby the Robot is something of the original droid. Similar to one protocol droid from "Star Wars" we all know and love, Robby can speak 187 languages other than English. He can also do something other droids haven't yet seemed to master. Robby can make a pot of coffee and brew hard alcohol when requested to do so! "Would 60 gallons be sufficient?" 

By the way, for those that don't know, Robby has a cameo in the 1984 movie "Gremlins." 

The word "iconic" is used a lot by movie buffs, myself included. But Leslie Nielson's performance predating his more well know comedic roles is truly that. Iconic!  

I think this is another movie I ought to watch again as I have a feeling I missed some important things the first time around. There's some intellectual depth to the story involving the dark side of the human mind and human behavior. 

When moral restrictions, the moral code written on the heart of every man, and the dictates of our conscience are removed, where does that leave a fallen people?

For instance, the idea of incestuous feelings is hinted at though nothing blatant is depicted, glorified, or stated. It's very subtle and vaguely left to the audience to speculate. This idea pops up when Dr. Morbius is evidently jealous as his daughter falls in love with Adams, which he's clearly against.

Also, the story is based on Shakespeare's "The Tempest." Basically, there's a taste of how the corruption of humanity, which the Christian world calls original sin, destroys the order of reason over the desires of the flesh. This notion comes up when Adams finds Farman taking advantage of Altaira by "teaching" her the stimulating nature of kissing

Adams not only rebukes Farman for his behavior but chastises Altaira for wearing such a scanty outfit in the midst of a male space crew who haven't been around a woman in 378 days. 

For a movie from 1956, "Forbidden Planet" has a daring and bold nature to it. It rises above the usual campy sci-fi flicks of this atomic era of science fiction/ horror. 

My one problem with the movie is that it does feel like it drags on. It takes its time getting to the climax. It has action and some intensity here and there, but I sat through a few dialogue-heavy scenes waiting for something to happen. That's not to say I was bored watching "Forbidden Planet." I was certainly invested. 

If any movie lover wants a real taste of the best films from the atomic age of sci-fi/ horror of the 1950s and 1960s, "Forbidden Planet" is definitely among the top picks of the period to watch. The set design is impressive and reminds me of something my mind would conjure up reading vintage-y dime-store science fiction novels. The special effects, though certainly of their period, are just as impressive as I'm sure they were back in '56. Yeah, they've aged but still deserve great appreciation. 

This is a movie I definitely plan to watch again. There's substance to this sci-fi action film that I'm sure I didn't pick up on completely the first time around. 

26) Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

(3's out of 5)

"I once had strings, but now I'm free."

Director
Joss Whedon

Cast
Robert Downey Jr. - Tony Stark/ Ironman
Chris Hemsworth - Thor
Mark Ruffalo - Bruce Banner/ Hulk
Chris Evans - Steve Rogers/ Captain America
Scarlett Johansson - Natasha Romanoff/ Black Widow
Jeremy Renner - Clint Barton/ Hawkeye
Don Cheadle - James Rhodes/ War Machine
Aaron Taylor-Johnson - Pietro Maximoff
Elizabeth Olsen - Wanda Maximoff

Paul Bettany - J.A.R.V.I.S

James Spader - Ultron

The stakes are greater, and the fight is certainly narrowed down in "Avengers: Age of Ultron," the sequel to "The Avengers" and the second movie in the Avengers line-up from Marvel. My thoughts and feelings about this movie are scattered.

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" is a slightly more entertaining film than the previous movie. It's packed in with as much Marvel-ly stuff as it can hold. It also feels like it's making the plot up as it goes along. 

The movie begins as the Avengers- Iron Man, Hulk, Capt. America, Black Widow and Hawkeye- attack a Hydra facility headed up by Baron Wolfgang von Strucker. The Baron had previously been conducting experiments on people with Loki's staff from the first movie. 

While raiding the joint, the Avengers find two of Wolfgang's subjects - Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen), who are twins. It turns out Pietro has the ability to travel at superhuman speed. Wanda, as those who tuned into the Marvel series "WandaVision" know, possesses telekinesis. So, they're quite the brother and sister duo. 

Loki's staff contains a gem that possesses an intelligent power. Ironman/ Tony Stark (Robert Downy, Jr.) and the Hulk/ Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) use this gem to enhance Stark's global defense program named "Ultron." 

Ultron, voiced by James Spader, in "Avengers: Age of Ultron."

Well, as one would expect in a superhero movie, Ultron (James Spader) becomes self-aware and sentient, and all evil and stuff. By "evil" I mean he starts to think that he needs to eradicate all of humanity to save the earth. 

He sets his crosshairs on Tony Stark's personal AI system "J.A.R.V.I.S." So, to get to J.A.R.V.I.S. Ultron attacks the Avengers' headquarters. 

He also consistently upgrades himself while doing all this. 

J.A.R.V.I.S, meanwhile, is hiding somewhere in the deep corners of cyberspace (does anyone still call it that anymore?). 

Stark and Banner manage to secretly transfer J.A.R.V.I.S. into a synthetic body (Paul Bettany) and use that gem from Loki's staff to animate J.A.R.V.I.S.'s body. 

Somewhere around this time, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) returns to help his fellow Avengers save Earth after he has a vision that the gem inserted onto J.A.R.V.I.S.'s forehead is one of the six infinity stones.

So, the Avengers square off with Ultron for the sake of humanity's existence. 

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" is an improvement from the first movie. There's so much packed into it that the movie doesn't waste a moment. There's certainly less in-between scenes with a lot more dialogue than anything else. Afterall, "Age of Ultron" isn't trying, or trying as much as the first, to set things up like the first film did. 

There's more substance in this sequel. That is, there's more action and, basically, stuff other than dialogue happening. 

While the movie manages to entertain, and despite how lofty a production it is with a major stellar cast returning, it's still a lot of the same as the other Marvel movies. Nothing much stands out.  

Regardless, I was much more involved and interested in this story than I was in the first movie. 

It plays out much better than before. My investment into the film didn't quite fade. 

There's some character insight as well, particularly with Hawkeye. The introduction of the Maximoff's and their turmoil with Tony Stark was also an intriguing plot point. They, along with Hawkeye, convey the most emotion and personality compared to the rest of the characters who are pretty much just as dry as they were in the first movie. Otherwise, the movie just pushes ahead. 

Aside from that, there's not much room from much character development among anyone else. 

I guess character insight was dealt with in each of the superhero's respective stand-alone movies. It's up to audiences to watch them and figure it all out themselves. 

Watching this second installment made me realize that Ultron is a much less interesting villain compared to Loki. Ultron turns out to be just another out-of-control intelligent robot that isn't intimidating nor possessing much, if any, personality. Give one point to part one for having a better villain. 

As for the overall plot, though it kept me interested, it seems like everything that happens is made up as the movie progresses. It's as though the producers were desperate to make this experience better than before and careful not to forget all the typical Marvel comic tropes. Nothing, if anything, about the movie feels fresh. There's hardly anything eye-popping. 

The fight scenes were entertaining, though. I wouldn't call it exciting, though. The movie is a service to fan as it strives to meet audience's expectations before the next movie, "Avengers: Infinity Wars" was to come out. All in all, "Age of Ultron" builds upon what the previous movie setup and manages to tell a story, leaving all the set-up to "The Avengers." That's about all this movie has going for it. It's not great, but at least it's not part one. 

25) The McPherson Tape - aka UFO Abduction (1989)

(2 out of 5)

Director
Dean Alioto

Cast
Tommy Giavocchini - Eric Van Heese
Patrick Kelley - Jason Van Heese
Shirly McCalla - Mom
Stacey Shulman - Renee Reynolds
Christine Staples - Jamie Van Heese
Laura Tomas - Michelle Van Heese 
Dean Alioto - Michael Van Heese

When it comes to the "found footage" horror subgenre, I find that the ones I've seen are great at building up only to end too abruptly. 

"Found footage" refers to a filming technique which presents the story as a home movie recording, made by a character or characters in the movie. It gives the impression that the movie is actually raw footage that was found and wasn't really intended for general audiences. 

The 1961 movie "The Connection" is often referred to as the first movie shot in this format.

When it comes to this found footage genre, three movies come to my mind. The first is "The Blair Witch Project." "Cloverfield" is another. And the alien abduction movie, "The McPherson Tape" which is also known as "UFO Abduction," is the third.  

The footage takes place on the night of Oct. 3, 1983. The McPherson family, who live somewhere in the Connecticut mountains, gather to celebrate Michelle Van Heese's (Laura Tomas) fifth birthday party. Her grandmother (Shirly McCalla) along with her children Eric (Tommy Giavocchini) who's Michelle's dad, Jason (Patrick Kelley), and Michael (Dean Alioto) are all there. 

Michael is the one working the family camcorder. Also, Michelle's mom, Jamie (Christine Staples) is of course there, too. Also, Jason's girlfriend Renee (Stacey Shulman) is joining everyone.

Everything starts off jovial enough. The scene is a typical family having a small get-together for young Michelle. 

For the first 20 minutes or so, the audience gets nothing but home video footage of this birthday. Nothing at all interesting happens as the movie forces us to sit and watch and wait for something interesting to happen.

They turn off the lights so Michelle can blow out her candles, but they can't turn them back on. 

Michael, Eric and Jason go outside to check out the breaker box. While doing so, some red lights from a UFO pass overhead. 

They decide to follow it as mysterious spacecraft appears to land not too far from their location. 

While they walk to the landing sight, they talk about how their mother has become an alcoholic since the death of their dad. 

The three guys finally come across the UFO on their neighbor's property. Alien beings are wandering outside this ship, investigating the surrounding wooded area. 

After one of these aliens sees their flashlights, the guys run back to the house. 

The guys lock the family inside and grab some shotguns all while hysterically shouting about what they just witnessed. Naturally, they freak everyone out. 

More red UFO lights shine in through the windows as a spacecraft flies overhead. They all think the spacecraft flew off and all the creatures they witnessed are now gone. 

Where the movie gets a little silly, if it isn't already, happens right about here. The guys find one of Michelle's drawings of an alien which looks just like the aliens they saw. 

Still, everyone calms down a bit. Some of them try to leave. However, the aliens are standing outside their house. 

Everyone rushes back into the house, clueless about what to do. 

Eric then shoots one of these aliens. Thinking he killed it, Eric brings it into the house. Who knows why? 

Well, once the supposedly dead alien is brought inside, it's clear where the story is going to go. 

The movie is good enough to keep me invested all the way to the end. I wouldn't call it an "edge-of-your-seat" sci-fi thriller. Still, it manages to be effective. 

But this found footage subgenre needs to be really good, and depict a really effective topic, otherwise it ends up underwhelming or not as satisfying as the producers surely want it to be. These kind of movies often miss more than they hit. 

What makes them unsatisfying is that the audience is generally left with no climax. "The McPherson Tape" ends just as the aliens enter the home. The family doesn't even see them enter, though the audience does. Their reaction, and whatever happens next is left to the audience's mind. Otherwise, it ends just when it gets really good. 

All the found footage movies I've seen follows this pattern. Just when sparks are going to fly, the credit start rolling. Yeah...yeah. I know. What happens next is left to the audience's imagination. Big wow! Am I supposed to call that great writing or magical movie making? 

"The McPherson Tape" tries to be serious, and it does a decent enough job in appearing authentic (for the most part). The aliens ruin it for me. They look like kids in black spandex and rubber alien masks. Otherwise, it's a respectable attempt at a "found footage" movie. 

Dean Alioto and Paul Chitlik remade this movie in 1998 titled, "Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County." I'm curious enough to look for it and see if it's any sort of improvement. 

24) The Avengers (2012)

(2.5's out of 5)

"The Avengers. That's what we call ourselves; we're sort of like a team. 'Earth's Mightiest Heroes' type thing."

Director
Joss Whedon

Cast

Robert Downey, Jr. - Tony Stark 

Chris Evans - Steve Rogers
Scarlett Johansson - Natasha Romanoff

Jeremy Renner - Clint Barton
Mark Ruffalo - Bruce Banner
Chris Hemsworth - Thor 
Tom Hiddleston - Loki

Samuel L. Jackson - Nick Fury
Stellan Skarsgård - Selvig
Gwyneth Paltrow - Pepper Potts 

I decided to put on Marvel's bar-raising and 5th highest grossing movie (according to ScreenRant.com), "Avengers." 

I haven't watched it since its release back in 2012 and I don't recall what I thought about it back then. I probably enjoyed it. I mean, I don't recall having any negative thoughts about it, though it was 13 years ago. Watching it now, it fails to impress. In fact, it's boring! 

Honestly, I lost interest in these Marvel movies ever since the fourth and final Avengers movie (so far), "Avengers: Endgame" came out in 2019. 

I mean, "Endgame" is the 22nd film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Too much of a good thing isn't good. I have what the kids call "comic book movie fatigue." For me, "Endgame" was the climax of this whole MCU. 

Occasionally, a new Marvel movie pops up that makes me curious enough to watch it when it's released on DVD. Otherwise, the spark is gone for me. 

When it comes to comic book-based movies, which "Avengers" is for those who have no idea what Hollywood has been producing in the last 20-plus years or so, after Tim Burton's 1989 movie, "Batman," comic book movies took a more serious, gritty turn. And to some degree, that tone still exists in some of these movies. But I think Marvel brought back some color and a bit more light-heartedness to this genre. Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" movies come to mind. I'm sure comic-book connoisseur would scream at me when I say that movies like Raimi's "Spider-Man" along with various other MCU films have a modern style and tone reminiscent of Richard Donner's "Superman" and Richard Lester's "Superman II."  "The Guardians of the Galaxy" vols. 1 and 2 along with the "Ant-Man" movies come to mind in that regard.

"The Avengers" is the first of four Avengers movies in the MCU, which several previous superhero movies focused on specific characters build up to. This movie picks up after those movies. 

In "Avengers," Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Thor's adoptive brother, meets a representative of an alien species called the Chitauri, who is referred to as "the Other" (Alexis Denisof). 
The Other wants Loki to get his hands on an energy source called a tesseract. If Loki can find and grab this tesseract, the Other will give him an alien army strong enough to conquer the Earth. So, Loki comes to Earth and begins his quest to find the tesseract and rule over the world.

So, where is it? 

This tesseract is located at a secret facility where Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and a team he's leading is studying what it's capable of. 

Of course, Selvig and his team somehow activate the tesseract which opens a portal. And Loki meanders through it. That was easy! 

He snatches the tesseract and uses his magic-y staff to enslave Selvig and everyone in the lab including Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner), also known as Hawkeye- one of the Avengers in case someone out there didn't know that.

So, while that's going on, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), who previously brought the Avengers together, calls them to keep Loki from getting his hands on the tesseract and enslaving the Earth. 

To begin things, Agent Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) heads to Kolkata to get Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) to locate this tesseract through gamma radiation. 

As the Avengers hunt down Loki, inner turmoil ensues as they argue how to approach and deal with him. The top covert agency, S.H.E.I.L.D., wants to use the tesseract as a way to create weapons of mass destruction against the threat of any invading aliens. I'm trying to simplify the plot. 

Eventually, these alien invaders arrive at Earth, and it's up to the Avengers to stop them. 

There's a lot of talking in this movie, interrupted by fighting scenes, followed by more talking scenes. 

Throughout the movie, the word "tesseract" is used again and again...and again. 

Chris Evans, Robert Downey, Jr., and Samuel L. Jackson.

"We have to find Loki and the Tesseract." "Keep working on finding Loki and the Tesseract." "Have we located Loki and the Tesseract?" "Where's Loki and also the Tesseract?" "Once we have Loki, we'll have the Tesseract." "Keep looking for Loki and the Tesseract." 

For all the talking this movie has, the dialogue feels dull and repetitive. You know... dull feelings that feel repetitive. 

All the characters, outside of their superhero costumes and persona, lack personality. I only find them interesting when they're fighting and battling and doing what superheroes are expected to do. Everything else is dialogue, pseudoscience, and more dialogue.

Robert Downey Jr's character Tony Stark/ Iron Man has some personality but outside of his being a pretentious, filthy rich, and ingenious character, that's about all we get in the personality column. 

He's a dry character, and he seems to intentionally be that way. The rest of the cast don't have much of anything other than looks and some fighting scenes to keep audiences invested. For a movie with so many characters to be as boring as it is, is kind of remarkable.  

"Avengers" is certainly proud of itself for being what it is, or at least what it perceives itself to be - a super, superhero movie. It is an ambitious project inclusive of a bunch of superheroes played by big name actors. Thankfully, keeping track of all the motives behind each character is easy to remember 

Otherwise, it's boring until the final battle in which something exciting actually happens. The movie takes itself way too seriously. It's enough to make even my roll my eyes. 

The movie is one big load of setting up for later stuff, though the individual superhero movies before "Avengers" which focus on one member of the team at a time, seems to do that, too. 

The movie kept me waiting for the action to begin or continue. It felt like a new experience when watching it on screen back in 2012. Now, I hear a fifth Avengers movie, "Avengers: Doomsday" is set to be released in May of 2026. Regardless, the novelty and sheen of these huge comic book movie mega-productions have since worn off almost completely, if not completely-completely, sometime between then and now.