September 2009 Archives

Written and Directed by Sean Penn. Starring Jack Nicholson, David Morse, Priscila Barnes, Piper Laurie, Anjelica Huston, Robin Wright Penn, Richard Bradford. Drama

SYNOPSIS: A man struggles with his deep hatred and desire for revenge on the drunk driver who killed his young daughter and has just been released from prison.

I've often said that all you really need for a good movie-even in this day of CGI and almost no limit what can be presented on screen-is a good story that is well acted and well directed. The Crossing Guard is just one more bit of evidence of this. (Of course, I'm not the first guy to say this, probably not even the millionth, but I'm claiming it)

Almost unbelievably, I had not ever seen or even heard much about this (relatively) low budget indie film chock full of A list actors, if not celebrity. The big draw here, of course is the one guy who is A list in every category, Jack Nicholson (A Few Good Men, Hoffa), who plays Freddy Gale, a middle aged jewelry store owner who has barely kept it together after the death of his young daughter at the hands of a drunk driver seven years before. As if the pain of losing his only child weren't enough of a cross to bear, his marriage to the child's mother (Anjelica Huston, Gardens of Stone, Iron Jawed Angels) has long since lay in ruins, to the point where his ex-wife is now (relatively) happily remarried.

Throw onto this fire a little gas in the form of the release drunken louse who took his child's life, and Gale is ready to go completely over the edge...not to mention that he wants to kill the man and isn't shy about sharing his feelings with his ex-wife.

And, as for the antagonist in this story, let me give you (I'm not making this up, the only thing I did not like about the story), newly freed state inmate John Booth (David Morse, Disturbia, The Negotiator). Not to nitpick such a great movie, but the choice of name was just a little too "out there" for me, I mean why not go all the way and give him the middle name of "Wilkes"? In fairness, the movie was based on a novel-which I have not read-so I'm sure the character names come from there.

Anyway, lest you think from my early intro that this flick is a revenge/action type of story, let me tell you that, to me, its simply a story about people in a difficult set of circumstances doing the best they can with either: 1) the hand they've been dealt by fate or 2) the bed they've made for themselves.

You feel some sort of empathy, if not outright sympathy, for all of the characters at some point. Yes, even the ne'er do well Booth, who we soon realize is not so much a bad man, but a man who did a bad thing and, well...you'll probably kind of like him. Not in the "I'd like to have a beer with him" sort of way, but in appreciation of a man who has done wrong, and knows he's done wrong, and really isn't expecting or looking for any sympathy.

He's even somewhat surprised at the love still shown him by his parents (Piper Laurie, Carrie; Richard Bradford, The Untouchables) The story kind of unfolds with the parallel lives of both Booth and Freddy as they progress after Booth's release from prison and Freddy's simmering rage. The two men are on a collision course and we know it. What makes the story so interesting and compelling is the depth that both the two main characters have as well as the supporting cast, with a bunch of heavyweight performances.

We all know how good Nicholson is and he doesn't disappoint here (has he ever?) With every word and in each scene, we feel Freddy's unrelenting pain, his anger, his disappointment, his sense of utter hopelessness. But, we also wish, in some cases, he would just act a little bit better. O.k., much better. This is no more evident than in the scenes with his ex-wife. Hutson and Nicholson have such good chemistry in these electric "love-hate" scenes that you are going to jumping back to these scenes a couple of times. Wow.

 

Now, I'm raving about Nicholson and Huston, and me telling true movie fans that they do great jobs in their roles is about as surprising as my report to you that it gets cold in Chicago in January. Throw in some excellent supporting performances from Robin Wright Penn and Priscilla Barnes (The Devil's Rejects) and you've got more good acting in this flick than you'll see in an entire summer of blockbusters.

But, you know what? For me the standout here is David Morse. Booth is the key to the story because if you don't identify or feel for him, at least a little, this story loses some of its power. Not to mention, he has to go toe to toe in some critical scenes with maybe the greatest living actor and not get blown off the screen. And he does it. He

more than does it, trust me. If you've seen some of Morse's work (and how can you not have if you're a movie buff? The Green Mile, John Adams, The Rock, 16 Blocks, the list goes on) then you know what a solid character/supporting actor he is. Make no mistake, he can carry a film and he nearly does here. Never seen him better.

As for how this ends, you know full well I'm not a spoiler and its difficult to talk too much in detail without giving it away, but I will say it's a powerful film that provokes a lot of thought. The ending is also powerful, not so much a shocker as it takes you somewhere you probably didn't think you were going to go, and-like real life-its kind of ambiguous and everything is not wrapped up in a nice neat bow for you.

Sean Penn might be, like Clint Eastwood, the kind of director that is as good a director as an actor, which is really saying something. Those of you who check this out on DVD will hear the actors rave about how he makes it easy for them, i.e., brings out their best performances. Sounds pretty much like the main job of the director to me.

This is an excellent film.

Sorry for the wordiness, but that is really all I've been trying to say.

Drama/Action. Directed by Bill Duke. Starring Laurence Fishburne, Jeff Goldblum, Victoria Dillard, Charles Martin Smith, Gregory Sierra, Roger Gueneveur Smith, Kamala Lopez Dawson, Sydney Lassick.

Synopsis: A squeaky clean undercover policeman goes deeper than any cop should go in the cover of an up and coming drug dealer in Los Angeles. He gets in so deep and is so good in his role that he finds himself conflicted as to who are the real criminals and victims in the war on drugs. 

I've seen this one many times over the years but recently reacquainted myself with it on DVD. As is the case with any good film, it stands the test of time. Deep Cover is a hard hitting, fast moving, sexy action drama that begins by introducing to Laurence Fishburne's character, a straight arrow Cincinnati cop who, as we learn in the opening scenes, was set on that path by watching the death of his drug addicted father, shot in the back on Christmas Eve while trying to hold up a liquor store. As Fishburne tells in the voice over that accompanies the entire movie, "When I watched my father die like that, I had one thought...it wouldn't happen to me".

He takes it to such a level that, even as a cop in the present day, he has never even had a drink, and swears he never will. Well, in present day Cincinnati, a ranking representative (Charles Martin Smith. The Untouchables) of a powerful goverment agency (after seeing this flick several times, I'm still pretty sure that the specific agency is never named...if I'm wrong, let me know) is looking for an African-American cop to go undercover, and stay there, in Los Angeles in order to work uyp the chain of drug suppliers in L.A. and beyond to South America.

Reluctantly, Fishburne accepts and he is immediately sent to L.A., walking the streets of Hollywood and looking to make connections. These connections include a high level street supplier named Felix (Gregory Sierra John Caprenter's Vampires, Sanford & Son); a ne'er do well lawyer looking to get rich quick in the drug trade named David (Jeff Goldblum); and a beautiful siren who works as a money launderer (Victoria Dillard).

On the other side, he comes into contact with a spiritual narcotics cop (Clarence Williams III) and an addicted neighbor (Kamala Lopez-Dawson) with a young son who prick his conscience, which is being tested all the time as he goes in deeper and deeper, ultimately becoming one of the big fishes in the pond in the drug trade and committing other crimes himself.

Even though he is successful in getting next to the big drug dealers as he was asked to do, he experiences a betrayal from his law enforcement handlers and has to make a decision, is he a cop pretending to be a drug dealer or a drug dealer pretending to be a cop?

I think Fishburne is wonderful in this role, its perfect for him and you believe him totally on both sides of his character, even as they morph into one as the film progresses. Goldblum is his typical quirky, funny self and in this role adds a real dark edge to it that you don't seem from him very often (His brief turn as a street punk in Death Wish doesn't really count). Clarence Williams is very good, as always, and you just have to wonder why we don't see him in character roles more often.

I especially like the direction of this film, Duke keeps it moving and weaves the scenes together real well. Deep Cover is one of the best, if not the best, of the gangster/drug dealer movies that came out during the height of the most recent "war on drugs" even though it isn't the most well known or most seen. If you like this sub-genre of action films, don;t be afraid to check out this one, its not dated at all, feeling as fresh and relevant now as it did over a decade ago.          

Directed by Gregory Dark. Starring Glen Jacobs, Christina Vidal, Steven Vidler, Luke Pegler, Samantha Noble, Penny McNamee. Horror. Synopsis: A giant and particularly sadistic serial killer long thought to b e dead resurfaces in a planned ambush of a group of young work release prisoners who are guarded by the surviving officer who almost killed him.

Well, you have to be realistic in your expectations when you select a movie that is produced by the W.W.E. And I did. Now, I have nothing against big time wrestling, I can't say I'm a huge fan....actually not a fan at all. But, even if I were, I'm sure I would be skeptical as to the cinematic potential of a wrestling organization. To be fair, I'm not sure how much I would expect out of Dreamworks if they forayed into big time wrestling.

Having said that, I would say that anyone who goes into this movie with a serious expectation that this might be a really good movie is the same kind of person who tunes into Presidential debates really seeking straight answers from the candidates on the important issues. Now, I'm not saying that there are not those among us who will enjoy this flick. What I am saying is that this movie is basically an attempt to give a star from W.W.E. some exposure on the big screen and cover the shameless marketing of an asset in plenty of blood and gore.

And, they did that. Glen Jacobs a/k/a "Kane" plays Jacob Goodnight, a giant man who is a sadistic serial killer, which isn't redundant because this guy could turn the stomach of your run of the mill serial killer in a heartbeat.  He removes the eyes of the victims, sometimes before they are deceased, just to give you an idea.

The story heats up from the opening credits, when two cops track down a serial killer they later learn to be Goodnight, they find him in a home with a deceased victim and one survivor, who is very unfortunate in that he has already removed her eyes. Jake takes out one of the cops, but the other one (Steven Vidler Salem's Lot) gets off a couple of rounds, one hitting the bad guy in the head...yet he gets away anyway. Seriously.

Resilient guy, obviously. In this scene we are introduced to a song that will play over and over in the background of the film...and probably drive you crazy, though in fairness to the filmmakers, that is probably the intent, it kind of goes with the back story.

Anyway, our hero cop loses a hand and, in a flash, its years down the road and he is basically chaperoning a coed group of youthful work release offenders who are going to clean up a run down hotel for the weekend as part of their payment of the debt to society. And, guess who lurks behind the walls of this sleazy, repugnant hotel?

Look, the premise of this one and its back story are very unrealistic...the tried and true formula of isolating a group of nubile teenagers (played, of course, by 20 & 30 something actors) has made way too much money at the box office and rentals to disregard, but in this age of cell phones, blackberrys, etc., the idea of a group of people being totally cut off from the rest of society in the middle of downtown L.A. is kind of stretching it. And its not like we have the most ingenious villain here.

But, I doth protest too much, 'cuz the whole point of this one is to set up as many gruesome kills for the imposing star of the flick as possible. And, on that basis, mission accomplished. Fans of gore and Kane will no doubt love this one and, honestly, that is who it was made for. Nothing wrong with that. And, I'm not above loving a gorefest, but there has to be some element of true horror or a good story to really hook me. See No Evil doesn't hook me. Am I sorry I invested the time to watch it? No. Do I expect that this one will stick in the old consciousness for years? No. Would I watch it again if were the best flick on the tube. No, tune into ESPN or the History Channel...or something else.

That's my call.

 

Drama/Historical. Brennan Elliott, Kendall Gross, Ty Olson, Monnae Mitchell, April Telek.

Synopsis:A recreation of the events on the one commerical airliner hijacked on 9/11/01 that did not hit its intended target, as passengers and crew received and gave communication to relatives and friends on the ground, and made an attempt to take back the plane from the hijackers,with the plane ultimately crashing into a rural area in Pennsylvania, killing all those on board.

Well, who among us will ever forget our exact location and feelings when we first heard on that Tuesday morning about what was happening in the air above our country? I remember first hearing about a plane crashing into the  World Trade Center from an employee of mine as I went to a meeting in downtown Atlanta, and immediately thinking that the pilot must have had a heart attack.

I didn't even compute or consider that it was a commercial airliner. As someone then flying 50.000 miles a year, I knew enough to know that that was way too low for a huge commercial plane. I remember clearly how I felt when I found out that it was a commerical airliner, and with my legal background immediately thinking of the huge liability and the end of United Airlines as we then knew it...minutes later finding out that two had hit the Pentagon and knowing that it could not have been an accident, calling my mother-who worked at the Pentagon years ago-and finding out about the impact there and, since she had access to TV and I did not,  asking her if the news people thought we were under attack.

I recall how I felt in my meeting, a bunch of lawyers sitting around trying to settle a case and knowing that something was going on but not what it was, the lawyers calling their client in New York and saying they could not get through, me calling my then-wife in California and her telling me "...both towers are down". I remember thinking of friends and family in the Washington, D.C and New York areas, frantically trying to call them and not, in some cases, not even able to get a dial tone...thinking of clients or friends who might have been on a plane.....

But, another thing I remember clearly is the feeling of pride that I felt when the facts and theories began to come out that the passengers of Flight 93 had fought back and brought the plane down before it could hit its intended target. Not to putdown the passengers and crew of the other flights, its known that those on board Flight 93, due to their collective use of cell phones, had some idea of what was going with other planes and some of what had already happened that morning. In fairness to the other flights, it has to be said the crews have long been trained in a hijack or "skyjack" situation, to comply with the hijackers to , theoretically, keep passengers safe and to let the military and/or law enforcement deal with things on the gound. These maniac terrorists knew that, and used it to their sick advantage on the other flights.

Its hard for me to understand any criticism of this film other than by those for whom it may to soon or painful to watch for personal reasons. But, logic would tell you that those people would not watch it or some of the other films that are being released about 9/11. Those who criticize the acting, or the theory of what really happened on the plane before it crashed, or the fact that no big name actors are in the movie (a conscious and, in my opinion, correct decision by the filmmaker) simply have an axe to grind with other issues or don't really understand the tragedy.

Films about 9/11 are not, and should not be, about the following foreign or domestic policy of this or any country, nor should they be about blaming any other world leader or country other than those sick bastards who killed all of those innocent  people for nothing.

This film is not a great work of cinematic art, nor was it intended to be, nor does it need to be. The filmmakers understood that the strength of the true story, of that  beautiful yet frustrating quality that we humans have to be at our best when things are at their worst-and sometimes only then- was more than enough to make this film very powerful.

They were right.

Directed by Marc Lawrence. Starring High Grant, Drew Barrymore, Kristen Johnston, Campbell Scott, Haley Bennett, Scott Porter, Suzi Lorraine. Synopsis: A washed up pop star from the '80's is rejuvenated when he meets a young woman who helps him regain his energy by becoming his lyricist and eventually falling in love. Comedy/Romance.

I treated myself to this one in the theater on Valentine's Day. Even though it is well known that I am not a big fan of romantic comedies, I will give them a shot from time to time and I'm glad I did with Music & Lyrics, because its a good time if you go into with the right frame of mind.

The plot is an fairly interesting twist on the tried and true boy meets girl-boy loses girl-boy gets girl at the end formula that has been in vogue since the day before the first romantic comedy in the history of cinema. High Grant (Mickey Blue Eyes)  is a former 80's pop music star who is own the "downside", as they say, playing at state fairs and even being invited to star in a celebrity boxing match. To make matters even worse, the other part of his previously successful music duo has maintained stardom for all of these years.

Things have the potential to look up for him, in more ways than one, when he has the opportunity to write a song for the current big star (Haley Bennett), something that could get his career back on track. There is just one problem. He has a problem with writing lyrics and he doesn't have much time. Into this breach steps the young woman whose job it is to water his plants (Drew Barrymore 50 First Dates) .

She has what he lacks: a knack for creating catchy and inspired lyrics. The only issue is that she has some past relationship problems of her own and is, initially, somewhat reluctant to help Hugh. Of course, this lessens as their relationship warms up. One of the best things about this flick, for my money, was her older sister (Kristen Johnston) who is unabashedly from the generation that worshipped Hugh and goes ga-ga over her little sister's new man in a way that even her little sis does not.

Look, there is nothing earth shaking-unless you count the brief opening throwback scene of an 80's music video with gorgeous horror Queen Suzi Lorraine (Cold Blonded Murder)  as the sultry nurse- or awe inspiring about this movie, its just entertaining with more than its share of laughs.  Grant is not everybody's cup of tea, but you do have to give him credit for being an expert at the dry, tongue-in-cheek-with-the-regal-accent dry comeback. He probably has no peer in this narrowly defined category.

I think Barrymore is a supremely talented actress who plays her trademark "happy" girl to perfection here. I would like to see her do something different, with a little more of an edge (think Poison Ivy) , but she is doing very well, thank you, with these very identifiable type of roles. As I alluded to earlier, Johnston is wonderful and, frankly, the best scene stealer and arguably the funniest character in a funny movie.

Music & Lyrics is a good "chick flick", but the real neat thing about it is that you will get some smiles and laughs from it even if you are not a "chick" or normally into the sappy romance stuff. 

It works. 

 

Directed by Michael Feifer. Starring Priscilla Barnes, Kane Hodder, Michael Berryman, Adrienne Frantz, Timothy Oman, Shawn Hoffman, Amy Lyndon. Horror/Drama/Gore/True Crime. Synopsis: Film based loosely on the real life serial killer Ed Gein, who killed, skinned, and cannibalized his victims in rural Wisconsin in the 1940's and '50's.

Its long been said that truth is stranger than fiction. In a lot of cases, such as the movie Ed Gein, truth is also a whole lot more interesting than fiction, too. Or at least, fiction based "loosely" on a true story.

Look, this is not a bad effort, not a bad effort at all. And the flick does not deserve placement in the "Duds" category, but, as much as I would like to, I can't really encourage anyone (not that any of you listen to me anyway...no hard feelings, I don't listen to myself most of the time) to pick up this flick. Good effort, nice intentions, some good actors, fertile story line. Just didn't work.

For those who are not familiar with the story of Ed Gein, he was one of the most vicious, if not prolific, serial killers in U.S. history, coming at a time before the term "serial killer" was in vogue. Over 50 when he was caught in 1957, Gein was a lifelong resident of north central Wisconsin who has an alcoholic father and a domineering mother who probably started him down the path to ruin with her talk about the evils of sex and alleged acts of humiliating her son (one story has it that she poured scalding water on his genitals after catching him engaged in self exploration as a child) Gein was a grave robber, cannibal, and also cut the skins off of his victims, mostly middle aged women) and had some skin suits in his filthy residence. He was tried for only two murders but was thought to have killed many more, including the murder of the mother of one of the deputies in the local sheriff's office.  He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and spent the rest of his life in a mental institution, dying in 1984. His story was part of the inspiration for such horror films as Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Psycho, and the "Buffalo Bill" character in Silence of the Lambs.  

Obviously, there is a lot to work with in this real life horror story. Unfortunately, Ed Gein falls flat because the story is, well, boring. The plot line is spread too thin among the ensemble cast, when the title character himself-or at least some focus on his motivation or morbid life style. Instead, Feifer focuses too much on the deputies involved but does not engage us or make them interesting enough for us.

Kane Hodder (Friday the 13th)  does a good job in his character, but that is part of the problem. This large, physically imposing actor is the opposite of the short, effeminate acting Gein. And, a picture of the real Gein during the opening credits doesn't help in this aspect as you can tell that the real butcher was not physically imposing at all, which adds to his madness and intrigue as well as helps explains how he was probably able to lure his victims to his remote home.

Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes)  makes a brief appearance as Gein's brother, and Priscilla Barnes (The Devil's Rejects) is good but under utilized in her role as the mother of the deputy who falls victim to Gein. There is enough blood to satisfy fans of gore.

One other pet peeve: this film is set in northern Wisconsin in the 1950's, so why does almost the entire cast speak in southern accents and dialect (e.g. "y'all, "honey child")? I'm not trying to be too picky, but these are two distinct regions of the country-both of which I've spent time in-and the sounds are much different. I'm not saying there could not have been a transplanted southerner or two in this rural Wisconsin town, but almost everyone? If Feifer's next film is set in north central Georgia, will the cast be speaking with long "Os", hard consonants, and saying "eh" a lot? Or is it just the "Hollywood" assumption that all rural people everywhere all sound the same?

It's clear from the director's commentary that there was only basic familiarity with the real story by the cast and Feifer. Maybe that is not important to some viewers, but, to me, the whole reason to make a real life story into a movie is that it is interesting or important, so if you don't try to stay true to the real details, what's the point? Unless what you come up with in your "artistic license" product is compelling.

So, I can't recommend it, but if you do give it a chance, keep your expectations kind of low, which just might help you enjoy it more than I did.        

Directed by Ryan Murphy. Starring Joseph Cross, Annette Bening, Brian Cox, Alec Baldwin, Evan Rachel Wood, Jill Clayburgh, Gwyneth Paltrow, Joseph Fiennes. Comedy/Drama/Historical.  Synopsis: The story of real life writer Austen Burroughs chaotic childhood with his supremely dysfunctional parents and his ultimate adoption by the psychologist treating his mother, who is clearly descending into his own unique madness.

Running with Scissors is a very unique kind of dark comedy mixed with drama, it was not until the end of the flick and the special features on DVD that I realized that it was supposed to be based on true life events of Augusten Burroughs, author of a book by the same name in the form of a personal memoir.

There is a line in the voice over narration towards the end of the film that indicates that the Burroughs character (Joseph Cross) doesn't believe that anyone else would believe what he says about his childhood. Well, he is right about that. Not that I am accusing the filmmakers of producing a fictional piece and calling it "true", but you have to think there is some embellishment and/or dramatic license going on, though it is clear that real people are depicted in the film.

Augusten Burroughs is the  child of a paranoid mother (Annette Bening The American President) who has visions of her own impending poetic greatness and a detached father (Alec Baldwin The Departed) who gets away from the growing madness in his own home via the bottle. Their marriage is laughably horrible, with their verbal fights and put downs that you laugh at, even though you know you shouldn't, being played out right in front of the teen age Augusten.

They make an attempt to salvage what is left of their "family" by going to the obviously unstable Dr. Finch (Brian Cox Last Shot at Glory). To say that Cox steals the show would be an understatement, and is in no way a slap at the other members of this fine cast. Dr. Finch who, with the blessing of Augustus' mom, adopts the teen ager into his own dysfunctional family, is stark raving mad in a quiet, learned kind of way. You have to see it to complete understand how brilliant Cox is in this hilarious and poignant role (poignant when you realize that this is a real person or if you have known someone with mental illness; hilarious because you can't help but laugh at some of his antics and you realize that he is a doctor), my words won't do it justice.

The Finch family is interesting, too. Mrs. Finch (Jill Clayburgh) might be the only completely sane and stable member. The youngest daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) is sane, but not stable, and she immediately buddies up with Augustus, both teens sharing in the dysfunction and madness of their favorite parent. The older sister (Gwyneth Paltrow Seven), Dr. Finch's self professed favorite daughter, is simply insane in her quiet beauty.

All of these good actors carry their own weight and more, in the case of Baldwin and Paltrow, you have a couple of heavyweight actors lending themselves to relatively minor, but important, roles. That's good because it helps make this flick a little better than good. Joseph Cross needs some "props", as the young kids say, for holding his own onscreen with major players like Bening, Clayburgh, and Cox.

I'm not sure what you will take from Running with Scissors, but I'm sure that you will take something from it, which is more than you can say for most films you've ever seen, right?    

 

Directed by  Laurence Dunmore. Starring Johnny  Depp, John Malkovich, Susan Morton, Rosamund Pike. Drama/Historical Synopsis: A frank look at the last few years of the Earl of Rochester, John Wilmot, a 17th century poet who was both a friend of King Charles and one of the more influential authors of the Restoration.

This film starts with Johnny Depp as John Wilmot doing a monologue that is shocking in its sexual suggestiveness (considering our modern view of the 1600's) and includes John Wilmot telling us that we will not like him.  

Well, I have to beg to differ. I liked the character and the film quite a bit. I got this one solely because of Johnny Depp (Secret Window, From Hell), who will become a legend if he keeps reinventing himself from role to role. Though I'm a history buff, I had never even heard of John Wilmot and, as usual, I did my background research after seeing this flick. I'm happy to report that, so far as I can tell, the movie stays pretty close to the written history of this talented writer and social agitator who, almost literally, drank and fornicated himself (in a manner of speaking) to death by the age of 33.

The story does not waste much time with a lot of historical background or explanation. Whether this was calculated with an eye to a primarily British audience or not, I don't know but I think that it is a good thing, as the social and political affairs of the time in Britain are going to be outside the knowledge of most viewers. Plus, the story stands fine on its own. John Wilmot is a privileged man in search of nothing other than self pleasure. His taste for the excess is, in no way, dimmed by his station in life or his friendship with the King (John Malkovich Burn After Reading, Mary Reilly). We see from the first moments of the movie that Wilmot is not one to deny himself and, I must say, the sexual innuendo and suggestion might surprise some of you. 

Wilmot is a writer, obviously talented but maybe viewed as underachieving at a time and in a place where literary people wielded much more influence than is comprehensible for us today. He also has a love of the theater, where he sets out to mold a struggling young actress (Susan Morton), with whom he, of course, has an affair. It should be mentioned that Wilmot is married at this time and, in fact, was married until his death, notwithstanding his sexual excesses (including a strong implication of bisexuality).

Wilmot has success in helping his protege become the toast of London, but he is soon in the middle of controversy as he takes a request from the King to pen a play and turns it into a suggestive and lewd satire of the King and his court. Needless to say, this does not go over, as they say, real big and Wilmot is soon on the lam, his relationship with his girlfriend in the tank and estranged from his, for whatever reason, loyal wife.

During this time, Wilmot's physical condition starts to completely deteriorate and the film is quite graphic in depicting the effects of his alcoholism and "social disease" (probably syphilis). Believe it or not, you will see Johnny Depp literally rot before your eyes. Not pretty, but effective cinema that is necessary for the story and also accurate history. To me, you can't help but like Wilmot even as you despise his lifestyle. Maybe he was just a couple of hundred years ahead of his time in attitude, but understand that the film makes no attempt to romanticize or glamorize his sexual conquests or hedonistic lifestyle. Wilmot paid a huge price for this, believe me.

On the other hand, I think the real success of this flick is showing us a little known historical figure whose ideas would not be so far out of step with those of the late nineteenth or twentieth century. An unforgettable scene is a horribly disfigured Wilmot addressing the King's Court and supporting the future succession of the throne from the King (now an enemy of Wilmot's) to his brother who is, hold your breath now, a Catholic.

Johhny Depp is fantastic in this role, disturbingly likeable and completely believable in this role. For those of you who have seen this movie, how many actors of his stature would play a role that is so visually unappealing? Susan Morton is wonderful as well, playing a liberated woman who, like Wilmot, is centuries ahead of her time. And, it will be no surprise that I tell you John Malkovich is great, though almost unrecognizable as the King.

This film won't be for everyone, nor was it intended to be, as an art period piece. If you think you like that kind of thing, I'm sure you will like the Libertine.   

Directed by Stuart Baird. Starring Tommy Lee Jones, Wesley Snipes, Robert Downey, Jr., Joe Pantoliano, Daniel Roebuck, Tom  Wood, Irene Jacob, Kate Nelligan. Action/Drama.  Synopsis: The sequel to The Fugitive follows Deputy U.S. Marshal Sam Gerard and his group of deputies as they track another fugitive from justice who has deep ties to the intelligence community of the United States.

This is an underrated sequel to the hit movie The Fugitive, with the scene stealing Tommy Lee Jones back as Sam Gerard and his entire posse intact with one minor change. As much as everyone enjoyed Tommy Lee in the original (The "I want you to search every outhouse, henhouse, chicken house..." line is an all time classic), it seemed, to me, to make sense to bring him and his group back for another one because, with all due respect to the great Harrison Ford, a hell of an argument can be made that Jones and his scenes were the best part of the Fugitive. But, I think one of the reasons this flick is underrated is that people think of it, incorrectly in my view, as a sequel.

Of course, I understand why people do that, but to me, a sequel is a continuation or telling of something new directly related to the first film (more like a prequel). This movie is entirely different, with some of the characters from the first movie telling a different story with no relation or connection to the first. To borrow a phrase from television, this movie was more like a "spin off" to me, in the same way that Maud and The Jefferson's were spin offs of All in the Family.   So, for what that thought is worth, it's wrong to cast this as a sequel in my opinion and, since by definition sequels are only made when the first movie is a success and its very hard to go home again, sequels more often than not are less loved than their originals.

Be that as it may, U.S. Marshals is very good as a stand alone project, and there is no need to have seen the Fugitive to fully appreciate or enjoy the film, though if you did see the first, you will probably feel a little deeper kinship with the Marshal characters.

Sam Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones Cobb) is back here, the same wisecracking, dedicated to his jog ace Marshal that we saw in the Fugitive, and this time he is on the trail of an elusive man named Mark (Wesley Snipes Passenger 57) who is wanted for the murder of a government agent. Mark is especially adept at hiding, and seems to avoid violence (Great line from this movie from Tommy Lee: "I'm trying to figure out why this guy keeps going out of his way not to kill people") and has a top shelf girlfriend (Irene Jacob) who he is obviously devoted to, so much so that the gang figures he will contact her sooner or later. 

Most of the rest of Sam's gang is back (Joe Pantoliano, Daniel Roebuck, Tom Wood) but there are a couple of important newcomers from the first movie. Kate Nelligan comes in as Sam's boss with her elegance and the implication of a past romance between the two, and Robert Downey Jr.(Chaplin) is agent specially assigned to this case that Sam just can't seem to take a shine to, so to speak. Well, for good reason, as we soon learn he has divided loyalties. 

There is more of a conspiratorial plot in this one than in the first, and much more pure action scenes from Snipes than with Harrison Ford as Dr. Kimble in the Fugitive.  Like the first one, we can expect the theme of the film to be the "good guy mistaken for the bad guy" thing, but, here, we are not totally sure that Mark is really a good guy, and we also have a good idea of who the bad guys are and one of them,  at least, is closer to Sam than he thinks. In the first one, we knew all the time that the hero was innocent, but didn't who the bad guys were or why they were until the end. That approach might be a little more effective for those who prefer at least a little twist with their flicks. But, to me, U.S. Marshals works fine because it is really an action film that could be mistaken for a drama, while the Fugitive was really a drama that could have been mistaken for an action film.

The whole thing revolves around Jones and Snipes and they both deliver, especially Jones, who goes from being a scene stealing supporting character to leading man with ease, which is not easy. Maybe even harder was Snipes' job, to essentially "replace" Harrison Ford as the one running from Jones. I wonder if the cool scene where Snipes bungee jumps from a skyscraper onto a moving train is more of a homage to Ford's waterfall plunge in the Fugitive or just action hero Wesley being Wesley?   Maybe a little bit of both.

The bottom line, U.S Marshals is a good movie that might not be quite as good as its predecessor, but that's o.k. if you go into understanding that its two separate movies telling separate stories, which will be easier if you are one of the few people who did not see the first. Also, special kudos on the special features for those of you who are thinking of getting the DVD, there is an excellent feature on the history of the U.S. Marshals, which will be interesting for all who like to know these sorts of things.  

       

Directed by Alexandre Aja. Starring Ted Levine, Kathleen Quinlan, Dan Byrd, Aaron Stanford, Tom Bower, Billy Drago. Horror. Synopsis: A family traveling through the desert in the western part of the U.S. is besieged by a murderous family of mutant humans. A remake of an original screenplay and movie by Wes Craven.

I'm a horror movie fan and, by definition, a fan of most things Wes Craven. But, I have to admit that I had not seen the original Hills Have Eyes, so I was able to go into this DVD with an open mind, wondering only if Wes would be happy to have this remake associated with his name, which is synonymous with horror.

I think he'd be pretty pleased.

This movie is strictly formulaic horror fare, and you know the drill. Group of people (in this case a family) become stranded/trapped and set upon by the bad guys/monsters. In this film, the monsters are human, but mutant humans of considerable strength and insatiable bloodlust derived, apparently, from there being in the area of some nuclear testing back in the day which led to a generation of horribly disfigured descendants. Now, those of you with even the slightest knowledge of mutations, genetics, or the effects of radiation will have to suspend your disbelief as to the ability of people so affected by radiation to still have the ability to reproduce and pass the mutation along, (not to mention live in a town that, apparently, is not known to anyone else) but I'm betting you can do that.

Although this formula is nothing new and the first half hour of the movie drags a little, as you prepare for the inevitable, you will find yourself hating the mutants and pulling for the-sometimes-less- than- clear thinking family members to survive and take out their revenge.

In a film like this, the makeup is more important than usual because, lets be honest, if the mutants aren't scary or repulsive, well, that's half the battle right there. They will disgust you, for the most part, by their appearance and any attempt to create any feelings of sympathy went out the window, at least for me, when you realize how violent they are.

Along those lines, this is not an easy film to watch, and may be unwatchable for some. There is extreme violence, both implied and not. You'll see one of the family members burned alive and the attempted rape of another, not to mention the disturbing image of one of the mutants trying to suckle at the breast of another reluctant female family member.

On the other hand, the surviving family members give almost as good as they get and, those of you who are-like me-dog lovers will find some more justification for the truism that dogs "are man's best friend". 

The acting is good, especially when you accept the fact that this is horror and not Shakespeare. Ted Levine (Silence of the Lambs) and Kathleen Quinlan (A Civil Action) are the patriarch and matriarch of the nuclear family that has the misfortune to break down in the desert, near the mutants but, of course , out of cell phone range and friendly humans. Dan Byrd (Salem's Lot) is one of the children and is once again impressive. You get the feeling that we will be seeing a lot of Mr. Byrd in the future, I don't think talent like this will join the "forgotten child actor" club. Aaron Stanford does a wonderful job as the irritating son-in-law. Fans of notable but nameless character actors will recognize Tom Bower (The Negotiator, True Believer, The Badge).Billy Drago (The Untouchables) is unrecognizable in his role as one of the meanest mutants, but its still doubtful he is as evil as he was as Frank Nitti in his most famous role. (Isn't that scene where Kevin Costner's Eliot Ness throws Drago's Frank Nitti off the roof-while historically inaccurate-one of your all time favorites? C'mon, admit it. I do.) 

If you are horror movie fan and like your flicks with plenty of gore and vengeance, you will like The Hills Have Eyes. Period.  

 

Directed by Don Faunt LeRoy. Starring Steven Seagal, Anthony Chris, Sarah Buxton, Maxi Morrow, Nick Mancuso, Kevin Tighe. Action/Drama. Synopsis: A modern day Robin Hood looking to go straight is framed for the robbery of 20 million dollars in the first night of his new job in Las Vegas. He goes to prison, but escapes to gain revenge on the ones who put him there.

 

I just couldn't resist it, really. I'm an action movie and Steven Seagal fan and, despite the horrid nature of most of his flicks since the turn of the new century, I just feel compelled to check them out, with the full expectation that I will probably be disappointed, to say the least. (See Shadow Man, Mercenary for Justice, Black Dawn) Well, after watching Today you Die, I'm happy to report that there does beat a pulse of desire inside Mr. Seagal and that there is no reason that he cannot still make a legitimate action movie.

Having said that, lets not get carried away here. This is no Under Siege, Above the Law, or Exit Wounds. But, it is a hell of a lot closer than anything else he has made in the last several years. Today you Die, like almost all Seagal/action flicks, has an unbelievably far fetched premise, but its not so bad as to make you giggle ( a la Mercenary for Justice)

In this one, Seagal plays a golden hearted, Robin Hood thief who robs from rich criminals to do good with the ill gotten gain. He and his girlfriend (Maxi Morrow) are looking to get out of that life and just enjoy each other when they relocate to Las Vegas. Seagal gets a-supposedly-legit job driving an armored truck from a "friend" (Kevin Tighe). As you might guess, things go awry right from the beginning as the initial run is actually an inside hold up job of 20 million bucks. But, things don't go as smoothly as everyone hoped and the gig is blown up, with Seagal getting caught and charged with the robbery he had nothing to do with. This is made even more interesting by the fact that no one knows where the 20 mil is, and Seagal is not telling...even as he goes to prison.

In prison, Seagal meets a sympathetic gang leader whom he can trust (Anthony "Treach" Chris) whose helps him to escape. From there, Seagal has to hunt down the bad guys, clear his name, get back with his girlfriend, and, of course, find something good to do with that 20 million.

Of course, no action movie would be complete without  the "bad cop" and in this one, Nick Mancuso fills that role very well, alongside "good" prosecutor Sarah Buxton. The best thing about this movie is that, first and foremost, Seagal does not seem bored, and his chemistry with the likable Treach works surprisingly well. The fight scenes will not make any Seagal fan forget Out for Justice or Marked for Death , but the man does seem to be doing most of his own stunts again, and the director smartly focuses on the blinding hand speed, the one aspect of the arsenal that has not suffered with the prodigious weight gain.

The plot is not bad, provided that you accept what you are looking at, and don't hold it to the All About Eve standard of cinematic drama. Chris and Buxton are good in their supporting roles, as is Morrow, although there is a big hole with her "visions" not being explained or sufficiently tied to the script.

Mancuso and Tighe stand out as the bad guys here, however, it seems like just yesterday that Tighe was the likable John Gage in Emergency , but he has certainly matured into a very good, suave, bad guy.

If you are a Seagal fan, and you have suffered through the dreck of his early 21st century films, you owe it to yourself to give this one a shot. Can I say its real good? Nah, not without stretching the truth, something I refuse to do on this blog. But, it's not real bad, either, or even slightly bad, since it will entertain you for a while. And, that's not a bad deal for a direct to video action flick, is it?

Directed by Simon West. Starring Camilla Belle, Tommy Flanagan, Kate Cassidy, Tessa Thompson. Horror/Suspense. Synopsis: A remake of the 1979 film  of the same name telling the story of  a young teen aged girl who is terrorized throughout the night ,while babysitting, by  threatening phone calls from an unknown stranger  who ultimately finds his way into the home.  

I'm not one who is always down on remakes. Sometimes they work (Scarface), sometimes they don't (The Longest Yard). I do believe that, most often, you can't go home again. What I mean by that is, if you are going to remake a movie that was fairly popular and very memorable in its time-and was itself based on an urban legend that dates back in many forms at least forty years-you had better bring something new to table, whether its a different twist, feel, ...something, because we all know the story, and it is going to take us being enthralled with the character and sympathetic to her situation to have us jumping out of our seats like we did in '79. ( Not to mention the fact that we're no longer in 5th grade)

This version of When a Stranger Calls doesn't work for several reasons. First, it is updated to the present day, using the same characters, for the most part, as the original. Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) is a high school student who has just run afoul of her parents by going 800 minutes over her cell phone limit. (Hey, we've all been there. A little chit-chat, and the next thing you know, 12+ hours in the red)  This was due to her cheating boyfriend...who had the nerve to actually kiss Jill's erstwhile best bud Tiffany (Kate Cassidy). As if that weren't enough, Jill's upper-middle class suburban hell gets a little hotter when Dad insists that she is going to have to babysit to pay off her debt for the overuse of the cell phone.

So, in addition to missing the big bonfire, Jill is barred by Dad from driving and using her cell phone as punishment as he drives her way out to the middle of nowhere to babysit for a rich couple who live in a house only slightly smaller than a small mid-western town. As if this was not already an all too evident recipe for disaster, what real life empathy we might be able to muster is hard to bring up because it is just so...obvious. Jill's Dad actually asks her "if she is going to be all right out here..." showing that he also has some concerns about his daughter. But, that doesn't stop him from dropping young Jill off to babysit for people she doesn't know (By Goodness, that bill has to be paid!!!)

O.k., you're thinking I'm being a little too tough here, but it gets better. Jill meets the Mandrakises, a rich power couple who are so busy and important that, even though they are only going to dinner and a movie, they almost forget to tell Jill where the kids are. Further making the set up just a little too unrealistic to get us where we need to be is the fact that, apparently, there is a live in maid upstairs, so Jill shouldn't worry if she hears "some bumping around up there"  O.k., I'm an open minded guy, but the movie started to lose me here. I know that set up was put in there for two reasons: 1) to have there be another potential explanation for the noise Jill will surely hear after it gets dark and to add to the psychological terror she (and the audience) will feel and 2) give Jill a dead body to find later on. Fine.

But, I hate to state the obvious: if they have a live in maid why do they need a babysitter for six hours?   

There's more. There is a guest house that their adult son sometimes stays in, but he has the bad habit of not telling them when he will be there. O.k., now its getting to be too much. Maybe I can deal with a young man needing to get away from his parents to the extent that he needs to crash in the guest house even though the main house is only slightly smaller than Dubuque, Iowa.

But, again, wouldn't you at least check on the guest house...maybe big bro could babysit? By this time, I'm saying to myself "Unless the couple are in on it, this is just too unreal....", whether that observation is accurate or not I will leave to those of you who have not seen the film.

Well, it quickly gets dark and, (surprise!!!), its a windy and rainy night when the calls start coming in, interspersed with crank calls from Jill's buds (calling from the bonfire where the cell reception is so bad that it always cuts out later when Jill starts asking for help). Jill is the first teenager in a half-century not to have the TV and/or stereo going the whole time as she starts to field the calls.

Later, when best bud Tiffany shows up at the house (That Tiffany is something isn't she? Jill is no longer talking to her, but she manages to track Jill down at a house Jill has never been before) and the two engage in girl talk for a while. Jill, already uneasy about the calls, does just what anyone else would do in that situation: alone except for two kids she hasn't seen , no car, cops won't help you until you are already under attack, nasty storm outside, nobody answering their phone, homicidal lunatic calling every 10 minutes. So, when her best friend comes, what does heroine Jilly do? Well, she asks her to leave, of course, damn near pushing her out the front door.   

I could go on, but you get the point. The set up and plot are just too far fetched and the circumstances too unrealistic. I'm not familiar with Camilla Belle's work outside of this film, but I think she has some talent. There just isn't much too work with in this script. Hey, Tom Hanks was in He Knows Your Alone, Kevin Bacon was in Friday the 13th, and Johnny Depp was in Nightmare on Elm Street  , so there is life after teen age slasher flicks and I think Ms. Belle may do just fine.

I think the big problem here is that, unlike the original, in this version the entire movie is attempting to focus only on the calls throughout the night with no background or serious character development. Really, the best part of the film is the house, its wonderful looking and is best described as what those in the 70's probably thought all modern houses would look like by the 21st century. 

Look, there may be some who will enjoy this, but its hard for me to see anyone over 18 with any real life experience being scared or enthralled. (I mean, this family is superrich, and you're telling me someone calling from that palace can't even get the local cops to send a car over...c'mon. As a former law enforcement officer, I don't know whether to laugh or get mad)

And, it should be said that the film at least tries to scare you without resorting to cheap gore, although there are other cheap cliche scare tactics (a black cat....I'm not kidding) If you go see or rent this one, understand what you are getting. Unrealistic camp without the usual good parts and cheap titillation which we all decry yet can't get enough of. Its a film that made an honest effort, which is what keeps it out of the Dud category, but took itself way too seriously and didn't give us enough credit. 

 

Starring Queen Latifah, LL Cool J, Timothy Hutton, Alicia Witt, Gerard Depardieu. Comedy/Romance.  Synopsis: A young woman who has lived her life only dreaming of possibilities learns that she has an inoperable brain condition and decides to make the three weeks that she has left really count by doing many of the things she was afraid to do while she thought she had all of the time in the world.

Well, first of all, you need to know that I am not unbiased when talking about this movie, because it has Queen Latifah and I'm predisposed to love anything with the Queen in it. Now that you know that, I'll try to be objective in talking about Last Holiday. I watched it, of course, because of the Queen and in spite of the fact that I'm not a romantic film guy, and this one looked to be sort of the cutesy romantic type movie that I rarely want to watch, but usually enjoy after I actually watch them...which is not that often. (I've got my male ego to think about, you understand)

This is a cute, fun movie that I think almost anyone would enjoy to some extent. Queen Latifah plays Georgia Byrd, a young woman who works in a superstore in Louisiana and has a hard time expressing her crush on a fellow employee, Sean (LL Cool J Edison Force). Georgia is nice, friendly, a little on the dumpy side, sings in the church choir, and has big dreams that she keeps track of in a book called "Possibilities".

Things go along fine, if somewhat dull, until one day Georgia decides to really talk to Sean, results in a accidental bump on the head, which results in a routine CAT scan where Georgia learns she has a fatal disease of the brain, and only has weeks to live. Choosing not to spend the time feeling sorry for herself or telling those close to her what is really going on, Georgia decides to cash in her savings and, in a memorable line from the film "Just blow it."

Georgia heads to Prague, where she puts herself up in the Presidential suite of an exquisite hotel and embarks on days/night of manicures, skiing, full body massages, fine dining and all manner of spoiling herself. Here, the movie really picks up as, believe it or not, Georgia runs into the shark businessman/tycoon who actually owns the store that she used to toil in, Matthew Kragen (Timothy Hutton Ordinary People, The General's Daughter). And, to boot, there is a Louisiana Senator (Giancarlo Esposito) who has just recently stood up Georgia's church due to political business, yet has time to ski and get his palms greased in Prague (and takes a major shine to an uninterested Georgia).If that is not enough, the world famous chef Dider (Gerard Depardieu), a hero of Georgia's,  is cooking at the hotel and Georgia is treated to her own personal valet, Gunther (Sally Kellerman).  

It seems that Georgia, outfitting herself in dresses that would stand out on Rodeo Drive and living in the $4000.00 a night suite, is understandably mistaken for a rich power broker, and soon has the interest of all of the people mentioned above, not to mention another Congressman (Michael Nouri) and even Matthew Kragen's mistress (Alicia Witt)

The plot in the film is a little far-fetched and there is a "twist" at the end of the film that you will be able to call about 15 minutes into the movie even if you watch it blindfolded. Having said that, its just fun to watch as the overall theme is how drawn people are to Georgia because of the person that she is, even moreso than the person they perceive her to be, and her growing sense of what life has to offer if you give it your all, sadly realized only when not much of life is left.

Despite the pretty solemn underlying theme, there are plenty of laughs throughout from a wonderful cast with no less than six supporting actors ( Hutton, LL Cool J, Depardieu, Esposito, Nouri, Witt) who are perfectly capable, in my opinion, of carrying a film all by themselves. As if that is not enough, Sally Kellerman and Ranjit Chowdry are hilarious during their relatively short time onscreen.

Queen Latifah shows, again, that she is a very good actress with presence, beauty, and a lovable nature that happens to come in plus size. How refreshing.

I really have nothing critical to say about the film, its not the best or funniest movie you've ever seen...maybe not even this year...but it knows that and doesn't take itself too seriously, one of the most common flaws of films that miss. Its just a pleasant, fun way to spend an hour and a half and, as long as you are the rare movie fan that doesn't need/expect your life or outlook on life to be changed in one sitting, can make it through a movie without controversial historical revisionism, aliens, gratuitous nudity, finding out that the main character was actually dead the whole time, and/or several gory torture scenes, I think you will really, really like this one.

But, like I said earlier, I'm heavily biased when it comes to the Queen.

 

Directed by Robert Lee. Starring Jeff Fahey, Erika Eleniak, Jessica Amlee, Britney Irvin. Synopsis: A scientist and his young pair of researchers determine that there is going to be a catastrophic shift in the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in a shift of the polar extremes and resulting in absolute zero in most balmy and tropical places near and south of the equator...and it is going to happen soon.

When a campy, made for TV cable flick has a title like Absolute Zero, its almost too easy to make a lot of wise a** and cutting put-down remarks on how cheesy the movie was by incorporating several variations of the term "zero" into the review. To do that would be low brow, insensitive, and kind of juvenile in the pursuit of a chuckle or two at the expense of a serious, well thought out review.

So, I guess I'll just get started.

No, seriously, this is not a very good movie, although some of you may have seen it in your local video store with multiple copies available in the new release section, which can-sometimes-indicate that it might not be too, too bad. Well, not in this case, although I want to go on record right now and say its not completely horrible, so yours truly will not relegate it to the "Duds" category, because the seasoned movie watchers among you might just have an idea going in that you are not going to be watching top tier stuff and, if you go into not expecting Citizen Kane, or even The Towering Inferno, you might be able to enjoy some aspects of the film.

As you will suspect from the box cover, this is one of those catastrophic-in-nature movies that reflects the unthinkable change in nature. The more cynical among you will think that this is just a low budget rip off of The Day After Tomorrow, and I will admit that the thought crossed my mind as well. They are careful in the film not to refer to the coming calamity as another Ice Age, referring to it as that theoretical scientific condition known as "absolute zero". I don't know if this is legitimate science or not, it made for o.k. theater. (Although I'm quite sure that this condition, if it could occur, wouldn't happen over the period of a couple of days)

Jeff Fahey plays the scientist who first sounds the alarm, based on his observation of some curious weather patterns and his findings on a research trip to the North Pole (in which all of his buddies were killed due to an extreme and deadly shift in the weather, and Jeff was last seen huddling up with his dying pal in a cave when a terrifying CGI storm that destroyed the command post was rolling in. My thought in this scene was "I wonder how he is going to get out of this one?". Well, we fade to black and in the next scene he is back in his office in sunny Miami. You've got to love a script that doesn't sweat the small stuff in details)

Well, when he gets back he sounds the alarm but, as will surprise no one, the higher ups don't believe him, or if they do, they think this big shift is centuries in the future and every one is more worried about securing government funding in the present to ward off this disaster.

Sorry, guys, absolute-freakin-zero is not coming in the 23rd century, its coming later today, and boy does it hit Miami hard. The only people listening to Jeff and his two student researchers are an old professor buddy of his and the prof's wife (Erika Eleniak. Under Siege ), who just happens to be an old flame of Jeff's.

Ah, yes, the tried and true formula of boy meets girl/boy dumps girl/girl marries boy's best friend without boy knowing it/boy meets girl again/girl's hubby gets killed in scientifically impossible catastrophe/boy, girl, and girl's daughter survive in boy's office which is somehow built to withstand a condition no one thought possible two days before it happened/boy gets girl for good/ has been done many, many times, but never better than in Absolute Zero. 

By far, the standout performance in this one is Jessica Amlee, who plays the little girl and has an obvious screen presence and natural talent. That's not to put down the other actors, the script and ridiculous settings did not give them a whole lot to work with.

You might expect some awesome FX in this one like you saw in The Day After Tomorrow. Well, you will be disappointed. Although some of the CGI is not bad, there are others that are cheesier than a Wisconsin dairy farm. In addition to that, at times when they are not using CGI when showing us the devastation coming to Miami, they use the trick of a local newscast footage, which looks suspiciously like some of the footage you might see during the first snowstorm of the year in Albany. Clearly not Miami.

Look, if you've got nothing better to do or have an end of the world complex or love improbable reunions of lost love or if you are a member of that segment of the population who enjoys seeing Erika Eleniak no matter what...then check this out and be prepared to be slightly amused for a while. Otherwise, don't feel bad if you give this a pass, you haven't missed much.

Directed by Michael Addis Starring: Jamie Kennedy. Featuring: Louie Anderson, Lewis Black, Jon Lovitz, Arsenio Hall, Henry Winkler, Rob Zombie,Carrie Fisher, George Wallace, Mike Ditka, Leonard Maltin, Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, Craig Ferguson, Robert Englund, George Lucas. Documentary/Comedy. Synopsis: Jamie Kennedy interviews comedians, performers, and celebrities to get an understanding of how they react and feel about harsh criticism and hecklers. 

This might not be exactly as you might guess from the box cover and the obvious assumptions you would make based on the talent in the film. Don't get me wrong, this is funny, but that is not all it is, and I'm not even sure that was even the primary focus of the film, and I'm sure its not its main point.

Addis and Kennedy, in addition to providing a ton of opportunities, also want to make a point: celebrities, no matter how rich or talented, do hear the loud and increasingly personal and vitriolic criticism to hear and, for many of them, it does hurt. O.k., I don't want to go too far in giving you the impression this is some kind of tear jerker wrapped inside a comedy. Its not. But there is a serious point.

However, the documentary goes even deeper than that, it really tries to answer the question of why critics are as negative and personal as they are, and why its becoming so much more prevalent.

This kind of rang true with me, not that I'm in any danger of being confused with a celebrity or someone with talent, but I have wondered why it seems to be so necessary for so many, especially those of us in the blogosphere, to be so over the top with the criticism. I mean, we've all seen bad movies (Not to be overly philosophical, but don't we kind of need them to truly appreciate the good ones? You know, you can't have light without darkness and so forth...), but is anyone really so bad that we 'feel like we've been cheated of two hours from our life', or 'need to take a shower after watching', or that the director should be 'killed' ? And, something that yours truly hopes he's not guilty of but probably is, can we all just admit that our own point of view isn't the be all end all? If you have an opinion, state it, but is anyone who disagrees with you or me an "idiot"?

I don't think so, and I think that is something I got from the movie, which does a good job of giving some critics their say as well. You realize how ridiculous some of it is, if a young mand doesn't like Jamie Kennedy's stand up routine, fine, but you realize how silly he comes across telling him he has "no talent".

Another thing that was really powerful in this film was the use of archived footage to show some people being heckled onstage, including some (in)famous ones such as Sean Young's drunken heckle at the Oscar's, Ronald Reagan telling a heckler on the campaign trail in Michigan in 1980 to "shut up", and Bill Maher going ballistic and having a heckler physically removed from his talk show.

I also appreciated the attempt to get into the psyche of the heckler/critic, and what their inappropriate actions might say about them above from just being rude.

All in all, a very good documentary flick that will make you laugh plenty and just might also make you think a little. That's what it did for me, for what that'as worth.     

Directed by Matthew Bright. Starring Michael Reilly Burke, Doti Bliss. True Crime/Historical Synopsis: A biopic of Ted Bundy, one of the most notorious serial killers in U.S. history.

I was genuinely excited to receive this movie on DVD as a gift and deeply regret having to come to such a negative conclusion, but there is really no other alternative. As a movie lover and a true crime buff, I have quite a bit of familiarity with the Bundy case and, especially, enjoyed the made for TV adaption of the mid-80's, "The Deliberate Stranger".

I expected a movie version, updated with current developments (e.g., at the time of the making of the "Deliberate Stranger", Bundy had not been executed, his appeals had not been exhausted, nor had the immense psychological profiling or his eleventh hour shenanigans to save his life-such as his siring of a child while on death row or his conversion to Hinduism or his last minute appeals to exchange information to save his life- been completed) and not restrained on such a macabre subject as this by network TV parameters to be truly compelling, thought provoking, and informative.

Bright's movie, while visually compelling at times, falls far short of the mark and is, at times, inappropriate and tasteless. Other reviewers have indicated that there is poor character development and they are absolutely correct. There is no, absolutely NO, attempt to develop ANY of the characters past their cartoonish roles as set forth by this script and Bright.

Moreover, many of the historical facts of the case are simply misrepresented in this film. Even a casual follower of the Bundy case knows that, incredibly, many of his known 30 victims who have been identified (not all have been), bore a striking resemblance to each other. Generally brunette with long, straight hair parted in the middle; which fit the description of the high society woman Bundy was long infatuated with and even engaged to for a time. (Not to be confused with his OTHER girlfriend at the time of the beginning of his killings, whom is depicted in both movies referenced herein, and in Bright's adaptation is misrepresented and slandered, despite a strong performance from the actress playing her with such a limited script). By contrast, the victims in Bright's adaption are mostly blond and further details of their murders are made up and presented as "fact".

There is no mention or illusion to Bundy's family, especially his mother, whom he beleived to be his sister until early adolescence, nor his self described life long shame at being born out of wedlock. Clearly, well known facts such as these are important to give the viewer, whether familiar with Bundy or not, grounds to answer the most compelling and unanswerable questions: WHY and HOW?

Instead, Bright presents a disjointed tale in which Bundy (played fairly well with limited options by Michael Burke) does not even speak until 20 minutes into the movie, despite being depicted in almost every scene of the movie. We are treated to much more violence than is necessary in showing the horror of this man, and also to many vignettes of him supposedly acting out similar fantasies in lovemaking with his girlfriend. Further, Bright takes the time to provide several scenes referencing Bundy's necrophilia, something that was never confessed to or proven, albeit suspected by the investigators in the case.

For those of you looking for information about this case in addition to being entertained, you will be sadly disappointed. There is almost no reference to time, date, place of this killing nightmare that spanned almost ten years, and absolutely no creative reference to the investigation and/or trial(s) of Bundy. (In the director's commentary on the 'features" portion of the DVD, Bright tells us that he simply "wasn't interested in shooting that stuff") Perhaps to make up for his evidently intentional lack of character development, factual accuracy, and story line, Bright spices in some footage of the real Bundy being led into court and transferred to jail; along with contemporary newscasts and community reaction. This brief snippets tell us more about what happened and compel us to form our own opinions than anything Bright does in the rest of the piece.

Other reviewers have remarked in the apparent attempt at dark humor in this movie. I believe that Bright did attempt this, although for the life of me I cannot find dark humor in the real life story of a man who murdered at least 30 women (investigators and profilers close to the case unanimously believe the actual count is much more and some feel that it could have well been more than 100);physically and emotionally maimed other victims for life, and psychologically shattered some others who knew, in hindsight, that they could have been and/or were intended to be his victim. As such, the ridiculous scene, and others like it, where Bright's Bundy is depicted as a tween sport jacket and bow tie wearing nerd while sitting in 70's style disco's and doing an intentionally poor parody of John Travolta's famous pose from the cover of the album "Saturday Night Live" don't strike me as funny.

There is another montage with some upbeat 70's style disco music (don't get me wrong, I LOVE 70's era tunes...this just wasn't the place)blaring happily while Bright shows us successive scenes of women being dumped into ditches and by the sides of roads as well as a particularly disturbing one with Bundy enjoying a smoke after (presumably) sex with two corpses.

I realize that Bundy was a disgusting, revolting character, and any honest portrayal of him will contain some elements of this. However, Bright focuses solely on the crude parts, which cheat the viewer, in my opinion, of the full chilling effect of this predator who was, although in some respects fraudulently so, a law student, suicide crisis counselor, aide on the campaign to the Governor of Washington, and admired within his community. Mark Harmon's Bundy in the Deliberate Stranger was played with these dimensions in mind, so effectively that, at times, depending on which "Ted" we are seeing, Harmon actually seems to look different. And, most importantly, we are given an indication of HOW so many nice and intelligent women were lured to their demise. Bright's Bundy is a ridiculous and revolting figure, obviously out of place and literally walking up to women on the street and striking them and then carrying their bodies to his VW, in one scene in full view of four people who are walking right by and don't seem to care.

For those who do feel compelled or interested in seeing this movie, don't waste your extra bucks on the DVD version unless you just have to see it in that visually format. There are no additional features other than Bright's appalling director's commentary. This rates special mention due to its revelation about the thought that went into this movie. Bright makes little or no mention of the actors, motivation, or though that went into making this picture. His comments are semi-moronic musings such as "can you believe this guy", "ladies, dump your boyfriend if he is like this", "don't so that Ted", and the like. He misstates on several occasions actual Bundy events and repeats throughout that "hey, this actually happened", even in scenes that require some dramatic license (e.g. conversation between Bundy and a victim who did not survive)

However, the most disturbing parts of the DVD feature are Bright's almost incessant reference to the actresses playing the roles of victims in this movie. Such beauts as "this girl is a wrestler in real life and I wish she would have met Bundy, she'd have kicked his butt" and "I can't remember her name (reference to a blond actress playing a cheerleader uniform wearing victim of Bundy-a victim not based in the facts of the case)...but, she's 'jailbait' and she knows she's 'jailbait'"

The most disgusting is in the commentary during the "interrogation scene" of Bundy (again, we are given no who, what, where, etc.) when the detective is withering Bundy with questions and begins to read a list of names of his victims (again, not factually accurate, at the time of Bundy's initial arrest in Utah, he was a suspect in three unsolved kidnapping of young women,bodies had not been found and one survived and ultimately identify him) containing about 20 names. Bright tells us that "he didn't use the real names of the victims in respect to the families" (what a guy) and then goes on, unbelievably, to tell us that "...the names used are the names of every girl I have slept with since the eighth grade..." and then goes on to tell us when and how on some of the women. Seriously.

There are other false and tasteless treats from his commentary "...people saw this guy, but nobody said anything and nobody cared...", "Bundy easily could have been Governor or a Senator", and "Bundy was a REpublican...I don't mean to slam Republicans, but most serial killers are Repblicans."

As if that is not enough, this movie ends with a succession of four children (?)smiling at the camera and yelling "I am Ted Bundy", the last of which is a cute little girl who says this line while appearing to be holding a dead cat.

Bottom line, stay away from this unless you just like mindless and gratuitous movies that are a succession of unrelated and unexplained shocking scenes like the ones mentioned above and many other beauties such as Bundy masturbating outside of windows and putting lipstick on a decapitated corpse.

If you are interested at all in this subject matter or just curious and don't need to be grossed out while someone who thinks this is a little humorous puts in tasteless scenes to try and make you laugh, skip this and find "The Deliberate Stranger" on VHS or wait until it comes around again on cable.

Directed by Uwe Boll. Starring Kristanna Loken, Michelle Rodriguez, Ben Kingsley, Matthew Davis, Michael Madsen, Billy Zane. Action/Horror.  Synopsis: A story of a half human half vampire woman who leads a group of humans against the strongest vampire and his clan of vampires, the head vampire happens to be her father. Based on a popular video game.

I'll admit, the box cover of this DVD was the driving force behind my deciding to give this movie a shot. I didn't even read the description, although if I had, I would have picked it up anyway because I am a fan of almost all things vampire. Apparently, this is a flick based on a video game of which I am not familiar, though it seems to me that most of the buzz I've heard from folks who have  seen the movie and are familiar with the game pan the movie. Not surprising to me, based on similar reactions when a popular novel is made into a movie. But, I can't, and won't even try, to talk about this movie from the VG perspective, to me they are such separate mediums that it is borderline amazing to successfully capture the best elements of both.

I can say that Blood Rayne tries to be, and is in many ways, unlike most other vampire movies that you are likely to see. First off, in my opinion, it does not even try to be a horror movie. I include that genre in the synopsis only because I try to put as many possible descriptions on a movie as possible, knowing that one person's drama is another person's action and so on. To me, this is an action movie all the way with the vampires being shown to have more "human" characteristics and emotions than in most other adaptations of the vampire legend/franchise. Its also clear that the film was relying a whole lot on special effects to carry the story.

Rayne (Kristanna Loken) is a half human/half vampire (called dhampir) who starts the saga as an unwilling freak show performer in a carnival, being as she has this funny habit of dining on blood, which seems to heal the cuts inflicted on her human skin at the start of the show. Of course, Rayne is fortunate enough to be a sympathetic figure among some of the other performers, including most importantly a fortune teller, who lets Rayne know that it is her destiny to find and destroy Kagan (Ben Kingsley Suspect Zero), the most powerful and diabolical vampire of them all, who leads the murderous vampire clan. It seems Kagan's vamp clan is after a rare gem, which for some reason will make vampires even stronger than they already are.

And there is this little kicker to boot. Kagan is Rayne's dad. Seems that Kagan violated Rayne's human mother. Fortunately, Rayen is that rarest of creatures, a dhampir who actually survives into adulthood, so she is in a unique position to, as they say, exact a measure of revenge, which Rayne is all too happy to do. Believe me, there is no Cosby-esque Daddy/daughter love here.

Fortunately for Rayne, she is not the only one wants a piece of Kagan and his clan, as she teams up with  fellow vampire hunters (Michelle Rodriquez, Michael Madsen, Matthew Davis). The most important of these pals is Davis' Sebastian, as he becomes Rayne's love interest and they combine for the film's only gratuitous sex scene. (Notice I did not say "love scene")  

The nuances of the plot are somewhat indecipherable and, there will be some cheesy dialogue there for you, so those of you who go into each and every movie looking to critique it against the Citizen Kane standard will have plenty to talk about. The setting is ambiguous, I suppose its set in the Middle Ages times, so I just decided to suspend disbelief a lot with the costumes, as Loken and Rodriguez are dressed in tight, revealing tops that you would expect to see in a Showtime late night bawdy flick...but I wasn't complaining.

Visually, the movie is way above par for its look and effects. We see the vamps going out in different ways than usual, although as a dedicated vampire fan, it seems to me that one of the staples of the franchise is that you have to play by the basic set of rules, whether the vampire is Count Dracula himself in Transylvania as in Bram Stoker's Dracula or hippie looking teenagers hanging out near a California amusement park as in The Lost Boys. That is, there are only a couple of ways to kill a vampire. So, what's this with all of the sword fighting? What the hell use is a sword against a vampire, unless you always manage to pierce his/her heart with it? And why would a vampire have a sword? And, of course, the biggest question: when did vampires start doing the actual deed? I mean, isn't it just accepted that their sucking of the blood is the symbolic replacement for having, shall we say, "relations"?

And, even when movies do imply that the vamp does the deed, its always in conjunction with his wanting his human partner to join him in the world of the undead (like in Blacula) . What I'm driving at here is, why didn't Kagan drink Rayne's mother's blood, what's up with that? 'Cause if he had, then Rayne would have been a full blooded (pun intended) vampire, right? Well, maybe I missed something or I'm just putting too much thought into this.

Anyway, you won't see superior acting in this one, notwithstanding the presence of Oscar-winner Ben Kingsley, who looks outlandish in his wig and seems strangely wooden, not scary or creepy like he did in Suspect Zero. Billy Zane (Titanic) in his cameo and Michelle Rodriguez are the best of the lot. Michael Madsen comes across as if he took this part to have some fun more than anything. Loken is not going to make anyone forget Meryl Streep with her acting, but I think its a little unfair to banish her completely to the "Eye Candy/ Can't Act Group". Like her role in Terminator 3, there is no doubt that her principal purpose is to look sexy but tough and be believable as an action hero, and she does that very well.

Here she has a lot of dialogue, most of it cheesy, but she brings energy to it and has some screen presence. I just think it's kind of hard to pull off this kind of role and really impress with your acting. I think Charlize or Halle might be able to do it, but there is a reason that those two have statues on their shelves, not too many other bombshells could do it, if any. Loken is not bad and, over time, if she ever has some real serious roles in a widely seen movie where she has a real chance to show some depth, a lot of viewers might be surprised, because I think she has some talent.

On the whole, can't say this is a good film, the story is incredulous even for its genre, the acting is mediocre, the directing is uneven, but it does try to step outside of the box somewhat and there are some good scenes and nice effects. You've seen better movies, no doubt. But you've seen a lot worse, no doubt. If you like a little special effects gore, vampire movies, or any of the main actors, lower your expectations, buy it/rent it when its reduced in price, have some popcorn and kill some time when you're bored. 

You could do worse. And you probably have.         

Directed by Keoni Waymon. Starring: Freddie Prinze, Jr., Ving Rhames, Roselyn Sanchez, Callum Keith Renee Synopsis: An aspiring pool hustler joins the inner circle of a powerful New Orleans pool shark and soon finds himself in the middle of a dangerous hustle as he is manipulated by a corrupt police officer and his boss while falling in love with the gambling addicted siren who led him into the pool hall that now jeopardizes his life.  

If you are an action movie fan and you see a title with Ving Rhames in it, you expect it to be pretty good. Shooting Gallery is a movie that holds a lot of promise, delivers on some it and falls far short in others.  

The setting is the seedy underbelly of hard drinking, gambling, and pool sharking New Orleans. Jericho (Freddie Prinze, Jr.) is an aspiring young pool hustler who makes his way to the Shooting Gallery, a pool hall empire run with deliciously classy malevolence by Cueball Carl (Ving Rhames). Quickly seeing Jericho as a prodigious pool talent, Carl quickly makes him his prize hustler and money winner, with the pressure always on to play the hustle to perfection. The opening of the movie shows as a flashback murder in which Carl pulls the trigger. This scene soon makes sense to us as Jericho is rousted by  burned out cop Mortenson, who is obviously teetering on the edge of sanity (Callum Keith Renee) and solicits Jericho to help him set up Carl as the victim in the opening movie was the partner of Mortenson.

Of course, it wouldn't be a movie (would it?) without at least a hint of a romantic interest and Jericho quickly has eyes for the pool hall honey (Roselyn Sanchez), and they progress, somewhat haphazardly, to develop a physical intimacy at the same time they are trying to get over on Cueball Carl.

Its obvious that the main goal of Shooting Gallery is to bring to life the subculture of pool, and the movie succeeds in doing that. Now, whether the portrayal is accurate or not might depend on your in depth knowledge of the game as its played for money in gambling joints and pool halls, as opposed to the friendly game the rest of us play on Saturday afternoons when its raining out or at the club before the good dance music starts.

The soundtrack of the movie is excellent, and probably the best part of the film. The score is perfect for the feel and tempo of the film and is used well, sometimes to the distraction of the dialogue. This is not as big a problem as you might think because the story, while interesting in parts, is uneven, hard to follow and a little too far fetched. The names (Cueball Carl, Tenderloin Tony, etc.) are a little hard to buy and the streaming titles that are constantly defining the incomprehensible pool lingo that is used throughout the film are annoying.

What saves the film from disaster and makes it a decent film to have or watch as long as your expectations are not too high are the performances of some of the actors. Ving Rhames is just as you would expect him to be: seethingly sinister but likeable anyway. Freddie Prinze Jr. is not bad as Jericho. For those of you who are not familiar with his TV work you will be pleasantly surprised as he holds his own. The biggest problem for me is a troubling similarity to Keanu Reaves in his look and voice in this film. Roselyn Sanchez is delicious to see and plays the familiar role of sultry siren very well.

Callum Keith Renee is the standout in this film, however, as his character is so over the top and fun to watch that he steals virtually every scene that he is in and you can't take your eyes off of him. Very good work by Mr. Renee. Also, hard core NFL fans will enjoy a brief cameo by former Football bad boy Bill Romanowski.

If you want to see some neat pool action and a few real good alpha male scenes, this flick isn't bad. For anything more, you might be a little disappointed. 

 

 

Directed by Dominic Sena. Starring Brad Pitt, David Duchovny, Juliette Lewis, Michelle Forbes. Synopsis: A struggling writer who has targeted the topic of serial killers for his next book and his artist girlfriend start an impromptu move from the East Coast to California. They meet another young couple from the hardscrabble South who have their own reason for heading West and agree to ride together and share expenses. What's not known to anyone, at least for a while, is that the male part of the uncultured couple is a serial killer himself. Action/Drama. 

This one was a pleasant surprise for me, as I had never seen it or heard much about it even though its over a decade old. What's interesting is that, even though there are some big time names in the cast, the film was made before any of them were big stars, at least to the extent they are today in the case of Pitt and Duchovny.

Duchovny plays a writer who has had moderate success, and has an advance in hand that paid for a nice place and not much else, but he has to come up with the book now. His chosen topic, a theme of personal fascination for him, is serial killers. He has a strong willed artist girlfriend (Michelle Forbes) who will help him on the book but is tired of falling short in her own career and wants to, as they say, blow this town and head West to California...right away.

They decide not to let the fact that they don't have the money for the move stop them, they will just find someone to share expenses in the drive...which will also feature frequent stops to research murder sites across the country for the book. Well, the pool of folks who are going to be interested in this offer is slim but, luckily, there is a couple who take them up on it, Early and Adele.

We've met Early (Pitt) and his live in girlfriend (Lewis) previously in the movie, before the two stories get tied together. Early and Adele live in a run down trailer, are behind on their rent much to the anger of their landlord, and Early is out on parole and not impressing his parole officer. We never find out exactly what Early did time for, but we know from the outset that his conflict resolution skills are not the best as he deals with his landlord by killing him. Now, of course, Early wants to head out of town himself and he gets no resistance from the compliant Adele, who does not know about the killing and truly thinks of her man as a nice guy. So, it seems like a good pairing when the two couples meet up, if not the best cultural mix.

One thing amateur criminologists know is that they say that serial killers don't just stop. Well that is apparent in Early's case, as he can't even wait until the end of the cross country drive. Of course, his activities can't be hidden forever and, soon, his three travel friends know that they are riding shotgun with a killer.

This film is almost completely focused on the four main characters, although there are some strong one or two scene performance from minor characters as well. The story revolves around Duchovny and Pitt's characters. Duchovny is just like you would expect him to be, even in his pre X Files days: introspective, abstract, empathetic, and sometimes infuriating. His attitude is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and he does this with the crude Early from the beginning. In fact, it seems as if he kind of admires Early's bottom line approach to things that is in tune with his uninformed view of the world.

As for Pitt's Early, this role is vital to the success of the film because he needs to be somewhat empathetic for us to buy him being able to so completely dominate the devoted Adele, as well as convince anyone to trust him even for a minute. He does this. Early is crude and simple, but engaging at times and its clear that Pitt really got into this role. (In the limited special features, Pitt says he was "born" to play the role) I like Pitt, though I'm not a huge fan, and I would say that this is the best I've ever seen him.

The female characters are important, too, which, unfortunately, you can't always say in movies with any real action. Michelle Forbes is perfect as the loving but irritating girlfriend who is really the (unheeded) voice of reason in her coupling with Duchovny. Juliette Lewis might have been the best of a pretty good cast as she is the only character who is completely likable and you feel for her from the beginning.

To me, Kalifornia is more of a drama than anything, but there are pockets of action and those of you that have to see blood in your flicks will see some here. I thought this film was well directed, superbly acted, with an interesting story line. It took me 13 years, but I'm glad I saw this one and wouldn't mind adding it to the collection. For anyone who is a Pitt or Lewis fan, this is a must see.                       

Directed by Shawn Levy. Starring: Steve Martin, Beyonce Knowles, Kevin Kine, Jean Reno, Emily Mortimer, Clive Owen. Comedy. Synopsis: A bumbling French inspector is appointed at the lead investigator, for political reasons, of the biggest case in France involving the murder of the popular soccer coach of the French national team and the disappearance of the fabulous diamond called the pink panther.

 

Yes, Hollywood does it again and remakes a valuable franchise and movie that many would have been happy to have left alone. For many of us, The Pink Panther series was one of the favorites of our youth, and there can never be another Inspector Clouseau besides the great Peter Sellers. Having said that, some of you know that, in this blog, I try to give remakes the benefit of the doubt and go into them with an open mind, since every remake is different. Some try to just remake the original film/show in the strict sense of the word, some try tell the same story in a different or more modern setting, some really tell a different story using the characters we all know. 

Whether or not it works for the movie fan depends on several factors: how the fan felt about the first one, the quality of the remake, the importance or timeliness of the first film, etc. But, to me, fans/critics who view remakes strictly as a comparison against the original are almost always setting themselves up for disappointment.

So, with that out of the way, do I think Steve Martin is funnier as Clouseau than Sellers?

No. 

Did the movie make as big a mark on me as the original series of films?

No.

Did I enjoy the movie and would I recommend it?

Yes. 

First, realize that Martin and Sellers, while both are all time comedians in my book, are much different types of comedians. Sellers, while funny in many ways, made most of his laughs on his incredible physical comedic talents, while Martin gets his best with his wisecracking mouth. Clouseau was played differently by both men, and I think Martin tried to bring his own interpretation to the character rather than mimic the legend of Sellers.

In this telling of the story, the plot is basically the same, brought into the present day with some tweaks and changes here and there. Inspector Dreyfus (Kevin Kline Soapdish) is the top cop in Paris and so self absorbed as to be bitter about his failure to win France's highest civilian honor. He is present at an international soccer game where the tough, but well loved soccer coach of the national team, who is dating pop sensation Xania (Beyonce Knolwes) is killed with a poison dart on the field in the midst of the celebration over the defeat of China. Further more to that, the incredible Pink Panther diamond that he flashed to the world when taking the field is also gone.

Quickly, it becomes the biggest case in France and Dreyfuss is so diabolical that he wants to appoint the most incompetent inspector he can find to investigate the case and ultimately be looked on as a fool, so that he can swoop in, solve the case, save the day, and get even more glory. Enter Clouseau.

Of course, Clouseau has no idea of the real intentions of his sudden promotion and, as we know, that is a big part of the comedy, as the lovable inspector actually thinks he is a top notch investigator. Wise to the real deal but silent to Clouseau is his hand picked partner Ponton (Jean Reno The Da Vinci Code ), placed with Clouseau by Dreyfus to keep and eye on him. Also, we see Clouseau's loyal secretary, Nicole (Emily Mortimer) take an immediate shine to the Inspector and  is one who actually believes that he is a smart policeman.

The laughs are plenty in the movie as the Clouseau bumbles his way through the investigation, making absurd judgments and statements which, combined with his ridiculous accent, keep you giggling throughout. I won't waste any time telling you that Steve Martin is funny, you know that. Yes, I know I said earlier that he was not funnier than Sellers was in this role but, hey, saying someone is not better than Tiger Woods in golf is not exactly a put down, is it? 

Kevin Kline is delightfully wicked as a more sinister Dreyfus than Herbert Lom, Jean Reno, a usual tough guy, is very funny as the skeptical Ponton and Emily Mortimer really steps up to the plate as the lovable, loyal, bumbling Nicole.

Beyonce Knowles delivers a lot of delicious eye candy for the interested viewer, but I said I was not going to waste time stating the obvious. What she does do that may have been unexpected is deliver a pretty good acting performance as the down to earth diva who can turn on the "feel sorry for me" charm when she needs to. Of course, some more cynical than me might say that she is not really acting here, but playing herself. I won't say that because, much to my disappointment, I don't know Beyonce Knowles personally.

I also need to mention Clive Owen (Inside Man) here, who makes a cameo as a suave Agent 006, providing some hilarious dialogue between he and Clouseau, as well as setting the stage for Clouseau to stumble into a successful capture of some bad guys.

Listen, the Pink Panther is a far fetched, silly story-and it always was-but its not about anything other than having some laughs and having fun. And you will do that when you watch this movie, so do yourself a favor and rent/buy it. It's possible you won't laugh quite as hard as you did two and a half decades ago when you watched the original movies but, that's no crime, is it? 

Starring Josh Lucas, Jon Voight, Derek Luke, Austin Nichols, Damsine Radcliffe, Al Shearer. Drama/Historical/Sports. Synopsis:The story based on the 1966 Texas Western (now theUniverstiy of Texas-El Paso/UTEP) University basketball team and its coach, Don Haskins, who became the first major college team to start five African-American players en route to its national championship victory over the Kentucky Wildcats in the final. Directed by James Gartner.

This one was certainly up my alley from the beginning: sports, history, and in a film, three things I love dearly. The first thing that you should know is that it is not a completely accurate historical rendition. Some of you know that I have railed against this typical Hollywood practice before, but I did not have a problem with it in Glory Road , as none of the ultimate facts are changed, nor are things simply made and/or attributed to specific real life people in a false fashion, and then passed off as fact. What the film does do, however, is take some dramatic license, not necessarily changing any facts or general themes, but either embellishing them or making them more dramatic in typical movie fashion.

The story is told from the point of view of legendary Hall of Fame coach Don Haskins (Josh Lucas), a young coach still in his early 30's whose previous head coaching experience was as a girl's high school coach. Haskins proceeds to start to recruit black players, fairly controversial at a time when no major college programs in the Deep South has a single black player, and many other schools across the country had only one or two. The movie gives the incorrect impression that the story unfolds over one year and also that the seven black players on the '66 team were the first at the school. In fact, Haskins had been coaching at Texas Western for three years before the championship team, and had black players on the roster prior to '66. (One of whom was Nolan Richardson, coach of the '94 champion Arkansas Razorbacks). This, however, is a common compression/composite tactic used in many historical movies, especially sports movies such as Eight Men Out.

The movie jumps right into the story, dealing with Haskins' single minded approach to building a successful basketball team, and it is clear that racial/social change is not the sole or even primary objective, either of the coach or the players. I especially appreciated the depiction of the players, both black and white, though the black players' characters were much more developed in the film. The players are not shown as one dimensional civil rights martyrs or jealous bigots, which would have been very easy to do. We see the players probably as they were in 1966: aware of the world and its realities and changes, but also young men who loved a sport, having fun, music, girls, and worried about their classes. This,  to me, made the film more real and I empathized with them even more than I knew I would going into the picture.

All the young actors playing the team do a good job, you will find something in most of them that will remind you or yourself or someone you know/knew at a similar age, whether that was last year, 10 years ago, or  30 years ago. Probably most recognizable is the character of Bobby Joe Hill (Derek Luke. Antwone Fisher, Friday Night Lights) a key player from Detroit who is the only member of the team, if I'm not mistaken, who is deceased.

Jon Voight (Midnight Cowboy) makes an appearance as the legendary Adolph Rupp, a giant among college coaches who was long thought to be a racist and did not integrate the Kentucky team until the 1970's. The movie does not dwell on the racism or problems the team faced, in fact, in my opinion, it could have been dealt with much more. Instead, we see good side story lines about the health and commitment to academics of the players and their families.

Josh Lucas is superb as Don Haskins, the only drawback being that he is obviously much, much smaller than the real Haskins. His portrayal of the coach grabs you from the first scene, and his intensity does not let up. 

The film is fast moving, with no lulls in the story or wasted scenes. The finale against the Kentucky is well shot and basketball fans will appreciate that the action passes as legitimate major college action. Gartner takes some license especially in the final, the film has it going down to the wire with Texas Western staging a comeback in the final two minutes, while in reality Texas Western led by double digits through most of the second half and the game did not go down to the last minute.

If you see this on DVD, there are some wonderful special features on the real players, as well as Coach Haskins who consulted on the film. A nice feel good, sports movie with a story that many of us already know, or can figure out as we've seen similar things before. But, the reason that sports films are so often winners is because we like to see the struggle that leads up to the ultimate victory (or heartbreaking defeat), and it works again here. You'll see shades of Miracle, Hoosiers, and Remember the Titans here. If you love basketball at all, you owe it yourself to check this out, even if you are not into the old time stuff. (The presence of Pat Riley-the current Miami Heat President-as a character in the film as the Kentucky star will make it more modern to you).

I don't know that Glory Road is the best sports movie you'll ever see, but it will be in most people's top ten.

Directed by John Stimpson. Starring: Julia Delpy, Justin Theroux, Brooke Adams, Cassidy Hinkle, Kathleen Regan, Anna Friedman, Michele Green. Horror/Drama.  Synopsis: A couple, and their two young daughters, still reeling from the accidental death of another child, use a business opportunity to move to a rural location where the locals say the legend of a lost child from the 18th century still haunts the woods adjacent to their new home.

The Legend of Lucy Keyes is based on an actual event: the disappearance of a young child in western Massachusetts in the 1700s. Even as a former resident of Massachusetts, I had not heard of this story.

The legend is that the child-Lucy Keyes of course-went out one day to pick berries or something and never came back. No trace of her was ever found. The legend comes in that her mother wandered the neighboring woods for the rest of her life looking for her daughter and, even after death, she can be heard and/or seen searching through the woods looking for Lucy until the present day.

The movie tells the story through the eyes of a young couple (Delp and Theroux) who take an opportunity to move to the wilderness-so to speak- to take advantage of a business venture and also to have a fresh beginning after the loss of a young child to SIDS.  In their new home, they realize that they have an eccentric neighbor and a fast talking business associate (Brooke Adams). In addition, they learn of the legend of Lucy Keyes, which is particularly interesting as their young daughter is starting to have some strange experiences.

Is the ghost of the child real or is there a reasonable explanation for the noises and strange things happening in the nearby woods? And, if so, is there an ulterior motive to harrass this family, something that has nothing to do with the ghosts of an 18th century lost child and her mother haunting woods into the present?

Well, of course, I know the answer that the film provides but I'm not telling. My job is to tell you what I thought and, by extension, what I think you might think if you give this one a go. Well, it was a nice little flick, particularly considering it was shot on a shoestring budget. I can't say much more than that. The story is nice, nothing special, though I will say I thought the director did a great job with the flashback scenes to help us unravel the legend both in the past and the present. There was just nothing special about this film, which does not make it bad or anything. To me, the chance to see some good actors who are not as active as I'd like them to be is the best part of this fil.

Particularly Brooke Adams (The Dead Zone), who is really good and a little sinsiter her. Also, TV fans from the '80's will recognize Michele Green (L.A. Law) in a fairly small role. 

So I wouldn't recommend or not recommend The Legend of Lucy Keyes. If real life ghost stories are your thing, give it a chance. I think you can do better, but you can do worse, too. 

 

Directed by Douglas Jackson. Starring Linda Purl, Linden Ashby, Shannon Sturges. Drama. Synopsis: A made for TV movie on DVD about a woman who moves in with her brother in law and his children after the death of her sister and assumes the majority of the homemaking duties for two years. She develops an obsessive desire for her brother in law and it turns violent when she learns of his intent to marry another woman.

If you see this one in the store or online, don't let the campy art on the cover fool you, this is in no way a  horror flick, nor will you see any gore, despite the bloody knife that is brandished by the scary looking woman in the bridal gown.

This film was obviously made for TV, so it's going to be more character/story driven than what you might expect from the description on the cover. The only reason that I picked this one up was because I saw that it had Linda Purl, and my first thought was that she had come down a long way to now be doing cheesy slasher films.

I'm glad to say that it was not that at all. The title and the first few minutes of the movie give away the major premise of the plot, that Laci (Purl) was always second best to her late sister, whose husband, Richard (Linden Ashby) and children she has been taking care of since her sister's death.

Richard is obviously doing well, ruggedly handsome and living in a house slightly smaller than Laramie, Wyoming with two kids who are cute as buttons, so it is easy to see why Laci would want a permanent "piece of that", as they say. Well, much to Laci's chagrin (and curious surprise) Richard announces that he intends to marry Nicole (Shannon Sturges), who he has apparently been courting on the sly and, hey, two years of being a widower is long enough.

Laci does not react well to this news and, as we see in flashbacks, she was not wrapped too tight to begin with, as the implication is there that she let her ungrateful mom die because she had heard that sis was the better child one too many times. As the film progresses, we see Laci's obsession increase, from trying on her sister's wedding band, to misleading the children about their soon to be step-mom, to attempted murder and murder.

The plot is not new or originally done here, and there are some things that are a little too hard to buy, such as the quick way that the children-one a teen ager- warm up to their father's intended, whom they apparently knew nothing about, so relatively soon after the death of their mother. Also, the premise of a man having a woman living in his house, particularly his sister in law, and being totally oblivious to her feelings is a bit of a reach. Not interested? Sure, I can buy that. Clueless? Nah.

The only thing that saves this from being entirely forgettable is Purl. You can see her metamorphis from scene to scene, both in her actions and even her looks. The script is weak, but she makes it seem better than it is. I don't mean to slam the other actors, they did o.k.  (Maybe a little less than that in the case of Ashby...I just didn't buy his character for a second), but all of them are so far beneath Purl in acting ability that it is just so obvious that it stands out in the movie. When Purl is not in a scene, this is nothing but an attempt at a "B" movie that is in the lower "C" range and flirting with "D".

This is not a horrible film, I'm not really even trying to say it's bad, its just all about Linda Purl. She delivers, big time in my opinion, but its not enough to make this the really good film it good have been with better acting across the board and a stronger script.

For those of you in the Over 35 club, like me, who hear the name Linda Purl and say, "Gosh, she was pretty good back in the '80's, whatever happened to her?", well, if you do check this one out, you will see that she is doing just fine, indeed.                   

 

 

Directed by D.J. Caruso. Starring Al Pacino, Matthew McConaughey, Rene Russo, Armand Assante, Jeremy Piven, Jamie King. Synopsis: A small time football handicapper, and injured former college football QB, gets  recruited to New York City by the owner of a highly touted sports tout service to be its new Golden Boy. While there, he is faced with fickle nature of his success in his profession and the riches it brings him. Drama.

This movie literally called out to me. Consider this: I'm a huge sports fan, a huge Al Pacino fan, like MCounaughey and Russo, and love to bet (legally) on sports. There was absolutely zero chance that I was not going to see this flick. Of course, when you look so forward to seeing any particular movie, no matter what the reason, the potential for the disappointment factor rockets up quite a bit.

Two for the Money is no disappointment, folks. The topic of sports gambling is, in my opinion, just the backdrop of this film as its really about naked ambition, the price of huge success, and dealing with personal demons. The movie is inspired by a true story, and don't get me wrong, there is enough there to satisfy those that want to see a sports movie, the gambling element and the dialogue are righteous, you will really believe these guys are in the business if you have ever dabbled in sports betting off shore or in Vegas, but saying this movie is about sports or sports betting is, to me, like saying General Hospital was about the medical profession. Not really.

Brandon Lang (McConaughey Failure To Launch, Amistad) is a college QB who lives for sports and his football career until he suffers a major knee injury that shatters his professional football dreams, not that he gives up easily, keeping himself in shape and begging anyone and everyone for a tryout. (There is a wonderful line in these opening minutes as McConaughey narrates that goes something like this "And, it didn't take long, but one day six years had passed..." Some of us know exactly how true that can be) Anyway, in addition to keeping shape, Brandon needs money to help his struggling family and has a collection of Las Vegas style jobs, working for 900 numbers and such, when it becomes apparent that he has a real talent for making sports picks.

One day, out of the blue, he gets an inviting offer from Walter Abrams (Pacino The Devil's Advocate, Cruising) who runs a highly successful sports touting service for gamblers and wants to give Brandon a shot. You know what comes next, the wide eyed, yet confident, young guy going to the Big Apple for the first time, awed by the plush Manhattan surroundings and the opportunity, not to mention smitten-a little bit-with the big man's wife (Russo Get Shorty, Ransom).

Abrams transforms Brandon into a smooth talking, telegenic, gem of a sports touter called John Anthony, and, initially, Brandon, more than earns his keep. But, as those of us who gamble on anything will know, losses are inevitable in the long run, and the clients are paying Brandon and Walter for the false hope of a sure thing. The clients are serious, big money players who don't pay for losing advice, such as the superrich client in San Juan (Armand Assante Q & A) who bet a million a game and expect to win.

The heart of the story is the relationship between Abrams and Brandon, moving between friends, to mentor-protege, to competitors, to nemesis and back again. Pacino, of course, is wonderful, stealing the screen with his manic portrayal of Abrams, a man who has made a mint and seems determined to lose it all, the former gambling addict who has stopped but now runs a tout service, a man who obviously has an eye for young ladies, but is maniacally faithful and devoted to his wife and daughter. Its hard for any actor to not disappear on screen next to Pacino, but McConaughey does well here, again realizing that his character is supposed to be a little intimidated by Abrams.

Russo is, as we know, good enough to carry the story herself, but does not have to here, but does well as the epitome of middle age beauty and class, even though she is playing a recovering drug addict.

Also, there are two real good supporting performances, one from Jeremy Piven as the displaced favorite of Walter when Brandon arrives, another by Assante as the filthy rich bettor. Jaime King (Sin City) makes an appearance as Brandon's main object of desire ( I did not say "affection") and succeeds, but she had little to do in the way of advancing the story or showing her considerable acting talent. She was there for eye candy and it worked.

Overall, Two for the Money, is an entertaining movie that does not break any new ground, but good movies do not have to, in my book. Pacino, alone, is worth this movie, and the story is good as well, though I would have liked a little more originality in the ending. There are some very good and interesting special features for those who pick this up on DVD.

A good flick that makes it to my favorites.

For what that is worth.                     

Synopsis: A successful, yet troubled psychiatrist accepts a temporary residential position in a mental health facility for the purpose of around the clock coverage of his controversial method of treating patients. There he encounters a friendly, but disapproving head doctor as well as the most challenging patient he has ever encountered as he comes to grips with what he is really running away from in his own life. Directed by Eriq La Salle. Starring Eriq La Salle, Michael Beach, Ronny Cox, Tia Texada, John C. McGinley, Sinbad.  

I came across this dvd in the "for sale" bin of the video store, and I am glad I did. Its the dream of the serious movie buff, to find a movie (preferably for free or a real good price), that you don't know anything about, have never heard of, but get it and find you really enjoy it and will watch it again and again over time.

I picked it up, like so many do, because of the intriguing cover and the fact that two really good movie character actors, were the leads in this one. Its not a horror film nor does it pretend to be, although the DVD covers in some instances might lead one to believe that it is. Its a psychological drama (notice, I did not say "thriller")  

This is the quintessential low budget film, shot almost entirely on one location, with only a couple of forays outside. The film starts with psychiatrist Dr. Ty Adams (Michael Beach Internal Affairs) awakening suddenly from a gruesome nightmare. He then proceeds on to the Sedah State Mental Hospital, where he is going to display his controversial treatment methods in residency while being filmed around the clock.

There, he meets a friendly but reluctant head Dr. Delaszo (Ronny Cox Deliverance, Total Recall), a humorous orderly (Sinbad), a sensuous cafeteria worker (Tia Texada Nurse Betty), and the most confounding patient he has ever encountered: a suave, enigmatic, and articulate man who calls himself "Satan"(Eriq La Salle Coming To America) and seems much more interested in Dr. Adam's troubles than his own.  

There are some side stories in addition to this main progression, of course. Dr. Adams, we learn as the film goes on, has recently lost his wife and daughter to suicide in the wake of his failure to adequately treat his own schizophrenic child. There is also the other problematic patient, in addition to Satan, a young woman with extremely violent tendencies who never speaks. Dr. Adams takes a special interest in her case, although he doesn't eschew his practice of ignoring medication for therapy.

The movie is carried, however, by the scenes between Beach and La Salle and Beach and Cox. These are the heart of the movie and central to the twist at the end of the movie. Curiously, Cox and La Salle, interestingly, never appear on screen together. Michael Beach has long been a solid, if unheralded, character actor (Internal Affairs, Waiting to Exhale, Bad Company) and its nice to see him get the opportunity to carry an entire movie as the lead, as he is in almost every scene.

Also deserving mention are John C. McGinley, who plays the head of the film crew employed to capture every moment of Beach's actions at the facility. Tia Texada simply heats up the screen in her few important minutes with the perfect blend of smoldering, but subtly understated, sultriness.

Eriq La Salle has a great presence, as always, and he accomplishes his goal of making his character unsettling. La Salle also directs this film, and those of you who see the DVD version will enjoy his director's commentary, talking start to finish about the movie, and what he was trying to accomplish and why. This is a pleasant contrast to many director's commentaries, which focus on telling unrelated stories, fawning over the actors, or complaining about the lack of financing they had for the film. La Salle is trying to show us his vision of ultimate questions and issues that all of us must face at some point. Whether or not you agree with La Salle's interpretation, you will see it clearly, at least in the end, and it will give you something to seriously think about.  

As I said earlier, Crazy is Hell, despite its title, is not what you might think it to be on the surface...which is the whole point of the movie, as you will see in the ending.  The film never tries to be what its not, and you won't see any weak attempts at gratuitous gore or awkward CGI. It is high on symbolism. Its low budget and it never pretends that its not. Almost everyone will suspect that there is a twist coming, the trick will be in guessing what that particular twist is. There are a couple of different ways the movie could go, and the way that it does go is not surprising...if you pick up the clues.

Sound cryptic? Well, its meant to be, especially for those who have not seen the film. One good thing is that this will hold up upon a second viewing as La Salle doesn't cheat in the build up to the conclusion.

This is a solid film that will be enjoyable and the kind of movie you watch over again as time passes since its message, as it were, are timeless. At worst, this will be a film that you can talk about, think about, and discuss with someone else who saw it as well.

Not too shabby, huh? Do yourself a favor and pick up Crazy as Hell if you get the chance.   

Directed by Jonathan Demme. Starring Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep, Liev Schrieber, Jon Voight, Jeffrey Wright, Vera Farmiga, Kimberly Elise. Sci/Fi/Drama.  Synopsis: An Army officer with disturbing dreams after the Gulf War finds that his curious memories of one major incident are exactly the same as other soldiers who were there, particularly one former soldier who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroics and is now on the short list for Vice President. But, is the memory real, or was it somehow planted in all of them for political purposes?

My first disclosure is that I have never seen the original of this film, which I know is considered by many to be a classic. Clearly, it is not a complete remake since it is modernized to the present day and the antagonists are not a foreign communist power but a seedy, greedy corporation...named Manchurian.

In this version of the story, a Gulf War combat veteran officer (Denzel Washington Inside Man) is doing public relations for the Army, in particular telling people about the Congressional Medal of Honor, the nation's highest. This is of particular relevance because one of the soldiers (Liev Schreiber The Omen) who served under him in Kuwait is no a representative from the State of New York who is a dark horse candidate to land a spot on the presidential ticket in the Vice-President slot.

He also happens to be the son of a very influential and manipulative Senator (Meryl Streep The Devil Wears Prada)  Now, all of this sounds just fine, but some of the other member of the unit who are still alive when their hero comrade makes his run for office realize that they share the exact same memories of that fateful night in Kuwait...and now share the same nightmares all these years later.

As you might predict, Denzel's character is the one who takes it the furthest, coming to believe that he and his fellow soldiers have been the victim of some kind of brain washing experiment, maybe even to put one of them into the White House.

I know this movie did not do as well as expected at the box office, given the Hall of Fame cast and the fact that the original film was such a classic. I don't know, maybe you can't go home again, but I don't think the story is dated in the way we might have thought if it had been released in, say, 1998, when the biggest threat to our security-at least publicly-was seen to be a oversexed Commander in Chief and a loose intern. No, the story is not dated and it works for me, with the required suspension of disbelief.

The performances of the actors is wonderful as you would expect. To me, the definition of "wasting time" is to actually spend minutes on a blog saying that Streep and Washington are outstanding as the leads...what else am I going to "tell" you? That the sun will rise in the East?

Schreiber is real good here, too, and he has to be, since the film really revolves around the viewer feeling some empathy for him, as he is not really the bad guy here. Who is? Well, I'm no spoiler, but I will give a hint to those who have not seen the film. The term "bad guy" should not be taken too literally.

So, I liked it, though I would be interested to hear the views of people who have seen and enjoyed the original with Frank Sinatra. That would be interesting. 

 

Directed by William Tannen. Starring Chuck Norris, Joanna Pacula, Daniel Bernhardt, Bernie Kopell. Action.  Synopsis: A private detective is hired by a woman to find her missing elderly uncle, who is an expert diamond cutter with a hidden past. The search for him leads to a confrontation with some international jewel thieves who are in the   possession of diamonds that are priceless, dating back to the days of the Old Testament.

I have to admit that, although I like Chuck Norris, I have never been a big fan and have never even seen his popular TV show. I wanted to check this one out because I hadn't seen a Chuck Norris film in a long time, and I was curious as to how a 65 year old action hero looks on film. Answer: pretty good. Amazing, in fact. Listen, we all know Chuck Norris is not the greatest actor, nor does he pretend to be. He does, however, bring energy and effort to his role, which is more than I can say for some other AARP-eligible action heroes. And, Chuck is not the only 50+ actor in the film that looks fantastic. Tracy Scroggins looks as good as she has in years, which is saying something, and also atones for her appearance in the horrid Mr. Hell. 

The Cutter is a pretty decent story, weaving in international intrigue and jewelry thieves with a missing persons case in Spokane, Washington. The story starts with the movie bad guy, Dirk (Daniel Bernhardt) surprising a group of archaelogists in the Sinai who have just found the remains of a mummy that seems to be adorned with jewels. Suffice it to say that the opening scene shows us the first, but not the last, double cross in the film, and Dirk is the only one that walks out.(Suspend your disbelief a little as to how Dirk managed to hang glide into the desert and arrive at just the right moment when the mummy was found) We then go to Spokane and, of course, you will be wondering how this all ties together. Well, it does, surprisingly well.

Joanna Paculaa plays Elizabeth Teller, a woman who wants to hire private eye Shepherd (Chuck Norris) to find her missing uncle, Isaac (Bernie Kopell) an elderly diamond cutter who haes been missing for all of one day. Shepherd is skeptical at first, but an unsuccessful sneak attack on he and Elizabeth within minutes of her visit to him show that, hey, there might be something to this case.

The acting is not great, and the story flows a little awkwardly at times, but it does well overall and keeps your interest. We find out that, years before, Isaac was a prisoner at Auschwitz, and was forced to cut diamonds for the Nazis. Well, it seems that one of those old Nazis, believe it or not, is still alive and kicking and in the possession of some diamonds that are believed to have been worn by Aaron, older brother of Moses. And guess who he wants to cut these diamonds? So, there we have it, international mystery, despicable bad guys, revenge, and a little bit of a history lesson to boot. What does it all add up to? Plenty of chances for Chuck to kick butt, that's what. And he does. There are plenty of fight scenes and, although some of the lead ins to the fight scenes are a little on the cheesy side, Chuck keeps it real and you get your money's worth if your primary reason for watching this is to see some good martial arts. (I'm guessing that, if you are a Chuck Norris fan, you probably want to see some of this)

I can see why so many people like Chuck Norris. He seems like a genuine nice guy, with some vulnerability, who happens to be a martial arts expert. A little more Everyman than Van Damme, less enigmatic than Seagal, more intelligible than Schwarzenegger. The rest of the cast does well. Pacula does well, though you will be wondering some times why she doesn't pick up a knife or something and help Chuck while he's fighting instead of just watching (Not her fault, I know, the helpless damsel in distress theme is alive and well, even in the 21st century). Bernie Kopel might be a little unrecognizable to those who have not seen him since the Love Boat, I think he was made up to look much older than he really is, as Kopell in real life is too young for this role, as his character was an adult at Auschwitz and would have to be at least eighty years old. He does very well, especially in his reaction scenes to his Holocaust flashbacks.

Daniel Bernhardt is a wonderfully wicked bad guy and a believable match for Chuck in the fight scenes. Scroggins did not have much to do, except look good, and she did that very well.

I have to be honest, I didn't really expect to like this one, but I did.   Now, understand what I'm saying. You need to be realistic and understand that this is not Crash or Schindler's List. And it's not really trying to be. This is strictly direct to video action fare and, when you look at it for what it is, I really don't think it's possible to do a whole lot better, especially for fans of that genre. If you like this kind of stuff, you will like The Cutter.  

Another absurd "adaptation" from director Uli Lommel (BTK Killer) that is just an embarrassment to everyone involved. As such, I will not even name the "actors" in this movie, other than to direct some well deserved criticism towards Lommel, who has to know what he is doing. Look, its no accident that this piece of crap is coming out to dvd at about the same time as the real movie about this actual, sensational, and still unsolved crime in 1947 Los Angeles. 

But, understand, this movie has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with any kind of serious story or fictionalized drama about the murder of Elizabeth Short-named the Black Dahlia, and really does not even try. I have ranted before about movies that sell themselves as "true stories" or "based on true stories" when they are not, particularly when the murder of someone is involved and there are family, friends, and people associated in some way with the case who are still alive.

This garbage does not even, really, attempt to do that...it is set in the present day, which right there tells you all you need to know. Huh? My guess is that Lommel and the producers of this were so anxious to cash in on unsuspecting or careless movie fans (like moi) that they put together something without even knowing what the Black Dahlia case was really about. Or, even more likely, there was not enough money in the budget for this type of period piece.

The plot is nonexistent, some garbage about an eighty-something year old man who was the "last person to see the Dahlia alive" (uh, not to bring up the obvious based on my previous career in law enforcement, but if a case is 'unsolved', then how do we know who the last person to see the victim alive-such a person would also be known as the killer -) and his granddaughter and her demented friends who basically lure unsuspecting (and none too bright) actresses to an abandoned warehouse under the guise of trying out for a role in a movie called (you guessed it!!) The Black Dahlia and then proceed to cut them up and dump the remains in the same spot in the same alley every time. The illustrious L.A. police department can't seem to get a clue, I guess it just doesn't occur to them to search the buildings, nor do they ever deem it important enough to even have uniform cops (probably another budget constraint) even secure the crime scene.

And, the plot is the best part of it. Seriously. The camera jerks more than the cam in The Blair Witch Project  , although for no apparent reason. There are regular intervals-I'm not making this up-where the picture switches from black & white to color and annoying freeze frames for no reason. It gets worse. Throughout the film, we cut several times to the lead actress dancing in store bought Army fatigues by herself. Yeah, o.k., whatever. The leading actor, a detective, is twenty-two years old, tops, and goes undercover as a guy working in a video store. How in the hell he got to the bad guys in the first place is not clear.

Understand that this is not what you think, a flick put together for a little gratuitous skin/eye candy. Nope. Not that there isn't some of that, but when you pair nudity with evisceration, the feeling is just not there. This is something that was shot in one, maybe two days, and is not worth your $2.00. Tell your local video store owner to stop stocking Lommel movies in your community, its bringing down the curve for all of us. 

 

Action/Drama. Directed by Michael Winner. Starring Charles Bronson, Vincent Gardenia, Hope Lange, William Redfield, Stuart Margolin. Synopsis: A left leaning New York City architect has his outlook on life and living in civilized society when his wife and daughter are brutally attacked. He turns into a street vigilante, roaming the streets of the city and night and turning his gun on criminals and in the defense of victims.

There are some movies that create or define their genre, like Dirty Harry, released two years before Death Wish, and other movies that stand the test of time with their message and attraction, even when the setting of the original becomes dated.

Death Wish is the kind of flick that people will be enjoying twenty years from now and longer. It was the vehicle that made Charles Bronson-already in his late 50's- a star, what we would today call an "action hero" and spawned several sequels, though none come close to matching the impact of this one.

The story is simple and complex at the same time, like so much of the social aftershock from the 60's that was prevalent in the '70's. New York City, the poster child for the urban decay, real and imagined, of the '70's seems a shell of its former self, with the majority of its law abiding citizens effectively abandoning the streets to the hoodlums. It is in this atmosphere that suceessful and content architect Paul Kersey (Bronson) leaves comfortably with his wife (Hope Lange). He has a daughter and son-in-law living out in the burbs who come into town to visit often.

This rosy life is horribly shattered when a group of street thugs force their way into the Kersey's apartment, brutally rape his daughter and beat his wife, resulting in his wife's death and his daughter being institutionalized in a near catatonic state.

Grieving intensely, Kersey reexamines his previously mellow attitude towards crime and other social issues, particularly the feeling that law abiding citizens are powerless to do anything other than sit back, be victimized, and let an increasingly ineffective police force try to protect them. During a business trip to Arizona, a client (Stuart Margolin) who is unapologetic in his love for guns and dislike for big cities helps bring Kersey around a litte bit and we learn that Kersey is proficient with guns, but did not use them for years as his father was lost in a hunting accident. Upon completing business with his client, Kersey returns to New York City with the gift of a gun and an invitation to come to Arizona permanently. Kersey doesn't go West, but he does use the gift and the fun begins.

It isn't fair to look at the relatively few and quick action scenes by today's standards, but those of us of a certain age will understand that this was cutting edge stuff and didn't duck away from some of the important social issues of the time...which makes it still relevant today. Bronson is perfect as Kersey, and you have to wonder if Kersey wasn't actually written to be Bronson. Vincent Gardenia is funny and tough as the detective leading the hunt for the vigilante, dealing with politics along the way.

You will see some recognizable faces in brief appearances here; Jeff Goldblum (Deep Cover, Mini's First Time) as one of the street thugs who attack Kersey's family; Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs (Welcome Back Kotter); and Olympia Dukakis (Look Who's Talking) among others.

Some may think the movie is right wing propaganda, but I've never bought that, and I'm no right winger (Well, my left wing friends say I am, but my right wing friends say I'm a liberal so...forget it, back to the review), to me its a just a story that taps into the human desire for justice...and revenge.   

Directed by John Flynn. Starring: Steven Seagal, William Forsythe, Jerry Orbach, Gina Gershon, Jo Champa, Dominic Chiansese. Action/Drama. Synopsis: A Brooklyn narcotics officer goes on an intense manhunt through the streets and homes of his own neighborhood to bring the killer of his partner to justice. Along the way, he must face some current and past personal demons as his search brings him face to face with people he has known all of his life, on both sides of the law. 

Well, after recently giving one poor and one mediocre review ( d****** it with faint praise), to two recent Seagal movies (Mercenary for Justice, Shadow Man) , I decided to dust off one of my favorite enigmatic action hero's movies and give it a look see for the first time since I was still a member of the under 30 club and the senior Bush was preparing to sweep to an easy reelection. 

Well, for about two hours it was the early 90's again, the absolute magical value of film to, in some cases, whisk us away to another time and/or place for a little while and entertain us to boot. Out for Justice is vintage Seagal, and we see the lean, energetic, charismatic action here who just seems to be seething beneath the cool, pony-tailed exterior. This film, along with Above the Law, are probably the best of the purely Seagal films (I don't count Under Siege or Executive Decision, while both are better films, in my view, neither can fairly or accurately be said to be a purely Seagal film). When watching Gino (Seagal) work his way through the streets of his old neighborhood in Brooklyn, you remember that, at one point in time, Seagal's acting ability was not as readily panned by fans as it is today with his current, uninspired releases.

From the start, we see that Gino is a cop more interested in making things right than the strict letter of the law or police procedure. He emphatically avenges a street hooker who is taking a beating at the hands of her pimp at the expense of blowing an unrelated undercover surveillance operation. Gino throws the loud mouth around and finally sends him through the windshield of a car, his ostentatious red boots sticking out.

A very interesting opening 40 seconds or so. Now, the story moves on to the real action. Quickly. We see Gino trying to spend some quality time with his son amidst a pending divorce from his wife (Jo Champa), but is interrupted with the news that his partner Bobby has been shot down in cold blood on the street in front of his wife and kids. There is no question as to the killer, its Richie (William Forsythe Extreme Prejudice) a neighborhood ne'er- do-well with breathtaking crack addiction and un unexplainable death wish as he embarks on his killing rampage with the full knowledge that the cops, the local mob, and, of course Gino, are looking to put a permanent end to him. Oh, and its made juicier by the fact that Gino and Richie have known each other since they were kids, with Richie's father (Dominic Chianese The Sopranos) being a surrogate dad to Gino.

The action is non stop and the story interesting, as we see Richie slipping further and further off the deep end, and Gino becoming more and more aggressive and unforgiving in his pursuit of Richie, particularly in a wonderful couple of scenes with Richies's sister, Patti (Gina Gershon Bound) who melts the screen with her tough sensuality.

Seagal fans will see their hero at his fighting best here, the fight scenes are crisp and he actually faces someone in this film with a knowledge of martial arts. The pool cues as swords scene against "Sticks" in the pool hall is one for the ages for movie fight fans. Another treat to this film is that we see the late, great Jerry Orbach in a limited role as the Captain who reluctantly, but wisely, gives Gino free reign to run over Brooklyn in search of Richie.

This is clearly one of Seagal's best efforts, and I don't know if anyone could ask for a better Richie than Forsythe, who plays it perfectly. The bad guy in this one is not some faceless goverment operator, or someone with next level martial arts knowledge or high level weapons. He's not particularly all that bright, either, but what he needs to come across as is scary due to the level of his hate and drug induced paranoia. Forsythe does this in spades. The strong supporting cast shows you nonbelievers that, at one point in time, Seagal could command major $ backing from a top studio.

Out for Justice is not just a "beat 'im up" action flick, either, there is an undercurrent of coming to grips with the past, reconciliation, and the definition of friends. Is it great, thought provoking stuff? No. But, its there and its not to bad nor does it take from the film. For those of you too young to remember Seagal at his height or who have formed an opinion based on his post 1996 stuff, check this one out to see what we Seagal fans were fussing about at the time and missing now.        

Directed by Richard Shepard. Starring Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinnear, Hope Davis, Phillip Baker Hall. Comedy.  Synopsis: A burned out hit man on the last legs of his career meets a businessman still grieving over a personal loss and business setback. They strike up an unusual partnership and end up helping each other.

The Matador is the kind of dark humor film that so many of us often prefer to slapstick comedy. It tells the story of a burned out hit man named Julian Noble (Pierce Brosnan) who has a chance meeting in a Mexico bar while on "assignment" with a Denver businessman named Danny Wright (Greg Kinnear) who is south of the border trying to turn his business fortunes around by snaring a big client.

After a very interesting first couple of drinks, the two find themselves hanging out together in Mexico City, with Danny not knowing exactly what it is that Julian does. Julian tells him at a bull fight, hence the title of the film, I guess. The scene shifts back to Denver months in the future with Danny and his wife (Hope Davis) getting ready to celebrate Christmas when there is a  knock on the door from you-know-who.

The story then goes into the inevitable: Danny reluctantly helping Julian with his "last job". I'm not a huge Pierce Brosnan fan, but I've seen enough of him to appreciate what a very different role this is for him. Forgot the suave, debonair James Bond thing here, folks. Brosnan plays his character just like you might expect a big money hit man to be: gruff, profane, worldly, and coarse. Is he funny? Yes, he is, and I think that having an actor with the image of Brosnan in this role helps make it funny.

Greg Kinnear is the effective "straight man" for the film, and he is completely believable as a businessman trying to make his company go. Hope Davis was hilarious as Danny's supportive wife, the scene with the three of them in the living room is the funniest of the film, with Davis asking to see Julian's gun.

You'll also catch a small but important supporting role from Phillip Baker Hall in this one. He's one of those guys who is funniest when not playing a comedic role. The story is a little far fetched, of course, and on the surface you would wonder how we're supposed to buy the bond that develops between these two guys. But, they did a good job early in the film of showing just how alone Julian is, as he, after being reminded that it is his birthday, spends the evening in a drunken frame of mind as he desperately tries to call a friend to talk to...and realizes that he doesn't really have any. For a guy like that, meeting your new best buddy in a hotel bar over a couple of margaritas is entirely possible.

I think the biggest draw in this film is Brosnan. Fans of his will want to see him, no matter what, and take stock of him in such a different role. The film was o.k. as far as I was concerned. One of those flicks, in my opinion,  that you are not sorry you rented/bought, but you wouldn't tell somebody that there is anything that they just have to see.

I'm real interested to hear what hard core Brosnan fans thought about it. 

Starring Michelle Nolden, Kett Turton, Gabriel Hogan, Katherine Isabelle, Allegra  Fulton. Synopsis: An upper class woman is abducted by two squeegee wielding young couple who take her to a remote cabin north of Toronto. Held there over a period of days, she develops a surprising bond with each of her abductors amid the growing sexual tension with each.

Have to admit that I selected this one solely because I liked the look of the box cover. Generally, one of my favorite things about being a movie buff is finding "hidden gems" like this one, a film I had not heard anything about before I got it.

The beginning of the movie just grabs you right away: we see the main character Sarah (Michelle Nolden) tied up and gagged with a narrative voice over saying "Some people are meant to be rescuers, some people are meant to be rescued". Right away, you know this is going to be interesting. When the story starts, we meet Sarah as she is stuck in traffic and trying to reach Sam, her significant other, who gives Sarah the disappointing news about being able to meet Sarah at their isolated cabin for the long planned romantic getaway due to a situation at work.

A frustrated Sarah then reacts harshly to two squeegee people who try to clean her windshield at a traffic light. After her harsh rebuke, the guilt ridden Sarah offers the squeegee kids some money, and within an instant is carjacked at the knifepoint by Jenna (Katherine Isabelle) and her boyfriend Jackson (Kett Turton). Quickly, they are off to the remote cabin where Sarah will be kept as a prisoner.

Early on, you might get the feeling that this movie will degenerate into predictable, campy, T&A schlock, but it never does. As the story unfolds and you start to empathize even more with Sarah's plight, there is a distinct twist when it seems that Sarah is becoming attached to her captors. Several questions develop and/or are present from the beginning, but will one burning at the back of your mind, if not the front, throughout the progression of the film. Exactly what, or who, are Jackson and Jenna running from? Why don't they take Sarah's car and just leave? Where is Sam throughout the multi day ordeal? Why is Jackson obsessed with swimming? What is the basis of Jenna's fascination with knives and film?

Obviously, there is a lot going on in the undercurrent of the story that the writer/director (Cassandra Nicolau) wants us to figure out on our own, and the way the film is put together she is successful in doing so. Of course, for any picture that is almost entirely character driven to succeed, we have to care about some or all of the characters, and in Show Me we do, thanks to the thought provoking and original script and the fine acting of the three main characters, who are on film for 95% of the movie.

Michelle Nolden is superb as the protagonist, we are irritated with her at first, but then grow to empathize, if not fully understand her actions and motivation, which start out as a desperate desire to get free from her captors but evolves into a sympathetic and then partner-like relationship. When it is most easy for her to escape, she chooses not to do so. Surely, the sexual tension between her and each of her captors is a strong element of this, but not the total reason. Nolden has a commanding presence onscreen and tends to carry each scene that she is in, which is not a criticism of her co-stars but a compliment to her performance in the movie.

Katherine Isabelle has the most difficult role. Her character is, at the same time, the most disturbed, the most violent, the most vulnerable, the strongest, the weakest, and the most vulnerable. Without her pulling this off as seamlessly as she does, the film does not work. She caught my eye with her brief role in Insomnia and this seems to be a young actress who will make her mark for a long time.

Kett Turton, while the least outstanding of the three stars, is nevertheless very good in his role. It is just the right level of simmering hurt mixed with rage that makes us like him, even though he is the one that eventually perpetrates the violence we expected to come from Katherine Isabelle. As the plot develops, we can see that Turton's Jackson is, in effect, the moral center of the story, if not the most troubled. I thought it was nice to see an implied love triangle, but with a different twist and more elements thrown into the mix.

To be sure, there are some negatives to Show Me, although none to make it less of a movie to recommend than it already is. But, the ending, while heavy on symbolism, does leave us with a few unanswered questions, especially given the decisions that Sarah has made throughout the course of the movie.

Also, the climatic scene featuring the onscreen murder stretches credulity a little bit. The scene is hastily pushed into the movie without a sufficient explanation to fully help us understand what is happening and why. Lastly, it was a little hard to grasp that Sam, business concerns or not, would not at some point come up to the cabin after not hearing from Sarah. This seems like a small point, but in the context of a film, its important and the believability of the movie hinges on our full appreciation of Sarah's situation.

This movie, which deals with elements of murder, drug use, homosexuality in the context of a story of three people, yet is not exploitative in any way. This is the increasingly rare film that is carried entirely by the script and acting, without a hint of CGI or special effects to be seen. Its low budget, for sure, but the directorial debut of Cassandra Nicolau is a success. This is simply a film you should see if you enjoy good movies, and a good film is enough for you. 

 

         

Directed by Joe Roth. Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Julianne Moore, Edie Falco, William Forsythe, Ron Eldard, Aunjanue Ellis. Drama.  Novel and screenplay by Richard Price. Synopsis: A police detective assigned to a notorious housing project becomes involved with a case in which a woman alleges that her son was abducted in a cajacking that occurred near the project. The situation soon escalates into a tense , combustible matter where issues of class, politics, and race on the forefront.

This is a difficult film to categorize, and I can see how some who view the trailers or make an assumption from the box cover might think its something that its not. It is not a thriller, nor is it, really, an action flick, despite having the "King of Cool", Samuel L. Jackson. Its a drama set in a gritty urban setting that touches on some very sensitive issues, including race and the victimization of children, but I could not say that those issues are the only focus of the film.

I can see how this movie might not work for some people, despite the solid cast. But, without a doubt, it worked for me and I would guess it will for most people, although I see this as the type of movie that most film watchers will either really like, or really dislike.

The story starts in a tough housing project in a fictional New Jersey town where we are introduced to Detective Council (Jackson Jurassic Park, Shaft) who is, obviously, a tough cop who is well known and respected, if not liked, by the residents of the project, particularly a young woman in a tough relationship named Felecia (Aunjanue Ellis Undercover Brother).

One night while on duty, Council receives a dispatch from the precinct that informs him that a woman has been carjacked near the project. Initially curious that no one around has seen or heard anything, Council proceeds to the hospital to meet and interview the victim, a woman named Brenda (Julianne Moore Boogie Nights).

Brenda is hurt with cuts to her hands, clearly distraught, and from the first minutes onscreen we can see her mental stability starting to erode. It is minutes into the interview before Brenda tells Council-inexplicably, she had not mentioned it earlier- that her 4 years old son was in the backseat of the car  and that the carjacker was a black man of average description.

This revelation immediately speeds up the pace of the film in concert with the frantic pace of the story. It turns out that Brenda is a recovering addict who is a volunteer at the nursery school in the project and is well known and liked. Furthermore, she has a brother (Ron Eldard) who is a detective from a neighboring town called Gannon.

What follows is the almost surreal action of police literally looking down the project in hopes of finding the carjacker. The mood of the residents of the project, skeptical at first, gradually evolve into anger and then the threat of violence.

Council finds himself somewhat caught in the middle as a cop who is empathetic to both the victim of the crime, as well as the innocent people in the project who are being treated like criminals because of where they live. This is made more difficult for him by the fact that, despite his sympathy for Brenda, he is growing increasingly skeptical of her story.

Aiding Council in his dilemma is his solid partner (William Forsythe) and the leader (Edie Falco Copland) of a civilian group dedicated to finding missing/abducted children. As the story progresses, we see Brenda being consumed more and more with her feelings of grief, and  her descent into instability.

I refuse to intentionally spoil any film I blog about (unless I just feel like it), but I will say that the conclusion of the story will not surprise most people and, unlike some who might say that makes the movie a failure, I think it is a mistake to assume or expect that any decent movie, somehow, has to shock you or totally surprise to have been worth your while. 

Also, some might find the premise a little over the top, but any that have been in law enforcement or remember situations such as what occurred in Philadelphia with the Move group in the early '80's or in many housing projects in Boston after the false implication by Charles Stuart in 1989 can certainly imagine something of this nature happening, with the right (or wrong) factual, emotional, and political factors.

I think this is a very good film because the story, in so many ways, is timeless and realistic on many levels. There are some holes in the script which I won't mention here because I would be giving away the plot, but they are not fatal. What makes this movie so good, as it always does in movies that are good, are the performances of the actors.

Samuel L. Jackson is almost legendary for his screen presence and his "tough cool", and you see some of that here, but those who know him primarily from his bigger movie roles such as Pulp Fiction, Die Hard III, Jackie Brown, Basic, or Shaft will be surprised to see a lot more vulnerability in Sam in this film than in those. He doesn't physically intimidate in the film, in fact, he is asthmatic as well as guilt ridden over his parenting of his son. Jackson shows his range here, and while some fans may not like his softened fole, he shows why his the most prolific actor of his time.

But, he doesn't take the prize for film standout here. That award is split between Edie Falco and Julianne Moore. Falco might just be the best actress working today, particularly if she is cast correctly. Here, we see a dark haired Falco who is the strength of the film. Her monologue to a grieving Moore is awesome and, in my humble opinion, should get her a Supporting Actress nomination alone.

Another Oscar worthy performance is turned in by Moore. Her character will, at times, infuriate, disgust, and just plain anger you but she pulls it off and you cannot help but feel some sympathy for her. I've never seen Moore like this before and I've never seen her better, which from me is high praise because I've always thought she was darn good.

You also see some good performances by Eldard (Sleepers), Forsythe (Out For Justice), and Ellis, who don't have enough screen time to stand out as much as they might have otherwise. Forsythe is one of the better character actors out there. This is a good role for Ellis, who has shown her talent before, but in more glamorous roles that take advantage of her beauty. In this film, that substantial beauty is not displayed, and we see once and for all that she is a very talented actress. I've always like Ron Eldard, though he hasn't been in as much as I would think his talent deserves. He brings the anger and outrage to the movie from the law enforcement side. I do think his character could have been used better in the film.

Overall, a good movie about important things. Even if you find the story  uneven, anticlimatic, or unrealistic, you will still enjoy the product of several very, very good actors. And, if the acting is good, the movie is good almost by default, isn't it? 

Directed by Aaron Seltzer. Starring: Alyson Hanigan, Adam Campbell, Tony Cox, Eddie Griffin, Fred Willard, Sophie Monk, Tony Cox, Carmen Electra.Comedy Synopsis: A comedic spoof of some popular romantic comedies, with the previously ugly duckling waitress in a Greek restaurant being transformed into an attractive woman to catch the man of her dreams, with some stiff competition from her boyfriend's ex-fiancée.

 

This is a film that many people are not going to like, and it is important that, before you see/buy/rent it, you realize what you are getting yourself into. I was drawn to it since it came from some of the writers of the Scary Movie franchise, which I think is hilarious. Date Movie is not nearly up to par with spoof movies such as that, or the Naked Gun movies. However, it does deliver some laughs, as well as some crude attempts at humor that just don't fill the bill.

Look, aside from hormone driven 15 year old boys, we should understand that the type of humor we are going to see here is of the variety that, if it makes us laugh, we will feel a little bit guilty at some level. Understanding that, I must say that Date Movie is not as good in its own spoof genre as I expected it to be, and the biggest reason may be that, unlike Scary Movie, it is mostly spoofing movies that were already funny. So, if the spoof is not funnier than the original scene, it suffers even more than it normally would have. If the spoof is not funny at all, then we've got serious problems.

I can say that I think there are some laughs in this film for most people that are familiar with the movies or parts of popular culture that are being spoofed. I picked up spoofs and/or homage to the following films in Date Movie, and by no means is this list supposed to be complete, since there are things I'm sure I missed. My Big Fat Greek Wedding, The Wedding Planner, When Harry Met Sally, Say Anything, Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers, Bridget Jones Diary, King Kong, Kill Bill, Hitch, My Best Friend's Wedding, Lord of the Rings, There's Something About Mary, The Sopranos, The Bachelor, and Michael Jackson.

The other main problem with this film is that there is not really a story of its own, it simply goes from scene to scene, trying to spoof or pay homage to scenes from other movies or TV. The basic storyline is that of grossly overweight Julia Jones (Alyson Hanagan) who is stuck working for her father (Eddie Griffin Undercover Brother) in their Greek restaurant, and yearns to win the affections of the man of her dreams (Adam Campbell). She undergoes a radical transformation after seeing relationship specialist Hitch (Tony Cox) and is well on her way to happiness and potential marriage until her boyfriend's ex-fiancée, Andy (Sophie Monk) comes into the picture as the "Best Man" in the wedding. Sound ridiculous so far? Well, it is, and there is a good bit of crude humor along the way.

Frankly, I don't understand the "gross out" humor, e.g. toilet scenes, noises from bodily functions, and consumption of inedible things (in this movie chest hair) for laughs. Yeah, those things may have been funny as hell in the fifth grade (and even then, not to everyone), but c'mon, haven't we grown up a little since then?

On the other hand, it will be hard not to laugh at most of Eddie Griffin's antics, or the hilarious portrayal of the Barbra Streisand character during the meeting of Julia's soon to be in-laws. And Hanigan shows she can act, easily the best acting performance in the film.

Unfortunately, a comedic talent as good as Fred Willard could have been put to more and better use as well, and Carmen Electra fans should be forewarned that she only appears in the last minute of the movie.

All in all, you should know what you are getting into when you choose to watch this film. It's not as funny as some others of its unique and narrow genre but, if you are not above laughing at things or people when you know you shouldn't, you'll get a handful of guffaws in this one. And that's pretty much it.  

 

Directed by Michael Keusch. Starring Steven Seagal, Eva Pope, Imelda Staunton, Vasile Albinet. Action/Drama. Synopsis: An ex-CIA agent and his daughter travel to Romania, where finds out that he is the unknowing carrier of a deadly virus that is coveted by the U.S. government as well as Eastern European organized crime figures. Once in Romania, his child is abducted and he must find a way to get her back without letting the virus sample fall into the wrong hands.

Well, Seagal is back at it in this latest installment of the sudden rash of his films to hit the market. It seems as if the recent spate of Seagal movies are made only with his die hard fans in mind, the thinking apparently being that, as long as he is in the film, his fans will give it a "look see" and they'll make their profit on the video and, presumably, overseas market. In all fairness, they are probably right, as this Seagal fan was right there, again, and probably will be the next time, too.

 In all fairness, Shadow Man is a much better effort that Seagal's last film, Mercenary for Justice.  Having said that, its not saying too much. Seagal does appear more in this film and does seem to be doing the majority of his own stunt/fight scenes. There is enough of him kicking butt to satisfy his blood thirsty fans, but not enough energy to really excite them.

The plot is vintage Seagal and basically similar to almost every plot of every film he does. Seagal plays Jack Foster, an ex-CIA operative who is a widower with a young daughter (Skye Bennett) who is traveling to Romania to visit the homeland of his late wife, who hailed from there. (Kudos to the movie for giving us a reason, no matter how half-baked, to set this in Eastern Europe, where the cost of filming is much, much cheaper. At least they didn't try to shoot this film in Bucharest and tell us it was Los Angeles)

Soon after arriving in Romania, where he is to meet his still grieving and enigmatic father in law, Foster witnesses his daughter abducted and escapes an assassination attempt on his life at the airport. Strangely, a familiar face from agency days is at the airport as well, and Jack begins to smell a rat. In short order, he foils yet another attempt on his life, beats up some Bucharest policemen, and finds out that the female cab driver (Eva Pope) who took his child may, when its all said and done, be on his side after all.

We see several scenes involving the American ambassador (Imelda Staunton) dealing with conniving subordinates in an effort to smooth out the disjointed plot of the movie. The body count is fairly high, with me unofficially crediting Seagal with nine kills, a few with the gun, most by hand.(These include the gratuitous killing of a student during a tai chi exercise at the beginning of the film, something that was never explained nor relevant to the plot, as well as the gunning down of an elderly, machine gun toting woman when Jack rips off some Romanian drug dealers)  There is some satisfying bone breaking and eye plucking by Seagal as well, as his hand speed does not seem to have diminished.

His acting, however, is suffering, and its not like it was ever all that good to start with. I won't tell you anything that you don't already know: Seagal is noticeably heavier, out of shape, and worst of all, he still seems to be bored of this whole thing, as if he is thinking: how many times can we do the same basic story?

Well, Steven, I can't speak for those who are not your fans (and, lets be honest, those folks haven't seen anything of yours since Under Siege), but for those of us who are , you can tell it a lot more times if you bring back the attitude, energy, and screen presence that you showed in the late '80's/early 90's. I mean, if you're bored, how likely is it that we are going to be excited?

I should say that Eva Pope and Imelda Staunton do step up to the plate and deliver good performances in their roles, but the story is, as always, so far fetched and the direction in this one leaves much to be desired (the story unfolds unevenly, and there is a car chase early on that goes on for three minutes too long in addition to being so obviously shot against a green screen that you might giggle), so its hard for the two of them to look as good as they probably should, as they are the best part of the film from an acting standpoint.

Shadow Man is not bad when compared with most of Seagal's films since 1994. But some of us want another look, even if only one more, of the cool, intimidating  energetic, charismatic figure seething with righteous anger at injustice that we cheered for in Out for Justice, Hard to Kill, Marked for Death, and Above the Law. 

Just show it, Steven, and we will come!     

Directed by Katja von Garnier. Hillary Swank, Anjelica Huston, Frances O'Connor, Vera Farmiga, Brooke Smith, Laura Fraser, Julia Ormond, Molly Parker, Patrick Dempsey, Bob Gunton. Drama. Synopsis: A look at some of the young women who were instrumental in the passage of the 19th amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing women the right to vote throughout the United States

This film is an HBO production that I first saw a couple of years ago and just watched again on DVD for the second time. It is, without question, one of the better movies in a distinguished litany of HBO productions. The movie focuses on a roughly ten year period in the early twentieth century as the long time woman's suffrage (voting rights) movement came to a head and final conclusion with the passage of the 19th amendment. The movie uses several real life characters and, happily, background research shows that it gets the main events and circumstances correct with regard to historical accuracy.

I realize the need for creative license and interpretation in all movies about real life events, and the issue of historical interpretation and ambiguity when it comes to events of which there are no living participants or first hand witnesses when the film is made. Having said that, I still cringe when period piece movies either make up or change known and undisputed historical facts (like Murder in the First).Iron Jawed Angels does not do that and the script writer and director deserve special commendations for that.

The story is laid out with women's rights icon Alice Paul (Hillary Swank Million Dollar Baby) as the protagonist, but the cast is really an ensemble one, and all of the major characters, as well as the minor ones, deliver strong performances. The infinitely likable Frances O'Connor plays Lucy Burns, Alice Paul's historical suffrage partner and the combustible fire behind the aggressive portion of the movement.

The crux of the story is the growing division between the "older" generation of suffragettes, led by Carrie Catt (the wonderful Anjelica Huston Gardens of Stone) and the "younger", more militant faction led by Alice Paul and Lucy Burns. The older faction still held onto the old way of gaining ground, trying to win the vote for women on a state by state basis (with the Western states leading the way), a strategy that had led to 9 of the 48 states enfranchising women by 1912, the start of the movie. The younger faction advocated more aggressive action, more direct political attack on President Wilson, and, most importantly, a constitutional amendment. Of course, as with any historical movie in which we know the outcome, we can guess that the two factions ultimately come together, if not personally but in ultimate success. (The movie does a good job of dealing with the generation gap between the two factions as the real point of contention without laboring the point)

Other strong characters who you will like in the film include the real life Doris Stevens (Laura Fraser, a Isabelli Rosselini lookalike) and Mabel Vernon (Brooke Smith, who is so good at immersing herself into a character that I actually did not believe the Bible of movie info, imdb.com, when I realized that she played the surviving kidnap victim in Silence of the Lambs).The beautiful Julia Ormond plays real life Inez Milholland, the literal face of the more militant movement.  Two other main characters who I was not able to verify as real life-I'm not saying they weren't- are Vera Farmiga's (Running Scared, In Tranzit) Ruth Wiesczelaw and Molly Parker's Emily Leighton, who plays the wife of previously anti-suffrage Senator Tom Leighton, a women who is disinterested in politics and the world initially and, of course, ultimately becomes invaluible to the movement. If these two are composite of fictional characters, they certainly fit the bill as representing the nameless rank and file women who were crucial with their support: Farmiga's representation of the working class immigrant woman and Parker's "society" woman who, on the face of things as they were viewed in the early twentieth century, had no real reason to be so driven to gain the vote but did.

Another thing I liked about this story is that it paid tribute, albeit briefly, to other important issues and historical figures, such as Ida B. Wells, the African American civil rights hero, and the issue of the role of black women in the movement, and Fiorello LaGuradia, future mayor of New York and namesake of the airport so many of us are familiar with, and the homage to historical figures who were not at the forefront of this movement, but supported it anyway.

Happily, this is a female character driven serious film, a relative rarity especially when you consider that women are the majority of the world's population. It would have been easy to cop out and tell this story through the eyes of the politicians and make them the heroes, but Angels does not do that, sparing us the irritating fiction of seeing politicians who came on board only when it was politically expedient to do so as the heroes, while ignoring the people who risked love, freedom, and their lives to make it happen. We've seen enough of that crap in historical movies, such as the many films that appallingly portray FBI agents as the heroes of the civil rights movement. (Sorry if that is just a little too much personal opinion for this otherwise completely subjective review)

The only two main male characters in the film, Bob Weissman (Patrick Dempsey Outbreak) and President Woodrow Wilson (Bob Gunton Glory) are good in their relatively brief screen time. Dempsey as Alice Paul's love interest, shown only as an example of the choice and sacrifices made by the leader of the movement, not as a diversion from the real story. Bob Gunton is good, as usual, in his customary role as the man we love to hate-or at least dislike- as President Wilson.

Some might criticize the music and style of this film, modern, upbeat music and fast cuts set to a period piece. I was also surprised hen watching the movie, but it works, in my opinion. Now, I'm not advocating that all period pieces follow suit, I don't know that I want to hear JayZ or 50 Cent in the next movie I see about the Civil War, but it works here, as I think the youthful modern angle is key to this vision of the story. Remember, these young women were the militant, youthful, and modern thinking actors of one hundred years ago. I think showing it with similar music and style from our perspective in the 21st century helps us understand that.

Finally, no discussion of this film should be done without mention of the scene in which the last vote in the last state needed to ratify the amendment came down to one young politician (representing a largely anti-suffrage constituency) who changed his vote from anti-suffrage to pro because-and this is true-he received word from his mother to do so and he believed a good man always listens to his mother. Wonderful!!

And, again, done in such a way as to not make him the real hero.

Simply, an excellent film.

 

Directed by John Carter. Starring Lauren Holly, Rachel Miner, Roger Guenveur Smith, Mykelti Williamson. Drama/Political Synopsis: The life of a philandering United States Senator is impacted by a vengeful Islamic radical, acting upon his own interpretation of the fatwa, a directive by the Muslim cleric to kill Americans anywhere they can.

Now this one is, as they say, different. This is the epitome of a film that was not even trying to be box office, focusing instead on the art of the picture itself as well as...maybe...trying to send a message. In fact, Lauren Holly (its kind of hard to imagine that, yes, that was her playing "Jazz" in the Adventures of Ford Fairlane with Andrew Dice Clay and Gilbert Gottfried a decade and a half ago) produced this one in addition to starring in it.

Well, now its up to me-your faithful movie blogger guy-to tell you whether or not it succeeds so as to give you an idea of whether you should rent/view.buy it. The answer? Well, those of you who know me know that I never, ever, fail to take a strong stand on a flick. So, I have to say:

I'm not sure. 

O.k., so there is a first time for everything. I think this movie had the potential to be exceptional, but its not. The story line and plot had the potential to be politically controversial, but I don't think it is. On the other hand, you have several quality actors giving good performances, which you, of course, don't always have in movies. In baseball terms, this is definitely not a home run, but its not a strike out, either. I guess I'd have to say its a single trying to stretch into a double, and whether its succeeds or gets thrown out depends on you as the umpire at second.

The story basically covers a day/night night in the life of Senator Davidson (Holly), though she is, arguably, not even primary character in the film. We meet her in the opening credits where she is parroting some get tough language on foreign terrorists against the back drop of sound bites of the real President Bush. We learn that Senator Davidson is not totally engrossed in foreign affairs, however, as she takes time for an aggressive role in the hay with her "boy toy" (not to be confused with her hubby) before heading home to New York to mingle with her constituents for the weekend.

Davidson's marriage is apparently on the rocks, but she is clearly fond of her loving daughter (Rachel Miner) who, when not playing the all -American kid role and hitting Mom up for money-seems to be intent on getting high with her gal pal and arranging to get it on with her new, Middle Eastern, cab driving boyfriend (Roger Geuneveur Smith ). She also is friendly with two introspective tough guys (led by Mykelti Wlliamson Forrest Gump ) and seems to be of the mind to let them rip off her mother.

O.k., got it so far? You're probably wondering how this all fits together. Well, so was I, right up until the ending credits and, even then, I wasn't so sure what it all meant. One thing I was sure of, however, is that the uneven script and disjointed direction of the film, not to mention some of the unexplained holes in the plot (why was the "boy toy" executed by another woman? was the daughter in on part of the plot, and did she want someone to kill her mom? how did she meet the cabdriver?) took away from some fine  acting. Smith is a very versatile actor who has done a lot more across the spectrum than most. He is very intense here, if enigmatic in his role as the vengeful cab driver with murderous intentions.

Miner is very good, if infuriating in her part and Mykelti Williamson gives depth to his tough guy role. As for Holly, her performance was intense, mulit-layered and you do sympathize with her. I had a little bit of hard time buying her as a Senator (Now, wait a minute ladies! Calm down... that comment is not chauvinistic, she is just a little young to be a powerful Senator... unless she was previously a celebrity or part of a political family...aha, I just got it!..Female senator. From New York. Loveless marriage. O.k., I'm a little slow...) who can flit around Washington, D.C. hotels for sexual interludes without being recognized.

A little too much to buy for me. 

The bigger issue is with the script. This is obviously an intricate plot, but its set forth in such a way as its difficult to follow or figure out what is going on , which is always a large part of the fun. Also, the ending is the definition of a  "leaving you hanging" finale. Without being a spoiler, I can tell you that it ends badly for everybody.

I'm open to the possibility that the film, while trying to show the possible impact of continued terrorism here in the U.S., was not trying to make a definite point or pose any type of solution. Maybe it was just trying to tell a story of the cost and cause of mindless violence/terrorism as well as the fact that it might always be there, waiting to claim another victim(s). I'm really not sure.

You'll have to check out Fatwa and determine that for yourself.

Directed by Arne Glimcher Starring: Sean Connery, Laurence Fishburne, Kate Capshaw, Blair Underwood, Ed Harris, Kevin McCarthy, Daniel Travanti, Ruby Dee, Christpher Murray, Lynne Thigpen, Ned Beatty, Scarlett Johansson. Synopsis: A well respected Harvard law professor is asked by a condemned killer on death row in Florida to take up his case based on his innocence and conviction steeped in racial prejudice.

This is a good one. Really good, to paraphrase William Shatner. The story is compelling, pulling in so many different issues and dealing well with all of them: our legal system, the death penalty, the issues of class and race in punishment or criminals, and our good old fascination with psychopathic killers. Most of us, especially those of us with some experience in the criminal justice system, will find something here of interest, and it is all dealt with realistically. Not only that, but the film continually takes you somewhere that you didn't expect it to...I just love it when that happens.

Paul Armstrong (Sean Connery Family Business) is a well known law professor who is respected for his anti-death penalty views, but it has been years since he has been in the court room. He leads a comfortable life in Massachusetts with his former prosecutor wife (Kate Capshaw A Girl Thing). He's contacted out of the blue by the grandmother (Ruby Dee) of an Ivy League educated man on death row in Florida named Bobby Earle (Blair Underwood Malibu's Most Wanted)  It seems that Bobby Earle has been sent to death row largely as a result of racial prejudice, his being a forced confession in the murder of a young white girl named Joanie Shriver.

Reluctantly and largely at the urging of his wife, Paul decides to take the case and is soon in Florida representing Bobby Earle and finding strong indication that the true murderer or Joanie Shriver is actually a resident of death row along with Bobby Earle, infamous serial killer Blair Sullivan (Ed Harris An Eye For An Eye).

Paul is not seen as the welcoming hero in Bobby Earle's hometown as he investigates the case, and the town's African American Chief of Police, Taney Brown (Laurence Fishburne Deep Cover) is among the least hospitable, which is the first indication that things might not be what they seem at first glance.

You all know that I will never be the spoiler, but I think any of you who have seen this excellent flick would agree with me when I tell you that there are several twists in this tale and, frankly, I doubt most of you will see them comng. I know I sure didn't. But, anyone can make a movie with a twist.

Whether or not the twist works is another story, it depends on the quality of the story and, of course, the acting. Here, the story is incredible and the acting is top shelf across the board. When you have actors the quality of Ned Beatty, Kevin McCarthy, and Lynne Thigpen doing one scene in your flick, you most likely have top tier actors as your major characters. Connery is excellent, but you knew that so I won't waste your time with that. This was the flick that convinced me that Fishburne was truly an extremely talented actor and Ed Harris is simply unbelievably good in his role as a psyhcopathic, Scripture quoting serial killer.

And, if that is not enough, Blair Underwood literally transforms on film before our eyes, if that is not great acting, what is? Those of you looking at this flick for the first time even though its an oldie, keep an eye peeled for a very young Scarlett Johansson as Connery's daughter.

I'd challenge you to watch Just Cause and not admit it is a powerful film. In fact, I double dare you.

One of my faves, of course.            

Directed by Gary Sinyor.Starring Chris O'Donnell, Renee Zellweger, Artie Lange, Hal Holbrook, Ed Asner, Jennifer Esposito, Brooke Shields. Romance/Comedy Synopsis: A young business heir who loves his girlfriend and bachelorhood has a monumental decision when his quirky grandfather leaves a will demanding he be married by his 30th birthday to inherit his millions at about the same time his true love has dumped him after a clumsily botched proposal. He doesn't have much time.

Personally, I think romantic comedies are the most predictable of the genres (sub-genres) of movies, though some of you might think that horror movies or detective dramas are. But, to me, you have the basic "boy meets girl-boy loses girl-boy gets girl back" formula. Everything is just a variation of that timeless script.

The Bachelor follows it somewhat, of course, but what makes this stand out is the quality of the cast and the memorable performances. Don't get me wrong, its not one for the ages, but it is one that you will remember longer than the average romantic comedy, which is to say that it will stick with you longer than one night.

Chris O' Donnell plays the lead role, which is notable because he is not anywhere near the presence of several of the other actors in this heavyweight class. I do realize that, eight years ago, there was a moment when some thought he had the leading man depth, and this film predates the rise of actors like Renee Zellweger and Jennifer Esposito to their current levels. What I'm saying is that the actresses he plays opposite in this flick all steal the scenes. Nothing against O'Donnell-I like him- but its hard to see him carry a movie. And he didn't here.

On the other hand, when you've got Hal Holbrook (Magnum Force) and Ed Asner (JFK) in the cast, it makes up for a relatively weak leading man. Both are simply hilarious in their roles as "consiglierie" to O'Donnell.

Surprisingly, I've got to give a shout out to Brooke Shields here. Like many of the recognizable names in the movie, she has only a couple of scenes but does very well and, yes, she is funny, playing the chain smoking hoity toity rich girl who actually agrees-initially-to marry O'Donnell so that he can inherit his millions.

Artie Lange as the best buddy is wonderful, too, and accounts for more laughs than anyone else in the movie. The mark of any pretty decent flick is that you can take at least one line or scene from it that you will remember long after you've forgotten the plot or even the name of the flick. O'Donnell's initially lame marriage proposal to Zellweger with his "s*** or get off the pot" line-delivered without malice, which is why it was so funny- is one for me and also the site of hundreds of potential "brides" chasing O'Donnell through the streets of San Francisco is another.

The Bachelor is a good popcorn flick and worth a rental or an addition to your collection when you see it in the clearance box for $5.99. At least, that's what I think.