Cinemanic Reviews

OLD. NEW. GOOD. BAD. EVERYTHING.

Archive for the category “Action”

Evil Dead II

Review No. 475

“Evil Dead II” – Where cabin fever becomes hemophilia.

evil_dead_ii

DIRECTED BY SAM RAIMI. WRITTEN BY RAIMI AND SCOTT SPIEGEL. STARRING BRUCE CAMPBELL (ASHLEY J. “ASH” WILLIAMS), SARAH BERRY (ANNIE KNOWBY), DAN HICKS (JAKE), KASSIE DEPAIVA (BOBBY JOE), AND RICHARD DOMEIER (PROFESSOR ED GETLEY). ALSO STARRING TED RAIMI, DENISE BIXLER, JOHN PEAKS, AND LOU HANCOCK. DISTRIBUTED BY ROSEBUD RELEASING ON MARCH 13, 1987. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 24 MINUTES. CURRENTLY DISTRIBUTED UNRATED; PREVIOUSLY RATED R BY THE MPAA.

EVIL DEAD II WAS WATCHED ON MAY 10, 2013.

“You’re goin’ down. Chainsaw.” –Ash (Bruce Campbell)

You know how it’s going to begin. A man makes the big mistake of bringing his girlfriend to a cabin. He doesn’t know it’s the same cabin that killed his friends when he was in college, because the bridge–the single route there–has been refurbished. When he enters, he finds the Necronomicon, the “Book of the Dead” that unleashes spirits when it its recited. Clearly, he doesn’t want to recite it, but there is an audio recitation already loaded in the cassette player. And we know how it’s going to end. (Well, sort of.)

Evil Dead II preserves 90% of its predecessor’s plot, which, contrary to one’s expectations, is a brilliant idea. It’s difficult to follow through your typical sequel, but this one must have been a Herculean task; beyond the story, there’s no job here that we can call simple. 1981′s The Evil Dead was distributed simultaneously to theaters and VHS; it became a hit, regardless, and lives on as a tremendous “cult classic.” The rave it earned in the early ’80s demanded a sequel, and once that project went into production, the film crew became far larger than that of the original. What’s worse, the project was budgeted at $3.6 million, and it had to be as far from a Hollywood flick as possible. It needed to seem like what it was: a follow up to something that five college students made with less than $500,000.

Consider that it takes more effort to look like you did absolutely nothing, than to look like you’ve created a masterpiece. It’s probable that within a matter of six years, Sam Raimi’s natural writing doesn’t look like a mess of clichés and written ad lib, so he has to make it look like that, without making the clichés obvious. And Bruce Campbell’s acting ability has improved, so it’s impossible to not act. But he can’t look like a good actor either, nor can he look like a god-awful actor. He has to act like someone who doesn’t have a clue how to act; someone who spontaneously looks at the camera, someone who accidentally recites his lines with the wrong facial expressions. And none of this can look intentional. Amazingly enough, none of it did.

Although Evil Dead II is a lot of fun, it tends to restrain itself–something its predecessor never would have dreamed of doing. You can tell that there are several great ideas it just isn’t sure about putting onscreen; it’s increasingly self-aware, as well. But I can excuse it for not being the perfect Halloween movie. It has its moments, and they come numerously. Perhaps the most side-splitting scene occurs after Ash tries to shoot his possessed (and dismembered) hand after it has crawled inside a hole in the wall. The result is a hurricane of blood that looks like paint. And as the red paint runs out, you can almost hear these special effects supervisors yelling, “Get some black paint!” There’s several of these scenes in this sequel and, although they don’t pervade the film, they make it well worth watching (so long as you enjoy the outrageously bizarre, gruesome attitude).

A MINUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Tomorrow, on Cinemaniac Reviews… (no, this isn’t a typo)

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Review No. 474

Watch watch “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” now now.

kiss_kiss_bang_bang_ver3

DIRECTED BY SHANE BLACK. STORY AND SCREENPLAY BY BLACK. STARRING ROBERT DOWNEY JR. (HARRY LOCKHART) AND VAL KILMER (“GAY PERRY” VAN SHRIKE). ALSO STARRING MICHELLE MONAGHAN, CORBIN BERNSEN, DASH MIHOK, ANGELA LINDVALL, ALI HILLIS, LARRY MILLER, ROCKMOND DUNBAR, AND SHANNYN SOSSAMON. DISTRIBUTED ON NOVEMBER 11, 2005 BY WARNER BROS. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 42 MINUTES. RATED R BY THE MPAA, FOR LANGUAGE, VIOLENCE AND SEXUALITY/NUDITY.

KISS KISS BANG BANG WAS WATCHED ON MAY 5, 2013.

Gay Perry (Val Kilmer): “Look up idiot in the dictionary. You know what you’ll find?”
Harry (Robert Downey Jr.): “A picture of me?”
Gay Perry (Kilmer): “No! The definition of the word ‘idiot’! Which you f###ing are!”

So here we are in L.A. We have Harry (Robert Downey Jr.), a thief who has been mistaken for a method actor and used that to reach a sudden career pinnacle; Harmony (Michelle Monaghan), the femme fatale who wanted to be an actress, but never earned any recognition for her talent; and “Gay Perry” (Val Kilmer), Harry’s own lifelong friend. The plot is a murder mystery, which is anything but simple: over the course of four days, Harry and “Gay Perry” are determined to prove that they didn’t commit a murder, often times “playing detective” according to the pulp novels Harmony reads in her spare time. Sounds bizarre? Let’s just say there’s a severed finger used as a major plot point, and I couldn’t help but think of the severed ear that set Blue Velvet into action.

A great film can melodically separate style and substance. A work of genius can blend the two with dynamic results. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is in the latter camp. While the story darkly satirizes old-fashioned crime capers, it also feels just like them. There’s atmosphere everywhere, and for nearly two hours, we finally have something definitive of unique: an indie movie that echoes the Golden Age of Hollywood. And as if this isn’t enough, the “fourth wall” seems to be composed of drywall; the movie has Robert Downey Jr., so it’s obvious he’d be the one to break it down. Yes, he is a “bad narrator,” in a sense that he often forgets what to mention (and humorously acknowledges this misstep); he tells us to stop complaining about how he’s ending the film on several notes (could the movie, you know, not end?); etc. But he’s not doing this on purpose–writer Shane Black is, and it’s fully original. Nobody’s really written a “bad narration” before, so it makes Downey’s character even more unique and likable.

I had a blast watching Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. The film toys madly with realism, yet at the same time, I can envision myself quoting it on a daily basis. It’s wild, rowdy, violent, hardboiled, dark, and unforgettable. In any politically correct state of mind, it should be flat-out depressing, but god, does Shane Black give it levity. The film is well-written, well-acted, and well-played. That’s to say it’s the perfect crime, it’s the perfect crime about crime, and it’s the only crime we’ve ever needed. Right?

Harry (Robert Downey Jr.): “I peed on the corpse. Can they do, like, ID from that?”
Perry (Val Kilmer): “I’m sorry, you peed on…?”
Harry (Downey): “On the corpse. My question is…”
Perry (Kilmer): “No, my question, I get to go first: Why in pluperfect hell would you pee on a corpse?”
Harry (Downey): “I didn’t intend to! It’s not like I did it for kicks!”

A PLUS

STAY TUNED FOR MY “EVIL DEAD II” REVIEW @4:30!

The Fugitive

Review No. 465

The perfect blend of action and drama.

fugitive_ver2

DIRECTED BY ANDREW DAVIS. SCREENPLAY BY JEB STUART AND DAVID TWOHY. STORY BY TWOHY. BASED ON “THE FUGITIVE” BY ROY HUGGINS. STARRING HARRISON FORD (DR. RICHARD KIMBLE) AND TOMMY LEE JONES (DEPUTY MARSHAL SAMUEL GERARD). ALSO STARRING ANDREAS KATSULAS, DANIEL ROEBUCK, JEROEN KRABBÉ, JOE PANTOLIANO, JOSEPH KOSALA, JULIANNE MOORE, L. SCOTT CALDWELL, RON DEAN, SELA WARD, AND TOM WOOD. DISTRIBUTED BY WARNER BROS. ON AUGUST 6, 1993. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 10 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR A MURDER AND OTHER ACTION SEQUENCES IN AN ADVENTURE SETTING.

THE FUGITIVE WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 21, 2013.

“I don’t care!” –Samuel Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones)

Harrison Ford is one of the toughest badasses around Hollywood. The majority of action heroes would beg for a stunt double. More often than not, he requests that he do it all himself, regardless of whether smashing his face and limbs against glass will require surgery. Most commonly, it’s been a mere excuse to make a great popcorn flick, but in The Fugitive, he does it all to exhibit his character’s determination.

The Fugitive is fuel for the heart, be it for adrenaline or strong emotion. Ironically enough, its protagonist, Dr. Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford), is a cardiologist. Beyond that, he’s just a man, a good Samaritan. But he’s lost his honor: he has been accused of his wife’s brutal murder. Now he has been dubbed a fugitive, while he actually has set out to find the man who did kill his wife. Kimble is the ideal character to root for, unless you simply couldn’t stand Atticus Finch (To Kill a Mockingbird) or Lester Burnham (American Beauty)–similar characters who go through hell to prove their innocence and devotion.

On the other end is the man chasing him: Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones). It is apparent that his character was written with inspiration from Inspector Javert from Les Misérables; Gerard is the perfect replication, only brought to greater heights by Jones’s tour de force performance. We don’t mind the character at first. He’s just doing his job, right? Yes, but he does it to exemplify his authority, not to support the community. He seems more and more detestable as the story proceeds; it’s almost impossible to notice the moment he has a change of heart.

I truly enjoyed The Fugitive. The film is an adaptation of a 1960s TV series; simply put, I cannot imagine this much depth on television of any age. The film does go a bit over the top with improbability. Our hero barely makes it out of a bus before a train wrecks it; he also jumps a waterfall to avoid being arrested…and survives. But where is plausibility in the action genre? I don’t know about you, but I think if I identify any scene as unforgettable, it’s the climactic scenes. I don’t remember the last time I held my breath for so long.

A

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Saving Private Ryan

Alone in the Dark

Day Thirteen of the Two-Week Torturefest

I know I’m “Alone in the Dark” with no one to agree with me, but this one was so bad, it was actually kinda good.

Day Fourteen - Alone in the Dark

Directed by: Uwe Boll
Written by: Elan Mastai and Michael Roesch & Peter Scheerer
Based on: the video game Alone in the Dark by Infogrames and Krisalis
Edward Carnby: Christian Slater
Aline Cedrac: Tara Reid
Cmdr. Richard Burke Stephen Dorff

Distributed by Lionsgate Films on January 28, 2005. Produced in English by Germany and Canada. Runs 96 minutes. Rated R by the MPAA–graphic sci-fi violence, profanity, infrequent sexual situations.

Alone in the Dark was watched on December 27, 2012.

“This doesn’t make any sense.” –Cmdr. Richard Burke (Stephen Dorff)

(Editor’s note: Well said, but that’s what’s to love about it.)

Leave it to Uwe Boll to give Ed Wood credibility. At least Wood knew what he was doing with his films that made them so awful. Uwe Boll doesn’t, taking the “dramatic depth of a video game” cliché to the extreme, and directing a film career of almost entirely video game basis.

Alone in the Dark was his 2005 threat. It’s almost impressive how abysmal this film is, so much that it’s fun to watch crash into trees like a plane with a delirious pilot. Delirium seems to be Uwe Boll’s middle name here, to use one of the few movie clichés he doesn’t address.

Alone in the Dark carries an a plot that required almost no thought. The story is of evil spirits which are resurrected in the 21st century by archaeologists who get their hands on a strange fossil. Or something like that.

It has been in hibernation since 1962, after the legacy of a tribe last seen 10,000 years ago was demolished. Or something like that.

All of a sudden, these demons head toward an orphanage, attack all the little children, and turn them into black, muddy, hideous creatures, who terrorize their town. Or something like that.

I don’t know about you, but as I think this, I imagine Gremlins. You feed a Mogwai after midnight, it turns into a Gremlin. Similarly, you let a group of archaeologists get their hands on a rock no one’s dared to touch for over four decades…well, you’re dead.

The only flaw that actually makes Alone in the Dark difficult to watch at times is the pacing. Much of the latter half vacillates from so bad it’s good, to so bad it’s just boring. Everything else makes it a mindless guilty pleasure. Let’s run through those jawbreaking missteps, shall we?

- The characters carry semiautomatic weapons and don’t know how to shoot them. I don’t know how to use a gun, but you don’t swing the weapon around like a drunken idiot as you fire. It’s amazing the heroes never kill each other by mistake.

- In one scene, an archaeologist approaches a nun, who has her arm around the shoulder of a teenager girl wearing a shirt that cuts off a few inches above her waist. Some nun, not offended by this. Hey, why’s the scientist acting all nonchalant? This scenario is about as likely as seeing a hippopotamus try and catapult a giraffe over the Brooklyn Bridge.

- The old casting gimmick is used, in which a young, pretty, blonde woman dresses in a lab coat and glasses, and we’re expected to believe she’s a scientist. Better yet, she’s trusted in covering for an aging, revered scientist while he’s away.

- The music’s mentality is severely plagued by a multiple personality disorder. During combat scenes, we hear death metal. During tense lead-ins, we hear screeching violins. During a (particularly random) love scene, we hear “bubblegum pop.” And over the credits rolls ska rock.

- Too many clichés are addressed. What’s truly hysterical is when they’re incorrectly addressed. For example, in one scene, the blonde scientist finds her co-worker/boyfriend has come back from research on the Amazon. She punches him in the face and shouts, “I thought you were dead!” The correct answer is: make out with him and sigh in relief, “Oh, I thought you were dead!” If that’s too difficult to remember, use “make love, not war” as a mnemonic device.

- The characters have ADD, and it often shows at inopportune times. In one scene, a scientist is staring off into space in the middle of a museum, when suddenly, a gigantic, malformed creature arises from behind him. He doesn’t move a muscle, no matter how close it gets to him. He doesn’t turn around, and he only screams when it’s clearly eating him alive.

- CGI is poorly accomplished. Alone in the Dark is part action movie, part horror movie, all monster movie. The black, murky creatures that feature here are sped up to seem more dangerous. The one time we kind of wish he had stuck with cinema’s archetypes, in which the predator inches slowly toward its prey–stupid, but a) so is this movie and b) the technique is known to get the heart rate up. That’s not all: once the motion of these monsters is sped up, the entire sequences–for whatever reason–are sped up. It’s amusing to watch everyone run around like mice armed for some sort of apocalypse.

- The opening narration is intended to sound threatening. Instead, it sounds as if someone with absolutely no talent listened to Morgan Freeman’s narrations for nature documentaries, and modeled amateurishly from that.

Now I’m sure I missed several flaws that make Alone in the Dark such an abysmal movie. It certainly is flawed in nearly every possible way I can think of; I no longer wonder why Uwe Boll is considered the worst director alive. It’s a true guilty pleasure: no one sincerely loves it, but there’s something about it that gives you the urge to watch it once more. And that would be the humor that was never intended, while it makes up for all the asininity that was. At that level, I’d recommend it.

B MINUS


Staying Alive – the uncalled for sequel to “Saturday Night Fever” that almost completely contradicts its own title.

This review was brought to you by…
TWTF

One for the Money

Day Twelve of the Two-Week Torturefest

Ermahgerd. “One for the Money” was, like, totes awful.

one_for_the_money

Directed by: Julie Anne Robinson
Screenplay by: Liz Brixius and Stacy Sherman & Karen Ray and Karen McCullah Lutz
Based on: “One for the Money” by Janet Evanovich
Stephanie Plum: Katherine Heigl
Joe Morelli: Jason O’Mara
Ricardo “Ranger” Carlos Manoso: Daniel Sunjata
Jimmy Alpha: John Leguizamo
Lula: Sherri Shepherd
Grandma Mazur: Debbie Reynolds
Also Starring: Adam Paul, Ana Reeder, Annie Parisse, Danny Mastrogiorgio, Debra Monk, Fisher Stevens, Gavin-Keith Umeh, Leonardo Nam, Louis Mustillo, Nate Mooney, Patrick Fischler, Ryan Michelle Bathe

Distributed by Lionsgate on January 27, 2012. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 91 mins. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–violence, sexual situations, mild language, infrequent drug use, infrequent/brief nudity.

One for the Money was watched on February 22, 2013.

“An obnoxious way to say ‘Oh, My God’ with strong emphasis on the R sounds. Typically followed by other words with emphasis on the R sounds.”
–definition of “ermahgerd” from urbandictionary.com

What I’ve felt…what I’ve known…never shined through in what I’ve shown. Never free…never me…so I dub thee unforgiven. Wait a moment, I’m done watching? It’s about time I can stop painfully choking out Metallica at the sight of Katherine Heigl in a post-lobotomy outfit.

I mean, ermahgerd. So the title sequence, ya know, it was, like, fab. Absolutelay fantabulous, if ya know what I’m sayin’, and kinda like a James Bond movie, right? But after that…(scoff)…ya know, this movie was just, ya know, crap! It sucked! Ya know what I’m sayin’?

I’ve always believed in a firm and rather direct correlation between the qualities of films and their respective characters. Let me give you an example. John Hurt is so memorable in The Elephant Man, yet all we really know about his character is that he’s constantly chastised for his malformations. It’s sad, but essentially, so is the common anti-joke about the little kid who dropped his ice cream because he got hit by a bus. In other words, it’s because of David’s Lynch’s direction, off an equally moving script, that the film manages to remain one of the saddest movies ever made.

Now let’s go to the opposite pole. Why not an Adam Sandler flick, perhaps Just Go with It? The movie is only watchable for its shallow sense of humor. The main character is a doctor looking for romance, and that’s about it. We hear and visualize his emotions as superficial thoughts (and aptly enough, they’re a bit illegible).

Notice that I’m reviewing a film called One for the Money. If you haven’t heard of it, I’d love to be living in your shoes, but unfortunately, I went as far as watching it. It sounds like someone with a speech impediment saying “run for the money,” and quite honestly, that’s the best I can grab from it, because otherwise it fails to make sense of itself. Wait, that one doesn’t even make sense either, because the movie failed to break even at the box office.

Ermahgerd. We’ve finally got smart moviegoers, and they were willing to give up a collective $36 million for somethin’ else.

My theory, again, is of a “firm and rather direct correlation between the qualities of films and their respective characters.” I think One for the Money rehashes a new term that the two leads in The Producers came oh-so-close to: “success from failure.” It succeeds in one area, which is disproving my theory, but that’s only because “quality” is an irrelevant term here.

If you look at the poster, you’d think this is “one of those stupid, predictable chick flicks,” and what have you. Stupid, indeed, but predictable, no. The plot is so insanely bipolar, it’s almost scary. How it will end is painfully unpredictable (not that anyone with a sense of decency would want to take a guess in the first place), let alone its next action. Stephanie Plum (Katherine Heigl) sits down at dinner one night. She’s failed, among several other things, to trust men ever since she filed for divorce, and she wouldn’t know how to resist an elongated, telenovela-esque, spit-swapping session, regardless if it’s with Bradley Cooper or Jeffrey Dahmer.

Ermahgerd. Just go with Bradley Cooper. For the love of God.

And now, Stephanie decides to tell her mother that she’s unemployed, and has been for six months. She realizes that she needs a job, so she becomes a bounty hunter. Guess who she hunts down? You may be thinking “her husband,” (who else would she truly want to kill?) but, you know, she isn’t thinking, at all. She decides to go after the “hot guy on the block” who wouldn’t commit to a relationship with they made out with each other as seventeen-year-olds at a drunken party.

Now this is supposed to be comedy, and it took five months, but I can suggest true comedy in a matter of five seconds. The woman clearly has no brain, and those unfortunate words are coming from a bleeding-heart feminist. I’d love to see her reflexes go to town with a good old-fashioned face-slapping. We all know it’s a huge movie cliché, so for just a single laugh, I wouldn’t mind bumping my thoughts up a full letter grade per that sudden gag.

Anyway, I digress. Stephanie goes after the one-night stand guy who, despite all the gallons of alcohol, she manages to remember. Realize that “goes after” can be noted with a double meaning. The question throughout the entire film is, Does she want to find him so she can bring him to justice, or so that she can make out with him? Somehow, the plot ends on one of the two (could you guess which one?), but the route to get there is abusively broken. And I’m sure that sometime within the first minute of our long-awaited credits experience, she changes her mind completely and goes with her other option. We just aren’t told, and we shouldn’t have been told any of it.

Ermahgerd. I’d rather take a bath in propane surrounded by a buncha tiki torches, ya know?

F

Alone in the Dark – Uwe Boll, finally!

This review was brought to you by…
TWTF

Wild Wild West

Day Five of the Two-Week Torturefest

As lame as that horse Mongo punched in the face in “Blazing Saddles”.

www

Directed by: Barry Sonnenfeld
Written by: S.S. Wilson and Brent Maddock & Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman
Based on: “The Wild Wild West” (1965-1969 TV series)
Captain James West: Will Smith
U.S. Marshal Artemus Gordon: Kevin Kline
Ulysses S. Grant: Kevin Kline
Dr. Arliss Loveless: Kenneth Branagh
Rita Escobar: Salma Hayek
Also Starring: Bai Ling, Frederique van der Wal, M. Emmet Walsh, Musetta Vander, Sofia Eng, Ted Levine

Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures on June 30, 1999. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 107 minutes. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–western violence, sexual situations, infrequent/brief nudity.

Wild Wild West was watched on Sunday, December 23, 2012.

“Too many people spend money they haven’t earned to buy things they don’t want to impress people they don’t like.” –Will Smith
THE IMPLICATION: “Wild Wild West cost a hundred seventy million to make. Director didn’t like it, so instead of revising it, he released it to theaters, tortured theatergoers that way, and earned a profit.”

Poor Will Smith! He’s an increasingly talented actor, regardless of what genre is at hand. I have yet to see him fail, but on several occasions, he has been sorely miscast.

Wild Wild West is not such a case. Yes, Smith is the standout in this otherwise un-watchable film, especially for a role he, himself, picked out. He was initially offered the role of Neo in The Matrix, but turned that film—now considered a modern classic—down for a rather insulting rendition of classic television. Considering that, I guess Wild Wild West does offer one mildly genuine surprise: it didn’t liquidate Smith’s career.

In most cases, it’s pretty bad when a movie wants to be completely serious and ends up failing miserably. There’s essentially only one worse concept: a film that masquerades as a “comedy,” yet the few gags that evoke the most nervous of laughter are thanks to pure luck.

All too many times, Wild Wild West has the strange, pretentious idea that it is playing out humorously. One-liners, double entendres, puns, and sight gags are shot left and right in this highly forgettable excuse for a “steampunk western.” But the film’s frame of mind is so self-confident, it’s a wonder none of the four writers ever came to realize their script was only firing blanks. Occasionally, there’s a goofy joke that manages to crack a smile. But halfway through, the film has worn itself so abusively thin, gunfire has been used more frequently as a wakeup call.

Wild Wild West bears not one kind regard to the art of subtlety. It’s an overly straightforward, loudly exaggerated, completely recycled landfill protruding with tiresome anachronisms. To call this Mission: Impossible meets Blazing Saddles would be one of the most unlawful offenses one could ever commit at the expense of either film. During the 19th century, two men are sent by President Grant to track down a criminal from New Orleans. Something—perhaps everything—about that premise reeks in a lack of originality. Director Barry Sonnenfeld has baked a turducken, but he has forgotten both the chicken and the duck. Wild Wild West is a turkey.

Footnote: With regard to the “Bottom-of-the-Barrel Line,” I’m not sure if the horse in Blazing Saddles was lame. On the other hand, my eleven-year-old sister LOVES horses to death, so I’ll make an effort to have her leave a comment either affirming or negating that speculation.

D

Crossroads – it’s Britney, b__ch, and she’s valedictorian.

This review was brought to you by…
TWTF

Last Action Hero

Day Four of the Two-Week Torturefest

Boring “Last Action Hero”. That spells “BLAH”.

last_action_hero_ver2

Directed by: John McTiernan
Screenplay by: Shane Black and David Arnott
Story by: Zak Penn and Adam Leff
Jack Slater: Arnold Schwarzenegger
John Practice: F. Murray Abraham
Benedict: Charles Dance
Lieutenant Dekker: Frank McRae
Nick: Robert Prosky
Tony Vivaldi: Anthony Quinn
Danny Madigan: Austin O’Brien
Death: Ian McKellen
Also Starring: Art Carney, Mercedes Ruehl, Tom Noonan

Distributed by Columbia Pictures June 18, 1993. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 130 mins. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–violence.

Last Action Hero was watched on February 9, 2013.

[insert mess of clichés that seem like classic adages here]

Last Action Hero is a strange, frenetically clustered paradigm of confusion and contradiction. This is a film that wants to be like The Purple Rose of Cairo and Cinema Paradiso. The opening sequences–and much of the rest–even play out akin those two classics. Hell, the film puts an even greater spell of disbelief on us (or tries to, at least): the main character is as much a movie aficionado as myself, pointing out the most rampant movie mistakes and alluding to the classics like clockwork–and on top of it all, he’s an immature pre-adolescent.

I’m not doubting the youngster at all. I’m glad he has such a knack with moviegoing. What puzzles me is that Last Action Hero isn’t aimed for those who will appreciate the character. This wasn’t made for movie maniacs, nor was it made for action fiends. I’m sure these junkies would rather rent some of Ahnold’s more explosive movies–particularly a then-recent one, and still similar one, Terminator 2–then waste their time here.

So who is the audience? Those between the ages of 8 and 12. They may find Last Action Hero funny and exciting simply because it was exaggerated for cheesy, childlike standards. The film goes nuts pointing out its PG-13 rating to the audience, “breaking the fourth wall” more avidly than Mel Brooks. And I’m fine with craziness, as long as it’s done right. Not here.

The film is loaded with nods to movies. I could spot them out as if the script had some distinct feature to it, simply because I’ve seen the movies. Ooh, he mentioned Rosemary’s Baby. Kid, the movie you’re referring to is Witness, starring Harrison Ford and Kelly McGillis. Several references to Die Hard, since John McTiernan is directing this one, too. Look, there’s Ian McKellen doing what Max von Sydow did decades ago in The Seventh Seal. Hooray for Blade Runner. At least I could play “Guess the Movie” rather than tuning out during the last forty-five minutes.

I may have said it already, but I’ll say it again. No kid who wants to see Last Action Hero will get any of these references. They’d know what to expect: a chatterbox kid runs away from home to a movie theater, purchases a mystical ticket, and then gets sucked into a movie starring Jack Slater (Arnold Schwarzenegger), who thinks it’s real life. Wait, that’s the plot. The audience’s expectations are fighting, explosions, sound effects, and screaming. The good news is, that’s what they get. The bad news is, that’s all they get.

C MINUS

Wild Wild West – the insultingly awful movie Will Smith chose over “The Matrix”.

This review was brought to you by…
TWTF

A Good Day to Die Hard

Review No. 423

good_day_to_die_hard_ver5

The Bottom Line: Find a good day to watch it.

Directed by: John Moore
Screenplay by: Skip Woods
Based on: characters by Roderick Thorp
John McClane: Bruce Willis
John “Jack” McClane, Jr. Jai Courtney
Yuri Komarov: Sebastian Koch
Irina: Yuliya Snigr
Alik: Radivoje Bukvić
Mike Collins: Cole Hauser
Also Starring: Amaury Nolasco, Ganxsta Zolee, Ivan Kamaras, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Megalyn Echikunwoke, Melissa Tang, Pavel Lychnikoff, Péter Takátsy, Roman Luknár, Sergei Kolesnikov

Distributed by 20th Century Fox on February 14, 2013. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 97 mins. Rated R by the MPAA for violence and language.

A Good Day to Die Hard was watched on February 18, 2013.

“Yippee ki-yay, motherf–ker!” –John McClane (Bruce Willis)

In case you didn’t know, I’m extremely partial to Die Hard.  Many consider it a Christmas movie, but I’ve gone further.  To me, it’s the greatest Christmas movie ever made, but it fits a viewing during any time of year. That movie came out two and a half decades ago; it’s now 2013, and the word “awesome” has been reinvented, yet again. No one wants to die known as the critic who reviewed I Am Legend as “one of the greatest movies ever made.” But no one wants to die known as the critic who didn’t know how to check his or her brain at the door, either.

I had a very fun time watching A Good Day to Die Hard.  1995 saw the release of Die Hard: with a Vengeance, the third entry in the saga.  That installment was so abysmal, I’m surprised it was just over a decade later the next entry, Live Free or Die Hard, hit theaters.  This was a true leap of faith: an aging Bruce Willis; the return of the “buddy comedy” namesake that had plagued part three; and a PG-13 rating that would be almost unspeakable for a Die Hard movie.  But dear God, did it work.

In 16 days, Bruce Willis will be 58 years old.

In 16 days, Bruce Willis will be 58 years old.

I entered expecting something as outstanding as Live Free or Die Hard.  Did A Good Day to Die Hard meet my expectations?  No.  Or I should say, not quite.  The film is very flawed, but as far as I’m concerned, most of the flaws tie into the aim of the entire series: to sacrifice realism for the sake of erupting with fun.

Other missteps I was swift to get past.  When we’re introduced to Jack McClane (that’s John’s son), he’s nothing like we saw him before.  I know, people change, and people can change pretty drastically.  The change in Jack’s character was immediate, as John’s prior mentions of him would never suggest any sort of “bad man”; and now he’s a murderous Russian spy, rude and juvenile toward his father, no less.  But there’s too much else to really notice something even that uneven.

A Good Day to Die Hard isn’t anything special.  This is an example of what the action genre really wants to do: focus more on fun than on story.  He who truly believes John McClane (Bruce Willis), a New York cop, would travel all the way to Russia on a vacation, particularly when he doesn’t speak a word of their language (though this is a catalyst for several of the film’s memorable humorous moments)–is lost.  Numerous examples of action flicks, however, can so easily forget to have fun, and we’re left with a violent, pointless sleeping pill.  The more-than-ninety minutes of exhilaration are what set A Good Day Die Hard apart from those titles.

B MINUS

Monday Movies of the Mind

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Review No. 420

pirates_of_the_caribbean_ver3

The Bottom Line:
Yo, ho, ho, ho, it’s quite a fun movie.

Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Screenplay by: Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio
Story by: Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio & Stuart Beattie and Jay Wolpert
Based on: Walt Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean
Captain Jack Sparrow: Johnny Depp
Captain Barbossa: Geoffrey Rush
Will Turner: Orlando Bloom
Elizabeth Swann: Keira Knightley
Commodore Norrington: Jack Davenport
Governor Weatherby Swann: Jonathan Pryce
Also Starring: Angus Barnett, Christopher S. Capp, Damian O’Hare, David Bailie, Giles New, Greg Ellis, Kevin McNally, Lee Arenberg, Mackenzie Crook, Martin Klebba, Zoe Saldana

Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures on July 9, 2003. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 144 mins. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA for action/adventure violence.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
was watched on February 16, 2013.

“Do us a favor… I know it’s difficult for you… but please, stay here, and try not to do anything… stupid.” –Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp)

Pirates of the
Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
is a fun little adventure. Now, mind you, don’t expect anything truly mind blowing here. This is based on a theme park ride–not a book or a stage play but a ride at Disneyland, and a log flume, no less. But you can manage to expect the somewhat unexpected. There is more dramatic depth to it than that, and even more than in most “pirate movies.” We all know that only according to myth did
pirates actually hunt for their treasure and talk in a gruff dialect and whatnot.
Pirates gleefully and harmlessly toys with the folk legend.

We begin sometime during the American Revolution. It’s not clear what year, but considering most other movies would assume we know what period the legend surrounded, it doesn’t much matter.

The Black Pearl is the subject at hand. This is a ghost ship that, although highly improbable, has a massively debated existence. Legend has it that a small, golden medallion has the power over whether or not those belonging to the ship are immortal. At the age of twelve, Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) gets her hands on this
mysterious artifact, by pure mistake. Almost instantly, she declares that she wishes to become a pirate. And later in her life, she does. But little does she know what life will hand her: just
about everything from the handsome blacksmith Will Turner (Orlando
Bloom), to the quirky and bumbling Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny
Depp).

Pirates is a large-scale technical achievement, with only as much substance as necessary. What stands out most is the music, easily a one-hit wonder for its composer, Klaus Badelt. His original work on other films (Mission: Impossible 2, Catwoman) is nearly impossible to recall. The music in
Pirates–particularly when it dissolves into Dariusz Wolski’s soaring camerawork–is nearly impossible to forget. This is all in the name of adventure and fun, as is everything about the film.

One area, however, I can’t help but feel was indulging in a bit much fun. The screenplay, scripted by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, feels extensive at times.
Pirates could have worked as an entirely fluent production at just around two hours. Just an extra twenty minutes seems to kill the climactic moments.

Despite its occasional flaws, I had quite a blast watching Pirates of the Caribbean. The escapade addresses 80% of “pirate” clichés in an almost straightforward–yet, at the same time, goofy–manner. Trying to keep count of search terms akin “Davey Jones’s locker” and “they’re gaining on us” is like trying to stay awake while your face is pressed against a skillet, but in all likelihood, this was intended. What defines
Pirates entirely is Johnny Depp’s performance. He’s creepy, strange, amusing, and he
notably enhances the mood, a blend between quirky and macabre. Jack
Sparrow–I’m sorry, Captain Jack Sparrow was the well executed role of a lifetime for Depp; that this earned him his first Academy Award nomination is anything but surprising.

The film itself isn’t anything of an award-winning swashbuckler. But if it doesn’t end leaving you with a cheesy grin on your face, it’s likely your definition of “fun” is very limited.

B

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Top Gun

Review No. 414

top_gun_ver3

The Bottom Line: Oh the fun! Oh the flaws!

Directed by: Tony Scott
Written by: Jim Cash and Jack Epps, Jr.
“Maverick”: Tom Cruise
“Goose”: Anthony Edwards
“Charlie”: Kelly McGillis
Carol Bradshaw: Meg Ryan
“Iceman”: Val Kilmer
“Slider”: Rick Rossovich
“Viper”: Tom Skerritt
“Jester”: Michael Ironside
“Hollywood”: Whip Hubley
“Stinger”: James Tolkan
Also Starring: Adrian Pasdar, Barry Tubb, Clarence Gilyard Jr., David Patterson, Duke Stroud, John Stockwell, Linda Rae Jurgens, Tim Robbins

Distributed by Paramount Pictures on May 16, 1986. Re-released in IMAX 3D on February 8, 2013. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 110 mins. Rated PG by the MPAA (mature themes; profanity; war violence).

Top Gun was watched on February 9, 2013.

“I feel the need…the need for speed!” –Maverick (Tom Cruise)

Top Gun is a basic representation of director Tony Scott’s career. It’s lightweight, carefree, loud, and explosive. You can’t do any harm applying the word “fun,” but “fun” is not always “good.” With Top Gun, that’s the somewhat unfortunate truth. Should the film remain in my memory, it’ll be for the dogfights that kept me at the edge of my seat, not the hokey cheese that pressured me to get up and flee the theater.

I’m very grateful I had the chance to see Top Gun in IMAX 3D. I’m also relieved, however, that I wasn’t the one paying. The film clocks in at precisely one hour, forty minutes, but the plot is a log in the middle of the woods. It’s definitely there, but so are the termites, and they’ve eaten at least ten servings of it before the end is visible on the horizon.

Maverick (Tom Cruise) is the “cool cat” of a Navy training academy. He isn’t there to protect and to serve, but because he feels “the need, the need for speed.” Furthermore, he’s competing with those of his own league for the honorary title “Top Gun.” Clearly this is an action movie, not a solemn war drama. It’s also a bit of a corny romance. Somehow, Maverick meets his instructor Charlie (Kelly McGillis) at a nightclub first, not in training. It’s predictable at this point that no matter how much she tells him she can’t stand him, his persistence will win her in the end.

Perhaps substance isn’t as important for Top Gun as for most movies. Not only is the film poorly conceived, it’s poorly delivered and poorly written. Okay, I’ll cut some slack for a few of the film’s famed quotes, but color me surprised by Tom Cruise’s overacting ability. It’s a wonder the man withheld a steady career long after 1986, and that he’s now the highest paid actor in Hollywood.

Top Gun made me feel like an adrenaline junkie. I don’t avoid action flicks, but I don’t watch them religiously as some genre fiends do. Most of that demographic would say the action was what made The Godfather (a three-hour crime drama) a suitable experience. Truth be told, I’d say the same for Top Gun (a less-than-two-hour cornball action flick). I did get pretty excited by some of these rock music-fueled, airborne, high-flying sequences. At least these portions can force me to wolverine through nearly a tub and a half of popcorn.

C PLUS

The 1st Annual Cinemaniac Awards – Winners

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 764 other followers

%d bloggers like this: