Rambo: Last Blood (2019)

"I want revenge. I want them to know that death is coming. And there's nothing they can do to stop it."

Director
Adrian Grunberg

Cast

Sylvester Stallone - John Rambo
Yvette Monreal - Gabriela Beltran
Adriana Barraza - Maria Beltran

Paz Vega - Carmen Delgado
Sergio Peris-Mencheta - Hugo Martinez
Óscar Jaenada - Victor Martinez
Fenessa Pineda - Gizelle
Pascacio Lopez - El Flaco

The fifth and last installment (as of now, at least) in the Rambo series, "Rambo: Last Blood," came out in 2019 with a lot of hype before exiting quietly and seemingly unnoticed.

Aside from this Rambo movie, I admit I've only seen "First Blood" (1982) followed by the fourth film, "Rambo" (2008). I haven't seen the second film, "Rambo: First Blood Part II" (1985) in its entirety. Nor have I seen "Rambo III" (1988) at all. I'm sure I will in the very near future. So, I had to read the film synopsis for two and three to get myself caught up.

In the first installment, Vietnam veteran John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) searches for an old army buddy somewhere on the outskirts of Hope, Washington. However, the family informs Rambo that his friend died from cancer, which he caught from being exposed to Agent Orange while in Vietnam. 

As Rambo wanders into the town limits to find a place to eat, a local sheriff sees him and decides he doesn't want this vagrant Army veteran coming through his community. Rambo ignores the sheriff's warnings, and pretty soon there's a manhunt out for him. 

In the second movie, Rambo is asked to return to Vietnam to rescue POWs. 

In part three, Rambo, living in Thailand and working for a monastery, squares off against Russian forces in Afghanistan. I've often heard this is the weakest film.

In "Rambo," he's still living in Thailand 20-years later. He's asked by a missionary doctor to help rescue a group who have been kidnapped while on a humanitarian mission in Burma by a heavily corrupt SPDC officer named Major Pa Tee Tint and his Burmese junta army forces. At the end of the fourth movie, Rambo returns to the U.S. to see his father at his home in Arizona. I found the pace of this movie rather odd.

"Rambo: Last Blood" picks up with Rambo still living at his now deceased father's home. He manages a horse ranch at the house with his long-time friend, Maria Beltran (Adriana Barraza).

Maria's granddaughter, Gabriela (Yvette Monreal), lives with them. For Gabriela, Rambo has been her true father figure as her real dad walked out on her and her mother when Gabriela was very young.

She's close to Rambo and her grandmother. However, she gets a call from her friend, Gizelle, in Mexico who tells her she found the home of her father. 

Gabriela tries to convince Rambo and her grandmother to allow her to drive down to Mexico to find her dad.

Considering just how ruthless, cold, and unsympathetic her father was years ago when he abandoned them, Rambo and Maria strongly forbid it. They try to convince her that he's not worth inviting back into her life.

Gabriela agrees not to go but sneaks off to Mexico anyways. She meets with Gizelle (Fenessa Pineda) who takes her to her dad's place.

There, he tells Gabriela straight out that he never wanted anything to do with her nor her mother, and that she doesn't need to ever come back and see him. 

Sergio Peris-Mencheta and Yvette Monreal in
"Rambo: Last Blood."

Seeing how distraught Gabriela is, Gizelle takes her to a night club to help get her mind off of things. 

A random guy takes an interest in Gabriela. He discreetly drugs and kidnaps her, and brings her into a sex trafficking cartel. 

Maria soon finds out that Gabriela snuck off to Mexico. Rambo immediately jumps in his truck to find her and bring her home. 

The first place he goes is to Gizelle's apartment. As she refuses to cooperate, he threatens her until she shows him the same club she took Gabriela. 

When they get inside, Rambo quickly figures out that she was kidnapped. 

Gizelle points out a guy who goes by "El Flaco" (Pascacio Lopez) as the man whom she last saw Gabriela with.

Rambo follows El Flaco to his car, tortures him until he agrees to take him to Gabriela's whereabouts. 

The leaders of the cartel get to Rambo first when he shows up at their ring location. They beat him up severely and steal his ID. But one of the leaders of the operation, Hugo Martinez (Sergio Peris-Mencheta) lets him live. They leave him there, bleeding and unconscious. 

Rambo is rescued by a strange woman named Carmen Delgado (Paz Vega) who followed him from the club. 

She brings him back to her home. When he awakens four days later, Carmen tells him she's a journalist following the cartel, which had previously kidnapped her late sister. 

Rambo manages to find and rescue Gabriela. When he brings her home, Rambo then goes back to get revenge on one the cartel leaders to send a message to its leaders. 

Hugo tracks him back to his home in Arizona. He brings an armed militia with him to Rambo's home. And per Rambo fashion, he knows they're coming. So, he sets deadly traps around the property, and arms himself for battle. 

Stallone certainly tries to regain the audience's sympathy for the Rambo character as it was seen in "First Blood." That was totally missed in the previous movie. 

But this time, he's diving into slasher territory. Sure, the previous films are violent. That's not a problem. This movie, however, made me feel like I was watching a version of "Home Alone" directed by Rob Zombie. In other words, this doesn't hold back on violence at all. Not in the least. It's graphic straight to the end, leaving me with the notion that revenge doth belong to Rambo.

The graphic content made me wonder just what distinguishes a horror movie from an action movie. 

If this was not a Rambo movie, it would easily be in the horror category. I suppose since Rambo is technically speaking the "good guy" of the story, the purpose of the movie isn't to evoke fear in the audience for the sake of entertainment. There's enough blood, violence, dismembering, decapitating, heart-ripping (literally) and exploding body parts to make one believe Rambo has now gone full-slasher flick. 

Just like the previous movies, this story is about John Rambo against yet another evil group deserving to take what they give. We know who's going to come out victorious and who will not. The uncertainty and entertainment value lies mainly with how he gets the audience through it all to the climax and conclusion. 

In and of itself, "Rambo Last Blood" is predictable. I swore he would die at the end, but that much I was wrong about. It's meant to be watched so audiences can see what Rambo does best - get revenge and eliminate the enemies. Still, seeing him up against a mob of completely degenerate deplorables is satisfying and intense. And having Rambo in the midst of a family brings some humanity back to Rambo, who's gone through hell, the scars of which still plague him. I'd be lying if I said I was not entertained by this movie.

The nostalgic spot-hitting of seeing John Rambo yet again, like seeing an old high school chum, is an experience to enjoy.

Rambo, an ex-Green Beret and Medal of Honor recipient, is a symbol of the damage warfare can leave with a soldier as depicted in "First Blood." It also depicts the America, personified by the police officers chasing him, that didn't welcome back Vietnam veterans returning home. 

According to Stallone, as stated in a 2019 article from ScreenRant.com "What to Expect from Rambo 6," "Rambo: Last Blood" is meant to be the final film in the series. But Stallone evidently later suggested the possibility of doing another Rambo film.

The article claims the 2008's "Rambo" was also supposed to be the last. I think the same goes for "Rambo III." Stallone has quite a talent for keeping his biggest franchises going - namely, the Rambo and Rocky Balboa movies.

While I can't yet say anything about part three, I can say that if "Rambo: Last Blood" was meant to give the character a final send-off, then it missed that mark by miles.

There's talk of doing a prequel film which could see John Rambo heading to Vietnam. Honestly, I'd rather see a film that gives the character a decent and well-deserved send-off rather than a prequel. 

Sylvester Stallone as John Rambo once again.

I think the first movie is the introduction we need to John Rambo. That's the whole reason David Morrell created the character for his novel "First Blood" in 1972, which the movie is based on. The ill-treatment soldiers like Rambo received is the basis for the story. That's captured so well in the first film. And Stallone manages to make this war torn, callous Army warrior of a man into a truly sympathetic character. He deserves that sympathy.

I'm sure it would be awesome to watch a prequel with Rambo in combat and witness the experiences he went through which ended up causing him severe PTSD. Rambo has since become a largely recognized American pop-culture icon. And prequels are a trend in cinema now.  

Still, I hope to see one last Rambo film just to watch this character get the farewell he deserves. This movie certainly didn't accomplish that. 

I may have gotten more out of "Rambo: Last Blood" had I watched part two and part three first. I still grew invested in this movie and found it entertaining, all things considered.  

Under the Rainbow (1981)

"We're starting a film next week, and I'm anticipating a few small problems."

Director

Steve Rash

Cast

Chevy Chase - Bruce Thorpe

Carrie Fisher - Annie Clark

Joseph Maher - The Duke

Eve Arden - The Duchess

Robert Donner - The Assassin 

Billy Barty - Otto Kriegling

Mako - Nakomuri
Cork Hubbert - Rollo Sweet

A few weekends ago, I took my five-year old daughter to the Oz Museum in Wamego, Kan. She, being a fan of the classic 1939 film, was anxious to visit. Her favorite character happens to be the Wicked Witch, whom she dressed as for Halloween in 2020. I don't understand how this witch appreciation developed, but it is what it is.

Last Halloween, she decided to dress as Dorothy - ruby slippers, and all. So, she dawned her Dorothy outfit at the museum, which of course scored her a lot of compliments. A doting father like myself is allowed to boast about his daughter on his own blog.
Anyways, walking through the exhibits and seeing props and paraphernalia from various Oz movies and Oz history, I was especially glued to the small window with stuff pertaining to Disney's 1985 dark fantasy "Return to Oz." 
I'm very familiar with "Return to Oz." It's a sequel to the 1939 movie, though it's not a musical nor is it filmed in the same atmosphere and style. While the ruby slippers remain in the story, "Return to Oz" captures the world of the books (particularly "The Marvelous Land of Oz" and "Ozma of Oz") so much better than "The Wizard of Oz." Plus, it's quite a bold movie. It doesn't hold back as it treats its young audience with maturity. In other words, it doesn't pander to them.
I watched it quite a bit in my youth, especially on days I stayed home sick from school. Back then, mom would rent a couple movies from the video store on sick days. "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," "Pinocchio," "Where the Red Fern Grows," and "Return to Oz" are the titles I remember most. 
I was originally going to write commentary on "Return to Oz" because I've met too many people who've never heard of it, or simply haven't seen it. It's a favorite film of mine. My appreciation isn't necessarily based on the nostalgic value I've placed on it. 

The museum visit brought it back to the forefront of my mind as far as this blog goes. Just the other day, I was talking with a co-worker about the Oz Musuem, and I mentioned the film. This co-worker said they couldn't remember if they had heard of it before or not. 
With its availability on the Disney + streaming app, I decided to search for something more obscure as far as Oz content goes. I considered the 1976 movie "Oz – A Rock 'n' Roll Road Movie" (also known as "20th Century Oz") from Australia. I just couldn't find a copy. Not yet, anyway.
A YouTube channel I enjoy from time to time called "grimmlifecollective" posted a video titled "Secret Wizard of OZ Munchkin Tunnel." The video showcases the Culver Hotel in Culver City, Calif. The YouTuber mentions the 1981 movie "Under the Rainbow." I never heard of it before. And what especially got my attention is that it stars Carrie Fisher and Chevy Chase. 
The story is full of sub-plots. Just thinking about summarizing the storyline is a little overwhelming.
"Under the Rainbow" begins with a little person named Rollo Sweet (Cork Hubbert) who lives in a homeless shelter somewhere in rural Kansas back in 1938. 
Rollo is eagerly waiting for Hollywood to contact him for a film role fit for a person of his stature. 
As residents at the shelter gather around a radio to hear President Roosevelt's Fireside Chat, the reception goes out. So, Rollo volunteers to climb to the roof to fix the antenna. 
However, he falls off and crashes into some crates. 
Meanwhile, groups of all kinds of people are checking into the Culver Hotel. 
Annie Clark (Carrie Fisher), who works for MGM Studios, is working on reserving rooms for a crowd of little people who are in town for MGM's next movie, "The Wizard of Oz." Among them is Rollo Sweet. 

Chevy Chase, Eve Arden, Billy Barty, and Carrie Fisher
in "Under the Rainbow."

Clark's boss, Louis (Jack Kruschen)- as in Louis B. Mayer, I guess- wants her to look after all 150 Munchkin extras. 

He has his dopey nephew, Homer (Peter Issacksen), assist her as best he can.
Also checking in are an Austrian Duke (Joseph Maher) and Duchess (Eve Arden) along with their U.S. Secret Service escort, Bruce Thorpe (Chevy Chase). 

A club of Japanese amateur photographers are also staying at the hotel. And to add to the fun, Adolf Hitler has sent a Nazi Secret Agent, Otto Kriegling (Billy Barty), who also happens to be a little person, to rendezvous with a Japanese contact named Nakomuri (Mako) at the same hotel. Hitler wants Kriegling to obtain a map of U.S. military locations from their Japanese liaison. 
All these characters mix and mingle in a variety of shenanigans and mishaps. Kriegling is told to look for a Japanese man wearing a white suit when he gets to the hotel. Of course, all the Japanese guys in the photography club are wearing white suits. 

And Nakomuri is looking out for a small person to hand over the map to. The hotel is filled with little people when he arrives. So, confusion and hilarity ensue.
Homer assumes Kriegling is one of the Munchkin extras and has him fitted for a costume. 
The Duke is paranoid that someone is trying to assassinate him. Thorpe doesn't think so. However, there is actually an assassin (Robert Donner) following the Duke. He wants murder him as an act of revenge.
And the map Kriegling is after ends up in Clark's copy of the Oz script. So, he goes after her all over the hotel. Thorpe ends up trying to protect her while also protecting the Duke and Duchess. The movie is all over the place.
The Munchkin extras are rowdy and unruly, filled with alcohol and hormones. They wreak havoc all over the hotel. 
And in the end, Rollo wakes up back at the shelter. It was all a dream, just like at the end of "The Wizard of Oz." All those in his dream were people currently in his life. Sure enough, a bus is waiting for him outside ready to whisk him off to Hollywood. The end. 

Sadly, all the well-known talented actors do nothing for "Under the Rainbow." 
I heard through various sources and interviews, including one of Judy Garland herself who plays Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz," that many of the adult actors playing the Munchkins were often unruly. Many tried hitting on Garland during filming, according to her own words. 
If the movie stuck to that aspect of Oz's production without being a slapstick comedy with pointless sub-plots, I think the movie could have been alright. Granted, it would portray little people as such. But that's how it was. 
With all the over-the-top subplots, "Under the Rainbow" has no clear direction. It doesn't know where to go with everything it's carrying. All these sub-plots get in the way of the premise of having all these rambunctious actors who, it's true, were precisely that. I was more interested in that particular fact in "The Wizard of Oz" production history.
Instead, we got a film loaded with stereotypes, terribly dated and eye-roll inducing humor, superfluous slapstick, dumb one-liners and lazy sight gags. Most of the jokes are at the expense of the size of the Munchkin actors. The writers made the assumption that people of short stature are easy to poke fun of. So, that's where they went. 
Chase's performance is completely lackluster. Enough said.

Munchkin actors run amok at the Culver Hotel in 
the film "Under the Rainbow."

And Carrie, whom I truly appreciate as an actress, seems like she's just trying to get to the end of the movie. Her appearance in "Under the Rainbow" is sandwiched between her performances in "The Blues Brothers" and "Return of the Jedi." 
Jerry Maren, who played one of the Lollipop Guild Munchkins in "The Wizard of Oz" also appears in the film. 

Zelda Rubinstein plays a rowdy extra named Iris who wants to drink and party. I'm most familiar with her refined and respectable performance as Tangina in "Poltergeist" which was released the following year. Seeing her in this role is quite a change. 

Some scenes were shot at the real Culver Hotel where Munchkin actors had stayed during Oz's production back in 1938. I learned that tidbit of information from "grimmlifecollective."

Director Steve Rash directed "The Buddy Holly Story" two years before, which is a highly praised movie. 

Film composer Joe Renzetti worked on the musical score for "The Buddy Holly Story." He won an Academy Award for best adaptation score.
Unfortunately, Renzetti's work on "Under the Rainbow" earned him a Razzie Award for worst musical score. And Billy Barty earned one as well for worst supporting actor.

Evidently, Rash had signed a deal to make a movie for Orion Pictures, which was a new company at the time. He was contractually obligated to cast Chevy Chase. The result was this movie.
"Under the Rainbow" is a lousy movie, and a waste of talent. The moral of this story is supposed to be that no person's dream is too big to accomplish. That's completely lost on me with all the cheap humor, nonsense, and sub-plot after sub-plot...after sub-plot. Sadly, when I woke up, none of it was a dream. If only that were the case.  

The Kid (1921)

"A picture with a smile - and perhaps, a tear."

Director

Charlie Chaplin

Cast

Charlie Chaplin - The Tramp

Jackie Coogan - The Kid "John"

Edna Purviance - The mother

Carl Miller - The father

Tom Wilson - The policeman

Charles Reisner - The bully

Twice have I claimed on this blog that I consider myself a great admirer of Charlie Chaplin, praising his genius and theatrical mastery all while criticizing two of his films - "Monsieur Verdoux" (1947) and "A King in New York" (1957). 
How impudent of me, but not really. 
Chaplin's movie "The Kid" from 1921 is a film I've wanted to post my thoughts on for quite some time.
I'm willing to bet all my DVDs that the majority of people alive have at least one movie they'll watch again and again, and never grow tired of. For me, "The Kid" is one of those movies.  
There are several Chaplin movies I love as I find his artistic creativity and careful dedication to telling a story that hits all the right chords with an almost flawless balance of comedy and drama truly inspiring. 

Chaplin wrote, produced, directed, composed, and acted in a majority of his films. Most importantly, he thought the stories through scene by scene, line by line. 
Directors like Chaplin, who have the sharpest eye for detail, don't come around often. Stanley Kubrick is the only other director that comes to mind whom I would put on the same level as Chaplin. 

His first full-length movie "The Kid" is a film about family bond above all else, forgiveness, and repentance.
It brings to mind a quote from the 2000 movie "Finding Forrester." In that film, Sean Connery's character "William Forrester" gives a speech in which he discusses family. 
"Losing family obliges us to find our family," Forrester says. "Not always the family that is our blood, but the family that can become our blood. Should we have the wisdom to open our door to this new family, we will find that the wishes we had for the father who once guided us, and for the brother who once inspired us, are not merely wishes at all. A family is not what you always imagine it will be." 
The movie opens with a woman (Edna Purviance - Chaplin's leading lady in several of his pictures), unwed and alone, leaving a hospital with a baby in her arms. "Whose sin was motherhood," the title card reads. 

There's no one to greet her at the hospital. She walks with her newborn baby, lost, through the streets wondering where to go and what to do next. 
As she goes from one place to another, her life now changed, an image of Christ carrying His cross to Calvary slowly fades into frame, and then fades out.
The mother passes by a large house with a limousine parked out front. An idea comes into her head. 
She thinks about it for a moment, and then places the baby in the back seat of the limo with a note attached asking that whoever finds the child to please take care of him. 
After she runs off, two thieves approach the car making sure the coast is clear. 
Once they think no one is looking, the steal the limo without noticing the baby in the back. 
They drive to a dirty alleyway in the slum part of town. When they park, they hear the kid crying. So, they place him by some garbage cans, and drive off as quick as they can.
Charlie comes along, unaware of everything going on, and finds the abandoned baby. There's a carriage nearby with another baby inside. He thinks who ever that carriage belongs to must have dropped their other kid. So, he puts the baby inside.
The mother comes out and catches him. She starts beating on him for messing with her child. After a few more attempts to give someone else the baby, he sits down and tries to come up with a plan. Charlie finds the note and then chooses to take care of the child himself. 

Despite living in a ramshackle home in the slums, with no money and very little possessions, he still cares for the baby.

Five years go by. Not only has the bond between the Tramp and the kid become as strong as a father and son relationship, they also have a working partnership. He and the kid work together repairing windows. 

The kid's job is to throw rocks at random windows without getting caught. Charlie's job is to coincidentally walk by after the damage is done, and offer to repair them. 

Meanwhile, the mother has since become a renowned singer. Despite the attention and fame, she still carries the guilt of abandoning her son. To make some kind of penance for her sin, she spends her free time helping the poor living in the slums where Charlie and the kid live.

During a visit, the woman sees the kid watching her as she hands out toys to other children. She doesn't realize who he is as she gives him a toy, which he accepts fondly.

Jackie Coogan and Charlie Chaplin.

He plays with his new toy, which may be the only toy he's ever been given, as she departs. A bully sneaks up behind him, snatches it, and runs off. 

The kid chases him and, in no time, they're engaged in a fist fight out in the street. 

The bully's big brother comes on scene, as does Charlie to break up the fight. But the big brother insists the kids fight. Not necessarily keen on the idea, Charlie interferes. In no time, Charlie and the older brother are fighting. 

The mother returns, breaks up their fight, and offers counsel to Charlie and the bully's brother.  

When the ruckus is settled, the kid isn't looking too good. The mother advises the Tramp to call a doctor.

After the doctor arrives and examines the bedridden kid, he learns Charlie isn't the boy's father. He shows the doctor the note he found with the kid five years ago.

The doctor reports this to welfare workers who show up later with a police officer to take the child away. 

Charlie, however, doesn't let them take the kid so easily. He fights back, rescues the kid, and runs away.

After he's gone, the mother comes by Charlie's home to see how the boy is fairing. She bumps into the doctor who tells her they're gone, and shows her the note. She recognizes that it's the same note she left with her baby years ago.

Hiding from the authorities doesn't last long. The law soon catches up with Charlie, but all is not lost for him. His care in raising and loving this orphan child despite his poverty when no one else would doesn't remain unappreciated. 

The drama cuts deep in this comedy.

Chaplin's method of storytelling is so delicate, precise, and masterful. Without saying a word, he controls the audience's emotions like a child holds a balloon. It's his true medium.

"The Kid" is a perfect example of how well Chaplin can tell not only a great story, but an emotionally compelling one and still make room for humor that's neither out of place nor inappropriate for the subject at hand. 

The acting is absolutely accomplished in this silent film. 

In one scene, Edna chats with a woman on the sidewalk outside the Tramp's home. She asks if she can hold this woman's newborn baby. As Edna holds the baby, her smile begins to fade. The pain and regret of the past creeps onto her face as she looks in the camera. No words are spoken. Her expression speaks volumes. At the same time, the kid walks out of the house behind her, unaware that his true mother is standing right there. And Edna is just as unaware that her child whom she's thinking about is standing behind her. 

The most emotional scene in the story occurs when the cop and welfare workers hold Charlie down while forcefully snatching the kid out of his arms. One of them takes the kid, whose kicking and screaming, and puts him in the back of their truck. Some women are standing by outside the Tramp's home watching this occur.

The child, sobbing profusely, pleads and begs with these women to help him. But there's nothing they can do. 

In desperation, he turns his gaze to heaven, and begs God to help.  

As the doctor and the police officer restrain Charlie inside, he stares into at the camera with a face full of pain and fear, listening to his boy's cries from outside. But he can't get to him. It's one of the most heart wrenching scenes in silent film history, as far as I've seen. 

This is where Jackie Coogan's powerful performance comes in. He was about seven-years old when he appeared in "The Kid." Coogan masters the art of conveying a ton of emotions in this movie - anguish, joviality, shyness, and feigned innocence. But this scene showcases how truly great a young actor Coogan is.

Watching his performance as the kid being ripped from the arms of the only father he's known is exceptional, amazing, and tear-inducing. 

Incidentally, Coogan, whom I've heard referred to as "America's first child star" continued his acting career into his adult years. He's well known for playing "Uncle Fester" in the sitcom "The Addams Family." 

Each time I watch "The Kid," it leaves me with the same questions. QWhat happened after the mother meets the Tramp at the end, knowing he indeed loved and cared for her child when she felt she wouldn't be able to?
Also, what did she decide to do with the real father?

The copy of "The Kid" I have is on VHS, distributed as part of the "Charlie Chaplin Centennial Collection" from MK2 and Warner Home Video. It's packaged with his 1921 film "The Idle Class." 

The version I re-watched the other day is on Amazon Prime streaming service. This streamed version didn't have the movie score I'm familiar with. It also has some scenes that aren't included on my VHS copy. One scene in particular, which was new to me, shows the mother attending a suave party. As she walks in, she sees the man with whom she had her child out of wedlock with. 

The smiles leave both their faces when their eyes meet. It's an awkward moment, and that sentiment spills into the audience. 

The woman politely excuses herself onto the patio. The gentleman follows her without trying to draw attention to himself. 

Out on the patio, the two exchange a few words, but then say nothing. They stand there silent, not looking at each other, contemplating their past together, and what became of their son. This scene answered that question I had. What did this woman decide to do in regards to the kid's father?

According to imdb.com, Chaplin decided to release a new version of "The Kid" in 1972. The website claims this new version was given a new music score composed by Chaplin. 

He also re-edited the film, and cut a few scenes featuring the kid's mother as he thought they were too sentimental for modern audiences. My guess is that my VHS copy is the 1972 version of the film while the version streaming on Amazon is the original cut.

Chaplin did something similar to his 1925 film "The Gold Rush" but that's another post for another time.

His soundtrack for "The Kid", just like so many of his other soundtracks, fits the film so perfectly. Not very many soundtracks capture the mood of the characters as well as this one. It's flawless. I consider it, hands down, one of the best music scores in film history. Even as I download images from the movie onto this post, the dramatic soundtrack plays in my head. It's a memorable and crucial part of the story.

Still, I wish there was an epilogue to this story. Did the boy stay with Charlie as he was the only father he had? Did the woman give the Tramp a better place to stay, and an opportunity to work an honest job? Did the child stay with his real mother and keep in close contact with the Tramp? I guess it's for the audience to decide. One thing is certain, the Tramp is the true father in this story. 

He's not the blood father, but the father that can become such to the child. After all, a family is not what you always imagine it will be. 

There are a handful of films I think are such a foundational part of our American cinematic culture. Films like "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", "Citizen Kane", "The Wizard of Oz" and "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial" are among such films. They should be seen by everyone at least once. Chaplin has a few such films, and "The Kid" is without a doubt one of them. It's visual proof of Chaplin's theatrical expertise.

Atoll "K" (1952)

"It's like playing hooky." 

Directors

Léo Joannon

John Berry (uncredited)

Cast

Stan Laurel - Stan

Oliver Hardy - Oliver

Suzy Delair - Chérie Lamour

Max Elloy - Antoine

Suzet Maïs - Mrs. Dolan

Adriano Rimoldi - Giovanni Copini

Luigi Tosi - Lt. Jack Frazier

Laurel and Hardy's final film together, "Atoll 'K'" is also their first film in five years following their 1945 movie, "The Bullfighters." 

Having seen a large majority of Laurel and Hardy movies, mostly their short films, I have never seen their last one until recently.

I happened to find a copy at a Half-Priced Books in Omaha, Neb., for $2.50. I had to tap into my soda money to purchase this flick.

Back in the 1950s, "Atoll 'K'" went through production hell. And in the years of home video marketing, it has gone through distribution hell. 

This movie fell into public domain rather quickly.  

According to the book "The Final Film of Laurel and Hardy: A Study of the Chaotic Making and Marketing of Atoll 'K'" by Norbert Aping, a copyright for the film was never filed in the U.S. (p. 193)

"Atoll 'K'" becoming public domain resulted in the distribution of various poor-quality versions, which is what generally happens with public domain films. They're a quick and easy buck for home video companies. 

In a 2008 article called "The Final Film of Laurel and Hardy" writer Phil Hall points out that there's no true version of the movie "Atoll 'K'."

"Four very different versions were theatrically released: a 93-minute French-language version known as 'Atoll K,' a 97-minute Italian version called 'Atollo K,' a 96-minute English-language for British audiences called 'Robinson Crusoeland,' and an 82-minute U.S. release called 'Utopia'," Hall says.

The copy I have, under the title "Utopia (aka Atoll K)" is from Platinum Disc Corporation and is packaged with their 1939 feature film "The Flying Deuces." 

The quality of the overall picture and sound isn't very good. This is a letdown as the package claims the movie is digitally mastered. 

It seems poorly edited at times, too. I don't know if that's the distribution company's fault, or just the way the my cut of the movie happens to be like. 

Based on the run time of 82 minutes, I'm assuming the version I have is the U.S. cut. 

Still, there's a better quality version on YouTube. 

And one YouTube channel - a personal favorite of mine - called "Hats Off Entertainment" has a fan-made edit of the movie which runs a little over one hour, with better sound and picture quality. 

So, what's this movie about?

Stan inherits a boat, an uninhabited island, and a ton of cash from his rich uncle. However, thanks to piles of taxes and legal fees, his monetary inheritance is diminished considerably. He's left with the boat, the island, and a few bucks.

Miffed, Stan and Ollie decide to take the ramshackle boat and head out to the private island somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. They decide they want to get away from taxes and laws.

They're accompanied with a nationless refugee named Antoine (Max Elloy), who works as a chef while on the boat. There's also a stowaway on board named Giovanni Copini (Adriano Rimoldi). 

During their voyage, they hit a terrible storm. While trying to navigate through the tempest, an atoll emerges from the water and saves them. 

The four of them decide this atoll is going to be their new home.

A nightclub singer named Chérie Lamour (Suzy Delair) finds her way onto the island in an attempt to run away from her jealous fiancé, Lt. Jack Frazier (Luigi Tosi). 

They welcome Chérie onto the island, and form their own Republic calling it "Robison CrusoeLand." 

They create their own constitution, form their own laws, declare that no one will be taxed, decide what roles each of them will play in governing their new land, and even work on making a flag to represent their nation.

(Left to right) Adriano Rimoldi, Oliver Hardy,
Max Alloy, and Stan Laurel.

Everything goes well until uranium is discovered on the atoll. This leads to other nations of the world going to war over who will claim ownership of the island. 

Greedy adventurers start arriving in boatloads, swarming the shores of the Robinson CrusoeLand.

Soon, the founders of Robinson CrusoeLand find themselves about to be lynched when, by some miracle of nature, an eruption sinks the atoll back into the ocean. 

A ship happens to be sailing along and rescues them. 

It takes Stan and Ollie to the real island Stan inherited. And their left with nothing but the consequences of not paying their taxes. It ends with Ollie's familiar catchphrase, "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into." 

"Atoll 'K'" is co-directed by John Berry and French writer/ film director Léo Joannon. Just this fact of the film's production is tainted in craziness. Berry's name is uncredited as he was blacklisted by the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee for refusing to cooperate with their investigations into Communist infiltrations. Berry was one of several other Hollywood writers and directors who refused to cooperate. American filmmakers Edward Dmytryk and Frank Tuttle both claimed Berry was an alleged Communist. 

As a result, Berry exiled himself and his family to Paris. He was living in France when he was hired to co-direct "Atoll 'K'." 

"While Berry never acknowledged working on this film, [Norbert] Aping was able to get confirmation from leading lady Suzy Delair that he was, in fact, responsible for co-directing much of the movie" Hall says in his article. "Berry's presence was problematic, given that any word of his participation would have killed a U.S. theatrical release. It is unclear just who okayed Berry to be part of the film, and it is equally uncertain which scenes were his and which were directed by Joannon."

As "Atoll 'K'" was produced in France, some of the actors, especially Max Elloy, have their lines dubbed in English. It threw me off while watching it. I didn't know if that was an issue with the sound quality or not.

U.S. audiences didn't see the movie's release until 1954.

At first the film's scenario seemed odd for a Laurel and Hardy picture. But having watched it for the very first time a few days ago, and thinking about it, it really isn't an odd situation for the two considering all the short movies they've done together. 

They've played piano movers, police officers, prisoners, Rhodes Scholars, each other's sisters, Foreign Legion Soldiers, gypsies...the list goes on. So, being the founders of a republic on a small island in the middle of the ocean makes just as much sense. Yet, it's still a film that's unique among all their other pictures.

Stan's appearance in "Atoll 'K'" says a lot about the pair. In all respect, he looks old and unwell. Evidently, he was sick during the production of movie. Sadly, it shows.

Ollie, too, was ill. According to imdb.com, he was suffering from cardiac fibrillation and the flu.

No wonder Stan and Ollie don't have the same gusto and energy like they used to in the 1920s and 1930s. This makes their appearance feel more like a novelty than as comedians to laugh at. Again, I say that with all reverence to these guys. 

That's not to say the movie is void of comedy. It's there.

One scene in particular had me laughing. All the guys are sitting around the table eating when Cherie walks in. They subtly try to see if she's single or not. Stan asks an indirect question, and Cherie mentions she has a fiancé. Soon, all the guys at the table are sobbing uncontrollably. 

In another scene when Oliver is elected the president of Robinson CrusoeLand, he starts handing out governmental positions to the others in their small group. 

Stan, of course, is left out. When he asks Ollie what his government position is going to be, Ollie replies, "Why Stanley, you're the people." 

Stan objects, not wanting to be "the people."

So, Ollie tells him there's more of him than there are of the them - the leaders.

Despite the flaws, Laurel and Hardy made as best an effort as they could to make something different from what they made before with new routines, a new story line, and an original scenario. 

Whether they knew this would be their last movie or not, they certainly accomplished something that stands out in their filmography. 

It's a shame that the movie received poor reviews at the time of its release. 

It showcases new gags, such as Stan leaning out of the boat's porthole, trying to calm the storm and crashing waves with a small can of oil, and actually succeeding.

Also, as a running gag, Stan adopts a pet lobster which he names Oscar. He takes care of Oscar like a true pet, gives him his own lobster house, and even burps him like an infant. 

Though Laurel and Hardy didn't make any more films together after "Atoll 'K'," they did return to the stage in a European tour a few years after the movie's release. And they did rather well on this final tour of theirs. It's the subject of the 2018 biopic "Stan & Ollie" which I thought was a great movie.  

Still, being their last film, the creativity to make something unlike what they've done before is very present. Despite all the hell "Atoll 'K'" has been through, Laurel and Hardy deserve applause for this movie, as well as a nod, and a heartfelt "Well done, boys!" 

Check out my first review on this blog - Pack Up Your Troubles

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) - Comic to Movie #17

"Vengeance blackens the soul, Bruce. I've always feared that you would become that which you fought against. You walk the edge of that abyss every night, but you haven't fallen in and I thank heaven for that."

Directors

Eric Radomski and Bruce Timm

Cast

Kevin Conroy - Batman/ Bruce Wayne 

Dana Delany - Andrea Beaumont

Mark Hamill - The Joker

Abe Vigoda - Sal Valestra

Dick Miller - Chuckie Sol

Efrem Zimbalist - Alfred Pennyworth

Bob Hastings - Commissioner James Gordon

 

The animated film, "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm," released in 1993, feels like an attempt by Warner Bros. to correct some of the shortcomings they made in their earlier Batman films - namely, Tim Burton's 1989 film "Batman" and its 1992 sequel, "Batman Returns." That's just an assumption. If that was the intention of their executives back then, kudos to them. 
By the time this movie came out in theaters, I was at the threshold of my teenage years. Animated movies simply didn't interest me like they used to. So, I passed on seeing "Mask of the Phantasm" until years later. 
This movie comes by way of "Batman: The Animated Series" which aired of the Fox Kids network from 1992 to 1995. I watched the first season fairly regularly. By the time the second season began airing, other things must have grabbed my attention. 
"Batman: The Animated Series" picked up later with a sequel called "The New Adventures of Batman." This ran on the Kids WB Network from 1997 to 1999, and was a sort of third season. 
It's followed by the animated "Batman Beyond" which ran from 1999 to 2001. Other series follow such as "The Batman" (2004-2005), "Batman: The Brave and the Bold" (2008-2011), and "Beware the Batman" (2013-2014).   
Honestly, I haven't seen any of these except for the original animated series.
The film starts as Batman (Kevin Conroy) crashes in on a meeting of Gotham City crime bosses, led by Chuckie Sol (Dick Miller).

Amidst all the chaos of Batman beating everyone up, Sol makes a run for it to the parking garage. As he gets in his car and tries to get away, he sees a mysterious masked figure shrouded in smoke - the Phantasm - a new masked vigilante spreading fear into the criminal gangland of Gotham City.
As Sol tries to ram his car into this mysterious person, the Phantasm dodges his attempt causing him to die in a fatal crash. 
A witness sees Batman at the scene in the garage. Therefor, he's blamed for Sol's death.
City councilman Arthur Reeves, whose on the mob's payroll, wants Batman arrested but Commission James Gordon is quick to defend Batman as he's convinced of Batman's innocence.
The story cuts back to ten years prior, as Bruce Wayne reminisces about Andrea Beaumont (Dana Delany), a young, attractive woman whom he met at the cemetery while visiting his parents' grave. 
The two start a relationship rather quickly. He soon proposes to her, which she initially accepts. But she ends up leaving town with her father, businessman Carl Beaumont (Stacy Keach).  
She ends their engagement with a letter, breaking Wayne's heart.
At this same time, Wayne begins his secret of life of vigilantism. Initially, he doesn't take on the Batman identity. His simple presence at the scene of the crime, even when beating up criminals, isn't instilling fear among the criminals of Gotham City. So, he tries to come up with a way that'll accomplish that.

Soon after, he takes on the identity of "Batman." And fear spreads quickly through the criminal underworld of Gotham City. 

After the incident in the parking garage with Sol, the Phantasm kills gangster, Buzz Bronski (John P. Ryan), at the same cemetery where Wayne met Beaumont years ago. 
Bronski's bodyguards witness the Phantasm and think it's Batman. 
When Batman investigates the crime scene, he wanders over to his parents gravesite. Nearby, he sees Beaumont. When she sees him, he unwittingly reveals his true identity to her because he's standing next to the Wayne's gravesite. 
Hearing the news of all these criminal deaths, another crime boss, Salvatore Valestra (Abe Vigoda) finds an old picture of himself with the now deceased boss. This terrifies him as he now thinks Batman is coming for him next. He turns to the Joker (Mark Hamill) for protection.
When the Phantasm comes to Valestra's house to kill him, he finds that the Joker beat him to it with some of his own deadly venom.
The Joker spots the Phantasm on a security camera. As he realizes that Batman isn't the culprit killing off all these crime lords, he blows up Valestra's mansion with a trap he set to ultimately take out Batman.
The Phantasm escapes the blast, and Batman pursues him. During the chase, Batman finds himself bruised and cornered by police. 
Beaumont happens to drive by the scene, and rescues Batman at the last second.
Bruce Wayne thinks Carl Beaumont is the Phantasm. But when he finds the photograph Valestra had in his possession, he recognizes one of the mobsters in the picture as the Joker. 
He soon determines the Joker is behind the Phantasm. However, the truth will turn out to be something Wayne never anticipated.

There is a lot of effort behind "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" to make a compelling film and it shows.

This film presents Batman/ Bruce Wayne in a more tragic way not necessarily scene before in movies. That might not be the case when it comes to the pages of comic books. 

When I first saw this movie, it was the first time I saw Batman as a truly torn figure. It was the first time I saw more into his origin than what Tim Burton presented in his movie. Burton's "Batman" touches upon Bruce Wayne's chilling and sad past, but the focus is unevenly split between him and the criminal shenanigans of Jack Napier/ Joker. There's more focus on the Joker than on Batman/ Bruce Wayne. 

Batman films after 1993 also touch upon the superhero's origin, especially Christopher Nolan's film, "Batman Begins." 

"Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" makes this aspect of Batman a major focus.  

And, what's great about it is that this animated movie works. It provides a backstory to Batman/ Bruce Wayne, depicting him in a manner different from those scene in movies before.
Batman is truly human in this story. For a crimefighter, he's much more vulnerable, emotionally speaking. 

The animation is well done. The sound track fits in well. And the storyline is nicely balanced between drama and action. Thankfully, this movie doesn't overdo it with a lengthy run time. It's only 78 minutes long. That's perfect!

In the story, Bruce doesn't become Batman until after he receives Andrea's note. And the two are very similar people, at least as far as where their personal tragedies pushes them. 

In one scene, when Bruce puts on his mask for the first time, his butler, Alfred Pennyworth (Efrem Zimbalist) stops dead in his tracks and gasps. 

"My God!" Alfred says, reacting at the sight of Bruce, whom he's known all his life, as he embraces a life of retribution to the fullest extent. 

This reflects another scene where Bruce tells Alfred, "You think you know everything about me, don't you?"

"I diapered your bottom. I bloody well ought to, sir," Alfred says.

I seem to recall this movie wasn't marketed well when it was released. The story line is deeper than an average animated movie directed at children. Even Siskel and Ebert gave it positive reviews. Still, it bombed at the box office, which is a shame. 

This Batman story deserves recognition along side other well-loved and admired Batman films that have come before and after. It presents the caped crusader with depth, anguish and pain that carries on even past the story. As far as the Batman films of the 1990s, "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" is the best we got. I'll add that I still have a special place in my heart for Burton's '89 film.

Dick Tracy (1990) - Comic to Movie #16

"You know, Tracy, for a tough guy you do a lot of pansy things."

Director 
Warren Beatty

Cast

Warren Beatty - Dick Tracy

Al Pacino - 'Big Boy' Caprice

Charlie Korsmo - The Kid

Madonna - Breathless Mahoney

Glenne Headly - Tess Trueheart

Dustin Hoffman - Mumbles

William Forsythe - Flattop

Charles Durning - Chief Brandon

Seymour Cassel - Sam Catchem

James Keane - Pat Patton

When Disney, via Touchstone Pictures, released the movie "Dick Tracy" in 1990, it was promoted everywhere. The movie, directed by Warren Beatty, was treated like the next big blockbuster following Tim Burton's "Batman" which came out the year before. The movie has an all-star cast with Beatty taking the lead role. And it has a soundtrack starring Madonna. Surely that's enough to make a huge hit. 

The yellow trench coat wearing, no nonsense, crime fighting, chili eating detective was created by cartoonist Chester Gould. The comic strip "Dick Tracy" premiered in the Detroit Mirror newspaper on October, 4 1931. 

In the strip, Tracy faces a wide-ranging rogues gallery of distinctly strange gangsters like Flattop, Itchy, the Stooge, Shoulders, Pruneface, Johnny Ramm, Nails, Little Face, Influence, Mumbles, 88 Keys... the list is long. These villains each have strange and unique appearances, quarks, and distinct peculiarities. Characters like these show that crime is just as ugly on the outside as it is on the inside. 

Not only does Tracy sport his famous yellow coat and Fedora, he also wears a two-way wrist watch which he uses to communicate with the police department.
Incidentally, I started this broken chain of "comic to movie" movie reviews with the early Dick Tracy film, "Dick Tracy, Detective" (1945). That movie is the first of a four-part installment of film-noir pulp style films. It's followed by "Dick Tracy vs. Cueball" (1946), "Dick Tracy's Dilemma" (1947) and "Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome" (1947) which stars Boris Karloff. 
I've played with the idea of reviewing these other films.  And now that I'm throwing in this "Dick Tracy" movie, I'm leaning towards foregoing commentary on those early Tracy movies. Time will tell.
As I've previously mention on this blog, the comic-based movies I initially wanted to review for this thread are still hard to come by. Some, I have to pay for through streaming services. I don't want to get into that habit. Others I just can't find. Earlier adaptations such as Superman, Batman, Captain Marvel, and Flash Gordon are multi-episode serials. I found a bunch of those, but I just need time watch them all. So, once again, I'm straying off my list (and I do have a handwritten list) of "not-so-popular" or "off-the-radar" comic book movies to blog about.
"Dick Tracy" is a movie I've liked since I first saw it back in 1990. I even dressed as Dick Tracy for Halloween that year. I was in second grade at that time. Mom packed my lunches back then in my Dick Tracy lunchbox. And I still have the Dick Tracy action figures which came out in time for the movie. They're all proudly displayed on a bookshelf at home as they somehow survived being thrown away. 
I've talked about this movie before on this blog where I tossed a few talking points around rather than give it a proper critique.
The film starts as a young street kid (Charlie Korsmo) rummages through a garbage can outside a warehouse looking for food. 
He hears a commotion inside, and sneaks in to see what's going on. He stumbles upon a group of mobsters playing a game of cards.
As he spies on them, possibly hoping to get his hands on some of the cash they have on the table, a car crashes through the doors and showers bullets onto the unexpecting card party. 

Warren Beatty in "Dick Tracy."

Once they're all dead, two gangsters, Flattop (William Forsythe) and Itchy (Ed O'Ross), get out of the car, tommy guns still in hand. They both work for crime boss, Al "Big Boy" Caprice (Al Pacino). 

The Kid, as he's later called, escapes without harm into the night. 
The massacre is part of Big Boy's ultimate goal to take over small businesses in the city, and grow in power. Taking out rival gangs and making sure police and officials are kept in his back pocket is crucial. 
Next, he kidnaps rival crime boss, "Lips" Manlis (Paul Sorvino), and his girlfriend Breathless Mahoney (Madonna). Lips owns the popular night spot, the Club Ritz, where Breathless works as a singer. 

Big Boy has them taken down to the docs where he forces Lips at gunpoint to sign over the Club Ritz to him, and then bumps him off by giving him "the bath."
It's not as pleasant as it sounds.

With one rival gone, Big Boy declares all of Lips's territory now belongs to him, and everyone who works for Lips is now working for him. 
Dick Tracy begins investigating the whereabouts of Lips. He starts with interrogating Flattop and Itchy. He also finds evidence that places Breathless Mahoney at the docs where Lips was killed.
Tracy tries to persuade her to testify against Big Boy. She's torn, however. Breathless falls in love with him, but is worried what Big Boy will do to her if she testifies. 
Also, Tracy stumbles upon the Kid as he steels a man's watch inside a diner and tries to run off. 

He follows the boy down to a ramshackle little shed where he presumably lives with an abusive bum who goes by "the Tramp." 
Tracy beats up this bum after he pushes the Kid around. The Kid soon warms up to Tracy and sees him as a hero 
Outside of work, Tracy wants to start a family with his girlfriend, Tess Trueheart (Glenne Headly) but can't get himself to propose. She, however, thinks Tracy cares more about his job than about her. Being a cop is extremely demanding.

Since Big Boy can't buy off Tracy, he ruthlessly does what he can to get Tracy out of his way - permanently. 

A mysterious mobster with no face (literally) appears on the crime scene and hatches a plan to get Tracy out of the way. 

"The Blank," as he's called, gets to Big Boy's piano player, 88 Keys (Mandy Patinkin) in order to talk to Big Boy on his behalf. After some persuading, Big Boy goes along with the Blank's scheme. The plan is to kill the corrupt District Attorney, John Fletcher (Dick Van Dyke), and pin it on Tracy who'll then end up in jail.

Tracy continues to pursue Big Boy. And when he puts Big Boy's right-hand henchman, Mumbles (Dustin Hoffman), under the interrogation light, he finds that Mumbles has a lot to say. It's just a matter of understanding what it is he's saying.
The big selling point for this movie was its huge all-star cast such Al Pacino, Warren Beatty, Madonna, Dustin Hoffman, William Forsythe, Dick Van Dyke, and Paul Sorvino. There's also an array of notable cameos -Catherine O'Hara (Texie Garcia), James Caan (Spaldoni), and Kathy Bates (Mrs. Green). 

There's no other comic-based movie I've seen that matches the atmosphere and style of "Dick Tracy." 
You can pause any moment in this movie, and it looks like a comic panel with all its vibrant colors, creative framing, mood, and stylized dialogue of the 1930s and 1940s. The use of light and dark also gives the film its true comic book feel. This movie has no dull scenes. Not one! 
The matte drawings, and the universe this story exists in, is amazing and impressive. There's a lot for the eyes to take in, scene by scene. It's like a film noir that takes advantage of the best modern production quality that Disney could offer at the time. 

It's soundtrack adds to that element. The opening musical score, composed by Danny Elfman, is a regimental commanding piece complimented with radio chatter about brazen gang activity taking place throughout the city. No one is safe out there. 
Where the movie lacks with most audiences, I think, is with the story. It's a bit lackluster but it does fit in with the types of stories found in the Dick Tracy comic strip. I don't think it transitions well enough onto a film platform. 

It's not a bad nor even an uninteresting story. It simply doesn't jump out and grab audiences like other crime movies. There's some action, and a huge gun fight in the last act with tommy guns going non-stop. But it's not enough. 

Many of the characters aren't fleshed out well enough, either. While there's no back stories (not that there needs to be any), and Dick Tracy is already well established within his world, a lot of the characters aren't as interesting as they could be. For instance, 88 Keys, the piano player at the Club Ritz, plays a pivotal role in trying to get Big Boy Caprice to go along with the plans of the Blank. But he's a completely forgettable character. He's simply there because someone has to be. 

Mandy Patinkin and Al Pacino in "Dick Tracy."

The most lively among them is Pacino. He plays his character as unpredictable, and as one hell of a loudmouth. He misquotes historical figures and spews out verbose lectures. Yet Pacino pulls off an intimidating villain rather well. 
In one scene were Big Boy calls all the crime bosses of the city together to partner up and take out Tracy, he grows frustrated the more they question him. He starts slamming the table as his voice grows louder to the point where he's shouting. 

"You get behind me, we all profit. You challenge me, we all go down! There was one Napoleon, one Washington, one me!"

Madonna is the biggest mistake in the movie. Not only is her performance lazy and boring, but she brings nothing but trash to her performance. I understand her character is supposed to be a gorgeous club singer. But even a gorgeous club singer can have class. Madonna has none. She simply works to flaunt herself and be as sexually deviant as Touchstone will allow her. She's the major stain on this otherwise good movie. 
I think the storyline and character development are the reason why the Dick Tracy hype quickly faded into footnote shortly after the movie's release. Many of the characters are only memorable because of their humorous appearances and weird quirks. 

As much as I love this movie, I would love to see a new film based on the famous detective.  

As much as Tim Burton's"Batman" holds a special place in my heart, I honestly think "Dick Tracy" is a comic book movie that's more impressive.

Despite what may be lacking, "Dick Tracy" remains one of the truest comic book movies out there. 

Dick Tracy comic stripped published on
July 23, 1979 by Chester Gould.

Don't fast forward this one: If a movie is going to swear, it needs to keep it real...

Mark Wahlberg as Stuart Long in the film "Father Stu."

I recently wrote a review for the biopic "Father Stu", released April 15 in time for Easter. 
While I thought the movie is one of the best religious pictures I've seen, others were less favorable because of the amount of profanity in the film. How can that be tolerated? It's a religious film!
As I noted in my article, "Father Stu" tells the story of amateur Stuart Long, who grew up with no religious background, a distant alcoholic father who became so after the death of Stuart's brother, Stephen, at age six. 
So, needless to say, there's swearing in the film because the real Stuart Long cursed and swore. He was probably a master at it. 
Like Stu in his later life, I too am a Catholic. I'm certainly not a great at being one.
Having been raised in the city of Oakland, California, swearing was all around me throughout life. I'm guilty of it myself. Old f-ing habits die hard, for f--k sake!
For me, even from a religious standpoint, swearing is spitting. It's severity, or sinfulness, depends on how it's used. An f-bomb stings when it's hurled directly at somebody as opposed to dropping one after you stub your toe, or getting a jury summons scheduled the same week as your long-awaited vacation. Even then, it's a gross habit and does nothing good for the swearer. 

Some people are bothered by our society's arsenal of dirty words, and that's completely understandable and worth respect. Others don't seem to mind. In those cases, it is what it is. Swearing has become inconsequential in today's society. People just blurt out their obscenities like its confetti. Yet, there are many pockets of places where it's still frowned upon. 

Mark Wahlberg and Jacki Weaver in "Father Stu."

So, I understand the dismay some religious groups and individuals have at watching the movie "Father Stu" about a convert to Catholicism, that's laced with profanity. 
But it needs to be in there. It's a biographical picture, and that's who Stuart Long was before he converted. 
If a movie is going to depict a real person, and that person swore a lot, then it's important for a biographical story to keep things real. The movie is trying to convey reality, and do so in a way for the audience to relate and become invested in it, even if elements are unpleasant to watch and hear. 
If a character, based on a real person, is a drug using ex-con, and an all-around mean son of a bitch, it would take me out of the story if they never used any profanity but rather spoke lines like "Gosh darn it, you big dumb, dumb head" in intense situations. 
How can the audience take the story seriously if a character, who obviously doesn't care much for what comes out of their mouth, has dialogue that doesn't fit their personality. 
Or, if they come from parts of the country such as New Jersey, like in "Jersey Boys" (2014) with young Catholic Italians swearing here and there, where language like that is commonplace, then obviously it's going to be included.
Sure, some movies might over do it. The movie "Goodfellas" (1990) comes to mind. But, then again, the characters are all pretty much Italian mafioso. So, again, it's expected. There sure is a lot of it, though, in that movie. It's not pleasant to hear. Then again, the characters are unpleasant as well.
I have to add that one of the best scenes I've seen in the movie involves profanity. 
In the 2010 biographical film, "The King's Speech" about King George VI and his speech therapist Lionel Logue, who helps him overcome his terrible stutter during his ascension to the throne in 1936, one the best scenes involves a string of "such language."

After Logue hears the king use the word "bloody," a common vulgarity in the U.K., he tells the king, "Vulger, but fluent. You don't stammer when you swear."

"Oh, bugger off!" the king replies. 

"Is that the best you can do?" 

"Well... bloody bugger to you, you beastly bastard."

"Oh, a public school prig could do better than that."

"Shit. Shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit!"

And the words keep coming, and coming, and coming, without a stammer. 

"Defecation flows trippingly from the tongue!" Logue later says. 

I know a lot individuals are adamantly, and admirably, opposed to swearing. And that's fine. It turns me off when I hear others use it over and over again. I'm certainly not endorsing it, nor trying to pursued people to just accept it. 

But sometimes, a movie needs colorful language for the sake of realism. What needs more consideration is whether or not a movie should be made in the first place. That's the bigger issue. In "Father Stu's" case, the answer, thankfully, is "yes," swear words and all.