Movie Review The Clones

The Clones (1973) 

Directed by Lamar Card, Paul Hunt 

Written by Steve Fisher

Starring Michael Greene, Gregory Sierra, Otis Young 

Release Date August 1973 

Published January 9th, 2019

With the new movie Replicas starring Keanu Reeves opening this weekend I thought a themed entry regarding cloning would be a good idea. Replicas is about a man repeatedly attempting to clone his dead family members and it put me in the mind of how movies have dealt with the issue of cloning. It turns out, aside from several classy documentaries on the issue, narrative fiction has mostly steered clear. 

For the most part, cloning has been relegated to the dregs of the sci-fi genre with few serious looks at the issue and plenty of schlocky nonsense. This brought me to the 1973 sci-fi flick The Clones, directed by Lamar Card and Paul Hunt and starring Michael Greene and Gregory Sierra. Why The Clones? Mostly because it was available on Amazon Prime but also because it had a strikingly surreal poster that you can see here, on the film’s IMDB page. 

The Clones stars Michael Greene as scientist Dr Gerard Appleby, Gerry to his friends and colleagues. We meet Gerry as someone is watching him work in his nondescript lab on something vaguely scientific that the film doesn’t bother to describe. Something goes wrong and Gerry is forced to flee for his life. The film is so clumsy about what has taken place that it only occurred to me as I write this that someone intended for Gerry to die in this lab accident. 

When Gerry does escape he sees some leaving in his car. When he makes it to the nearby security office for his lab facility, the guard is surprised to see him… again. According to the security guard, Gerry had just left driving Gerry’s car. When Gerry arrives back at his office on the campus of the Pacific Institute of Technology, his assistant tells him that he’d just been there and that he’d just called campus security before he’d left. She appears convinced that Gerry has sudden onset Alzheimer's. 

Finally, Gerry returns to the home of his girlfriend, Karen (Barbara Bergdorf), and has his most unusual encounter yet. In Karen’s kitchen is Gerry, or at least, a perfect copy of Gerry who has Gerry’s wallet, ID, memories and personality. Our Gerry flees the scene, recovering his car and wallet only to be stopped by police and taken to the campus security office where a pair of FBI agents are waiting to take him into custody for a crime they refuse to reveal. Gerry manages to escape and thus begins one of The Clones’ interminably long chase scenes. 

The Clones packs its 97 minute runtime with a great deal more running, jumping and chasing than anything to do with cloning. If you are thinking that you are going to watch The Clones and find out why the government suddenly wanted Gerry dead and replaced with a clone you can forget it. The filmmakers apparently believe that being as vague as possible is a substitute for drama. Unfortunately, the clumsy scripting makes it appear that they simply never had a clue how this story was to play out. 

Michael Greene isn’t exactly your classically handsome and charismatic leading man. He’s wiry and being forced to run for most of the movie, he looks kind of odd. We never really get a chance to connect with Gerry because the silly plot, rather than being about sci-fi and cloning, is more about action movie chases that are desperately overlong and silly. One has Gerry being chased through a swamp and has him slip his captors by hiding in a tree in plain sight. 

The final chase scene and shootout is set in an amusement park for reasons that only the filmmakers understand. This leads to an amazingly dumb payoff wherein the lead government good, played by future Hill Street Blues supporting cast member, Gregory Sierra, attempts to hunt Gerry down and avoid Gerry at the same time by boarding a rollercoaster. The director then shows us a sign that says ‘No Standing on the Ride’ but fails to pay off the scene with a clever decapitation. 

Then again, everything about The Clones is disappointing so why should that ending be anything other than a disappointment. Am I glad I spent time watching The Clones? Eh, it’s bad but in a somewhat enjoyable fashion. I was certainly laughing at the movie and not with it but I did have kind of a good time. I don’t recommend it but if you are, for some reason, looking for movies about cloning, The Clones is a movie that has clones in it. So there’s that. 

At the very least, The Clones is available at no extra charge to Amazon Prime members. 

Movie Review Super Fly (1972)

Super Fly (1972)

Directed by Gordon Parks

Written by Phillip Fenty 

Starring Ron O'Neal, Carl Lee, Julius W. Harris 

Release Date August 4th, 1972 

Published June 11th, 2018

With a newly modernized take on Gordon Parks’ provocative 1972 movie Superfly having arrived in theaters this past weekend, I took the opportunity to look back on Parks’ original film and came away shocked and very impressed. While the film’s low budget keeps it from rising to the level of great cinema, the pieces are in place, and Parks’ incredible direction stands out more today than it did when the film was written off as a low budget drive in movie in 1972.

Superfly may seem like a silly movie on the surface. It’s easy to dismiss Gordon Parks’ 1972 action drama about a drug dealer trying to escape the criminal life with one last big score as just a Blaxploitation movie, or a low budget, b-movie. People underestimated and discounted Gordon Parks throughout his brief career and often without giving his low budget movies the kind of chance that did go to bigger budget movies with white directors and white lead actors.

What was missed by dismissing Parks and his low budget, indie aesthetic was the authenticity and earnest quality of his work. Parks was unfairly and incorrectly accused of glorifying criminal life and making drug dealing look like a lifestyle worth pursuing. In reality, Superfly is a character piece about a criminal that carries an air of detachment about crime, similar to the approach taken by big budget movies like Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather. Obviously, Superfly is not as rich or epic as The Godfather but both movies are about charismatic criminals, one just happens to be high toned and big budget while the other is gritty and low budget.

Superfly stars Ron O’Neal as drug dealer Priest Youngblood. Priest has grown into a successful cocaine dealer through the liberal use of violence and a stake from his mentor, Scatter (Julius W. Harris). With his partner, Eddie (Carl Lee), he’s managed to gather $300,000 which is just enough to trade for more cocaine, a high quality product that they can then sell with the aim of making a cool million dollars, split 50/50.

The key to the scheme is getting the now retired Scatter to put them in touch with The Man. Unfortunately, what Priest and Eddie don’t know, ‘The Man’ happens to be a cop named Reardon and once you are in business with The Man, you are in business for good, or you go to jail. This puts Priest in a tough spot: work with The Man and risk getting arrested when he tries to get out of the game or walk away with nothing.

Ron O’Neal’s tough guy posturing is electric. O’Neal’s eyes are brilliantly convincing, his wheels are always turning and there always seems to be a whole other story going on behind those eyes. O’Neal oozes charisma and charm and this is likely what people who reacted negatively to Superfly were thinking when they came to believe the movie was a glorification of drug dealing. O’Neal’s off the charts charisma is mistaken as Parks’ glamor.

O’Neal’s Priest as a character indicates that he doesn’t think drug dealing is cool, it’s merely a means to an end. Racism pushed many black men of Priest’s age, and especially of his ambition, into the world of crime because they believed that legitimate avenues were not open to them because of race. It’s not a justification, it’s a character trait, not unlike the way members of the Corleone family believed that crime was the only avenue for an Italian in their corner of New York City.

Superfly is outsized and over the top in how it portrays Priest but it is not to a comic degree. Gordon Parks was in touch with the style and fashion of the streets of New York City and at times his Superfly feels like as much a fashion shoot as a movie. The fashion of Superfly influenced fashion among black culture in New York City for years but it was the drug dealers of New York that inspired Parks who then captured the zeitgeist.

You can argue whether you find it acceptable that Parks glorified the style of the street dealers and kingpins of New York City, but it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t authentic and that authenticity was Parks’ goal, not celebrating drug dealing. Portraying a drug dealer authentically, the high fashion and the low crime is no different and no less provocative than what Francis Ford Coppola did for Italian gangsters in The Godfather or what William Friedkin did for dirty cops in The French Connection.

The big difference between Superfly and those two Academy Award winners is a much lower budget and the lesser talented performers that come from that lower budget aesthetic. Parks’s style, the gritty cinematography, the authentic production design, are top notch given the restrictions that Parks was working under in terms of budget. The camera work is lively, the editing keeps the pace humming throughout and the script by Phillip Fenty is lively, colorful and clever.

Is Priest a sympathetic character? Yes and no, he’s a complicated character. Gordon Parks shows us everything about Priest, his dark and dangerous side and the frightened side that longs for a life away from drugs and criminality, the kind of life he believes only white people get to have. That’s the harsh undercurrent of Superfly, the one polarized audiences and critics in 1972, the presentation of Priest as neither hero or villain but as a character who believed, right or wrong, that his race drove him to be a criminal.

Parks’ provocative approach came from not judging Priest but observing him. Audiences prefer the simplicity of taking sides, of clear cut right and wrong and Priest was a criminal battling other criminals, battling corruption among people in power and using his wits to build his escape. The ending of Superfly is a thrilling bit of misdirection that Parks lays in beautifully without tipping his hand before the big reveal at the end that may make Priest seem heroic but is much more subversive and murky than a happy ending.

Movie Review Married to the Mob

Married to the Mob (1988) 

Directed by Jonathan Demme

Written by Barry Stugatz, Mark Burns 

Starring Michelle Pfeiffer, Matthew Modine, Alec Baldwin, Dean Stockwell, Oliver Platt

Release Date August 19th, 1988

Published August 18th, 2018 

Married to the Mob stars Michelle Pfeiffer in one of the best performances in her incredible career. As Angela DeMarco, the increasingly uncomfortable mob wife of ‘Cucumber’ Frank DeMarco (Alec Baldwin), Pfeiffer is the only sympathetic character in a universe of cartoonish killer criminals and duplicitous, weirdo FBI guys. Pfeiffer is the only element of Married to the Mob that makes complete sense.

Angela DeMarco wants out of the life of a mob wife. The bloom is off the rose of being married to a man who furnished their home with items that ‘fell off a truck.’ Angela is tired of the politics that come with being a mob wife which means spending a lot of time with fellow mob wives, a group of shrill, crispy-haired, harridans led by the Boss’s wife, Connie (Mercedes Ruehl), who demands that all mob wives follow her lead.

While Angela is plotting her escape from the mob world, FBI Agent Mike Downey (Mathew Modine) is looking for his way in so he can take down the whole thing. Mike and his partner Benitez (Oliver Platt) have been after mob boss Tony ‘The Tiger’ Russo for a while now and when things break down between Tony and Frank and Angela becomes a target of Tony’s affection, Mike has his way to get after the boss, if he can keep from falling for Angela himself.

Married to the Mob is a strange movie. The title is comically overlong and humorously ill-suited to the actual content of the film. The mob clichés are comically over the top. The Italian accents, the greasy hair, the mob lingo are right out of a parody. The story however, features mob killings that would feel at home in an episode of The Sopranos. Despite the comic accents, Dean Stockwell and Alec Baldwin play their characters with a seriousness at odds with the supposed comic nature of the movie.

Then there is Michelle Pfeiffer who plays Angela completely straight, with none of the comically over-arching touches that Mercedes Ruehl and the rest of the female cast, bring to their characters. When she begins the romantic plot with Matthew Modine’s FBI Agent, posing as a plumber while using Angela as bait to catch Tony, the romance has a light touch but she doesn’t play any single beat with the comedy that director Jonathan Demme appears to be directing her toward.

Modine’s character as well is really strange. He appears to be a comic character early on as he and Oliver Platt dip into strange banter, they have a weird slow motion high-five that appears for no real good reason. Then there is the bizarre glimpse of his home life where he has a Pee-Wee Herman style set up to help him put on his suit. It kind of fits the bizarre comic tone of Married to the Mob but the joke only serves to make him seem like a weirdo and not a romantic hero.

Everyone in Married to the Mob appears to be doing their own bit of business. The accents, the hairstyles, the odd quirks, every character seems to take a moment to demonstrate an odd trait and none of it appears to fit either in the comedy that the movie kind of is and the mob drama that the movie also kind of is. All of that said, these touches give the film personality but where that personality fits in in terms of genre is a mystery that keeps the film from greatness.

There are great moments throughout Married to the Mob and Jonathan Demme is a fine director who brings personality to the film but he can’t seem to decide whether we are to take the film seriously or laugh at it. Characters like Mercedes Ruehl are playing straight comedy while Dean Stockwell, who was nominated for an Academy Award for this performance, and Michelle Pfeiffer are taking the film relatively seriously.

The film is a tonal mess. Comedy, violence, mob drama and mob comedy, Married to the Mob is filled with personality but it’s a Sybil-esque personality in which we never know which movie is on screen from scene to scene. I don’t have a huge dislike for Married to the Mob but I can’t fully embrace the movie, outside of Michelle Pfeiffer’s star-turn, because it is such a whiplash of weird shifts in tone.

Married to the Mob was released 30 years ago this weekend.

Movie Review Straw Dogs (1971)

Straw Dogs (1971)

Directed by Sam Peckinpah

Written by David Zelag Goodman, Sam Peckinpah

Starring Dustin Hoffman, Susan George

Release Date December 22nd, 1972

Published September 12th, 2011

"Straw Dogs," a remake of the controversial 1971 Sam Peckinpah thriller, opens in theaters nationwide September 16, 2011. Many questions surround this remake from director Rod Lurie, the most potent being whether or not the new "Straw Dogs" can stir up audiences the way the original did 40 years ago. Have audiences become so desensitized to violence that we can no longer be shaken the way our parents were when "Straw Dogs" took the violence of the tumultuous '60s and '70s and planted it squarely in the upper middle class home of a young everyman and his beautiful wife, saying, essentially, this could happen to you?

" Straw Dogs " starred Dustin Hoffman, one of our finest actors and, at the time of the filming, one of the biggest stars in Hollywood due to his other controversial works "The Graduate" and the X-Rated Best Picture-winner "Midnight Cowboy." Hoffman's David was a timid man who, when forced to step up and defend his young wife Amy (played by Susan George), failed repeatedly.

David and Amy have moved to a cottage in the English countryside where Amy grew up. There, a number of people from her past, including a jealous ex-boyfriend, are waiting with judgmental eyes for her new husband. Things begin badly when men doing work in their home harass Amy and David refuses to do anything about it.

Instead, David attempts to befriend the workers, who continuously humiliate and poke fun at him. Eventually, the workers invite David to go hunting with them. Leaving him stranded in the woods, the workers return to David's home, where the former flame proceeds to rape Amy.

Peckinpah's shooting of the rape scene was debated at the time and remains the film's most controversial element. The stomach of many an audience member turned as Amy's resistance to her rape slowly turned to pleasure, the rapist being a man she's been with before; she seems to give into him and begin enjoying it. Things turn dark again, however, when a second man enters the scene. Amy never tells David about the rape. The film devolves toward an ultra-violent conclusion not because David is finally ready to defend his wife, not because he is seeking revenge over the rape, but because of a complex series of misunderstandings.

Feminist scholars have argued that Peckinpah's depiction of Amy's rape was his revenge against the character's feminist bent and the way the character repeatedly emasculates Hoffman's David. Peckinpah was often criticized as a misogynist for his depiction of women onscreen.

Remake director Rod Lurie has even taken shots at Peckinpah's alleged misogyny.

In an interview with the Brandeis University newspaper, Brandeis Now, Lurie said, "I was never enchanted with Peckinpah's philosophies on human behavior or his attitude toward women. I don't want to talk too deeply about that because he isn't here to defend his name, but it certainly came into the context of my making the film."

Does this imply Lurie's "Straw Dogs" will tone down the violence of the original? At the very least we can expect a new context and perspective on what takes place. Lurie's "Straw Dogs" is rated R but, unlike Peckinpah's film -- which was plagued by a ratings battle over its violent content -- the remake has been met with no such controversy.

Which brings us back around to my original question: Can the new "Straw Dogs" stir audiences the way the original did 40 years ago? It depends on a number of factors, not least of which is how much Lurie has shifted the context of what takes place in the film and how graphically the violence is depicted. Peckinpah's high shock factor played as big a role in the impact of "Straw Dogs" on audiences as did his intent to bring violence into the well-tended homes of the upper middle class. 40 years later can a new "Straw Dogs," or any other film for that matter, reach audiences the way "Straw Dogs" did in 1971?

We will find out how audiences take to the new "Straw Dogs" when the film arrives in theaters nationwide Friday, September 16, 2011.

Movie Review: Feast of Love

Feast of Love (2007) 

Directed by Robert Benton 

Written by Allison Burnett, Charles Baxter

Starring Morgan Freeman, Alexa Davalos, Greg Kinnear, Selma Blair

Release Date September 27th, 2007

Published October 14th, 2007

Frustrating, maddening, endlessly watchable. These are my impressions of the movie Feast of Love from director Robert Benton. Watching this trainwreck of romantic goofiness, supernatural hooey and a whole lot of nudity, is both a pain and a pleasure. Great characters mix with bad characters in a script that is a maddening mix of foibles and quirks.

Professor Harry Stevenson (Morgan Freeman) has that qulaity that draws people to him. They reveal to him things they might not reveal to anyone else. His sage wisdom and reassuring gaze mask a personal pain he doesn't share but that does give him an insightful sadness that aides him in seeing things others may have missed.

That is what happens when he joins his friend Bradley (Greg Kinnear) and Bradley's wife Kathryn (Selma Blair) for a drink. While Bradley yammers away about nothing, Kathryn locks eyes with Jenny (Stana Katic) and it's love at first sight. Harry see's it right away, though he doesn't feel it's his place to explain it to Bradley. Atleast, when Bradley does find out, Harry is there with more sage advice.

Bradley unfortunately, is not someone for whom advice is all that helpful. When he meets Diana (Radha Mitchell), it's clear she's not in his league but he pursues anyway. Diana encourages Bradley's affection but she's also sleeping with David (Billy Burke). Bradley might notice this if he weren't a pathetic puppy dog, desperate to be loved.

Also hovering in Harry's sphere are Oscar (Toby Hemingway) and Chloe (Alexa Davalos). Oscar works in Bradley's coffee shop and when the flakey, beautiful Chloe, pronounced by her as Chlo-ah, wanders in wanting a job, despite a lack of experience or even vague knowlege of coffee, he practically climbs over the counter to tackle Bradley to get her hired. Harry see's it right away, love at first sight strikes again.

Feast of Love was directed by Robert Benton whose best remembered as the director of Kramer Vs Kramer. That cultural touchstone was the last time Benton was relevant. Since then his career has meandered from one forgettable film to the next. That career track is oddly like Feast of Love which meanders from one slightly interesting character to the next uncovering truths here and there but failing  to become relevant.

Obsessed with sex, Benton stuffs the screen with female nudity and simulated coitus. There is certainly nothing wrong with sex on screen. The problem with Feast of Love is Benton's obsession with showing it at the most inopportune or unnecessary moments. There is a lovely scene between Toby Hemingway and Alexa Davalos that features a very erotic sex scene and evolves into this lovely emotional moment and then it's undone by Benton's need to include one last shot of the young couple having sex.

That is part of a maddening pattern that unfolds in Feast of Love. Nice moments undone by Benton's lust for his female cast members. I won't argue that Alexa Davalos, Radha Mitchell, Selma Blair and Stan Katic are great to look at but at some point I want more information than how great they look during sex or just standing around nude.

I don't want to create the impression that Feast of Love is of porno quality. My issue is not with the amount of nudity but the context of the nudity and the distractive quality of it. There are some lovely moments of romance and insight hidden within this odd duck of a movie. Those scene however get lost in the naked flesh and under explored characters of Feast of Love.

The cast of Feast of Love is for the most part terrific; especially Morgan Freeman. Admittedly, the role of the sage, grandfatherly old friend is becoming something of a cliche. Freeman however, is so good you can easily forget how familiar this character is. Freeman is such a reassuring and warm presence that you forgive him and through him forgive the movie, many transgressions.

Freeman does elegant, romantic work with Jane Alexander who plays his wife. The only character who understands his deep inner pain, because she shares it, Alexander is patient but concerned as she watches her husband bide his time observing the lives of others without turning that insightful eye on his own life; slowly passing him by.

Greg Kinnear on the other hand suffers at the hands of a character so wishy washy and walked upon that you can't believe one woman, let alone the three women in the film, would be willing to be with him. First there is Selma Blair's Kathryn who, after several years of marriage, finds she is attracted to women. This is not unprecedented however as it plays in Feast of Love her decision is predicated more on the aesthetically pleasing girl/girl sex scene than on a truthful understanding of character.

Then there is Radha Mitchell's Diana. Clearly out of Charlie's league, she is busily sleeping with a married man and takes to Kinnear's Charlie out of spite for her married paramour played by Billy Burke. So, she's a conniving bitch and Charlie is a dunderheaded fool. Not much fun about this relationship and very poorly explored and played in Feast of Love.

That Mitchell plays this role well is a compliment to her talent. She plays this role in much more interesting and challenging fashion however in Woody Allen's underrated Melinda and Melinda.

There is yet a third woman thrown at Kinnear in Feast of Love but the less said about her, the better.

Feast of Love is not a terrible movie just a misguided one. There is insight, humor and romance in the mix it's just lost in the malaise of an unformed idea. Director Robert Benton has something to say about life, love, loss and other such L words, he just isn't quite sure what he wants to say or how to say it. Benton remains a skilled director but his skills are at a loss to match whatever his ambitions were in Feast of Love.

Movie Review The Brave One

The Brave One (2007) 

Directed by Neil Jordan 

Written by Roderick Taylor, Bruce A. Taylor, Cynthia Mort

Starring Jodie Foster, Naveen Andrews, Terrence Howard

Release Date September 14th, 2007

Published September 13th, 2007

Few actresses alternate strength and vulnerability as well as Jodie Foster. This two time Oscar winner is one of our finest actresses and even in movies as flawed as Flightplan or her latest effort The Brave One, Foster crafts exceptional performances. Both Flightplan and The Brave One stand Ms. Foster in stories that fail to keep up with her lightning intelligence and powerful screen presence.

Erica Bain (Foster) is one of New York City's more unique characters. She can often be seen walking the streets with a microphone hanging just off the ground as she captures the noises of the city. This is for her weekly radio show in which she tells stories about the city. Erica is a free spirited, funky, hippie chick who is also soon to be married.

Erica and her fiance David (Naveen Andrews) are a perfect couple, madly in love. Their lovers' idyll is shattered just days ahead of their wedding. It seemed so mundane, almost romantic. Out walking their dog, Erica and David enter a tunnel in Central Park, it's just past dusk. Inside a group of thugs have captured their dog and begin menacing the couple in a seeming robbery.

The robbery turns into a murder as David is killed. Erica is left in a coma. When she awakens to find that David is gone she begins a spiral into fear and finally retribution as her journey brings her once again, face to face with David's killers. Along the way she meets Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) who is investigating David's murder as well as a series of vigilante killings that he feels are related.

Directed by the brilliant Neil Jordan, The Brave One is something of a disappointment. Though Jodie Foster delivers a highly compelling performance, Neil Jordan doesn't seem all that invested in telling this story. Too much of The Brave One is forced by coincidence. The plot has little rhythm, Erica stalks the streets and often finds herself at the wrong place at the wrong time with the right tool and a surprisingly steady hand.

These forced incidents offer Jodie Foster many chances to dig deeper into the psyche of this unique and often spellbinding character. This is a terrific performance that is shamefully at the mercy of a plot that spins an ever more ludicrous yarn all the way to an ending that is false, forced, and terribly unsatisfying unless you are of a simple mind.

Watching Jodie Foster trading acting poses with Terence Howard and Naveen Andrews is nearly enough to overcome the many plot issues of The Brave One. Foster strikes a sexy spark with both actors, though only Andrews gets the intimate scenes, brief glimpses of a sex life that implies this was one truly hot couple. Howard's detective Mercer is as fascinated with the mind of Erica Bain, he listens to her radio show, as he is attracted to her offbeat charms.

The relationship between Erica and Mercer plays out in a series of smoky exchanges in bars and coffee shops. He's clearly hitting on her, she's interested as much in him as she is in getting information on the search for the vigilante killer that is gripping the media. Of course we know who the vigilante is, Erica knows who it is, yet thanks to Terence Howard's terrific performance his detective Mercer is never treated as a fool.

However, Mercer's investigation of the vigilante killer is one of many plot strands that cause the ultimate failure of The Brave One. As scripted by director Neil Jordan and writers Bruce and Roderick Taylor, the investigation culminates with a laughable discovery of evidence that leads to an ending that really is the nail in the coffin of what should be a much better movie

Director Neil Jordan is exceptionally talented but if he is uninspired it really comes out on screen. Jordan is clearly disinterested in The Brave One, though not in capturing his leading lady. Jordan and Foster work well together and Foster really delivers. It is what surrounds Foster, the ever increasingly ludicrous twists and turns of luck and the hand of god, i.e. the director, that keep The Brave One from becoming yet another Jodie Foster classic.

Movie Review Shoot'em Up

Shoot'em Up (2007) 

Directed by Michael Davis

Written by Michael Davis 

Starring Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti, Monica Bellucci 

Release Date September 7th, 2007

Published September 7th, 2007

What do you get when you mix Quentin Tarentino, Robert Rodriguez, the Wachowski brothers, Sam Peckinpah and Bugs Bunny? You get the sly, ultraviolent action flick Shoot'Em Up starring Clive Owen. Directed by Michael Davis, Shoot'Em Up is arguably the most violent movie of all time. It's also one of the biggest laughs of 2007. Part spoof and part hardcore action pic, Shoot'Em Up is the unholy culmination of the culture of violence in cinema.

Oh, and it's just damn entertaining.

When we meet Smith (Clive Owen), the ostensible hero of Shoot'em Up, he's sitting on a bus bench eating a raw carrot. Is he waiting for the bus? Is he a homeless guy? We have no idea. We can tell however, that when a frightened, pregnant woman, obviously in labor, runs by and is chased after by a man with a gun, that Smith is terribly annoyed to have his vegetable chomping idyll disturbed.

Involving himself in the situation, Smith takes out the guy with the gun. Unfortunately, that isn't the only guy with a gun who wants this woman and her baby dead. Indeed, an entire team of assassins, led by Mr. Hertz (Paul Giamatti), wants to make sure that mother and son do not get out alive. They do get mom but not before Mr. Smith helps her give birth, cutting the cord with a 9 millimeter shot.

This further offends Mr. Smith's delicate sensibilities and thus begins a war between hundreds of trained killers and one man with a gun and a baby.

Shoot'em Up is the most over the top violent movie in history. Schwarzenegger, Stallone and Seagal on their best day never fired this many bullets or killed this many bad guys. Nor have any of those action legends dispatched bad guys in so many unique, violent and comical ways. The violence, as directed by Michael Davis is a riff on those classic action cliches cemented in the 80's action classics like Rambo or Commando.

Shoot'Em Up at once is a loving homage to hardcore violence and an Airplane-esque send up of any film that ever tried to play this type violence as straight dramatic action. It's a difficult balancing act that is pulled off to near perfection by director Michael Davis. The director is aided greatly by cinematographer Peter Pau who gives every scene a hyper-realized stylishness.

The only problem with Shoot'Em Up comes when it tries to be about something other than being a violence delivery system. The conspiracy theory at the center of the plot is comical but treated with such seriousness and cynicism that it becomes a burden and a drag on the fun of the goofball violence that is the raison d'etre of Shoot'Em Up.

The Bugs Bunny allusions in Shoot'em Up are an endless source of humor. Whether it's Smith's love of carrots, his many endless escapes or his pitch perfect delivery of "What's Up Doc" after dispatching a bad guy. It all works to great comic effect. The carrot is a sensational, unexpected running gag. Keep an eye on the many uses of the carrot, including a visual pun on carrots being good for your eyesight.

That Clive Owen is still not a major star is a shock to me. Owen is both a skilled actor and a charismatic presence and a handsome fella. And yet he can't seem to break through at the box office. His terrific performance in last year's Children Of Men escaped both audience and awards attention. The thriller Derailed was a sleazy mistake while Closer was another mysterious failure.

Only Sin City has been proven a success but not one that Owen claims for himself (ensemble cast, popular director and graphic novel). Shoot'Em Up succeeds fully on Owen's star presence and gruff charisma. Smith is a reluctant hero at first but quickly becomes motivated and extremely violent for reasons that are entirely his own.

Paul Giamatti is a terrific foil as a comic bad guy. Though he elicits some big laughs, Giamatti ably delivers more menace than you might expect from the sensitive sad sack from the Oscar nominated Sideways or the avuncular artist of American Splendor. Giamatti knows his way around a fire arm but it is in directing his endless horde of henchmen where this character comes to life. The humorous bumbling of the bad guys and Giamatti's priceless apoplexy are golden moments in Shoot'em Up.

Violent to a degree that would turn Sam Peckinpah's head, Shoot'em Up is at once an homage to and a send up of classic Schwarzenegger-Stallone-Van Damme action epics. No film has likely fired this many bullets or dropped this many bodies and done so with as much style and wit. That is not to say that I loved Shoot'Em Up. The plot is beyond ludicrous and the various twists and conspiracies become rather irritating.

Nevertheless, the violence is so entertaining and Clive Owen is so much fun, I have to recommend Shoot'Em Up.

Movie Review The Brothers Solomon

The Brothers Solomon (2007) 

Directed by Bob Odenkirk

Written by Will Forte

Starring Will Forte, Will Arnett, Kristen Wiig, Lee Majors

Release Date September 7th, 2007

Published September September 9th, 2007

Bob Odenkirk is a really funny guy. Anyone who has seen his all too brief HBO sketch show Mr. Show with his good friend David Cross, has seen his talent on display. His first directorial feature, Melvin Goes To Dinner was a terrific movie. A talky, brainy, low budget comedy that displayed Odenkirk's ability to let a joke build without ever forcing a punchline.

Since that mini-success Bob Odenkirk's career has gone in the toilet. His follow up to Melvin Goes To Dinner was a spectacularly misguided prison comedy called Let's Go To Prison. Now comes an equally inept, though funnier -not that that was a big challenge-, The Brothers Solomon. Written by Saturday Night Live cast member Will Forte, the film plays like a comedy of what not to do when making a comedy.

In The Brothers Solomon, Will Arnett, of TV's beloved Arrested Development, and Will Forte, play John and Dean Solomon, brothers who did not grow up like most folk. Following the tragic death of their mother, thei father (Lee Majors) moved the boys to the north pole, they asked to move there and dad abided, where they were homeschooled and went years without contact with other human beings.

The social shortcomings of the boys has contributed to lifelong virginity and them living together; likely for good. When their father falls into a coma a kindly doctor informs them that sometimes people come out of comas if they have something to live for. Remembering that dad always wanted a grandson, the boys begin a quest to make a baby for dad.

Of course, being socially awkward, to put it kindly, the brothers fail the dating scene miserably. So, they turn to the website craigslist.com where they find Janine (Kristen Wiig), a kind woman willing to carry their child.... for 12, 000 dollars and no sex. Then it's off to the fertility clinic and nine months of waiting. Can dad last that long? Will either brother ever get it right with a woman? Will you give the slightest damn?

The first two questions I won't spoil, the last question however is a simple no. As directed by Bob Odenkirk, The Brothers Solomon plays like the bastard child of Knocked Up and Dumb & Dumber, only not funny or even as remotely interesting as those two very different comedies. Where Knocked Up bothered to create characters we cared about enough to laugh with, The Brothers Solomon simply has characters and if you can find a way to care about them you are a better man than I.

Dumb & Dumber is, at the very least, energetic in it's insipid way. The Brothers Solomon is a snoozer from beginning to end. Here is yet another 'comedy', like the recent ping pong movie Balls Of Fury, that believes that certain things just ARE funny because they're there. In Balls of Fury it was the lead character's love of Def Leppard. In The Brothers Solomon it's supposed to be funny that the filmmakers have assigned the song St. Elmo's Fire as the brothers unofficial theme song.

Oh and it's also funny that Lee Majors plays the boy's father. Not that Majors does or says anything remotely humorous. No. Just the fact that he is Lee Majors is apparently supposed to be funny. That's the joke. He used to be The Fall Guy (shrug). If you find that fact funny, then maybe this is the movie for you. I, for one, need something a little more than that.

I must admit that I did laugh once during The Brothers Solomon and my apologies to the filmmakers for spoiling their one funny moment here. When the brothers find out that dad is in the hospital they go flying out of their apartment for a race to the hospital. On the way, they stop to dispute a late video charge at a local video store. The line "Dad would have wanted us to dispute that late charge" cracked me up.

The only other minor pleasure I took away from The Brothers Solomon were cameos from some of my favorite TV performers. Sam Lloyd plays Ted Buckland on TV's best sitcom Scrubs and shows up here as a doctor. Also from Scrubs, one of the show's top bit players, Charles Chun who plays Dr. Wen on Scrubs and here plays Dr. Wang. Seeing Lloyd and Chun allowed me a few moments to lapse into dreams of my favorite Scrubs episodes as I waited out the 90 minute runtime of The Brothers Solomon.

Despite it all; I remain convinced of the talents of Bob Odenkirk. I have seen far too much good work from Odenkirk to write him off yet. A word of caution though Bob, another Let's Go To Prison or The Brothers Solomon and you are off the creative roll call. Get back together with your Melvin Goes to Dinner writing partner Michael Blieden, drop the budget, and make Melvin 2.

And stay away from Will Arnett. He's now starred in both Let's Go To Prison and The Brothers Solomon and had a small role in Hot Rod. Clearly, Mr. Arnett is movie poison.

Movie Review 3:10 to Yuma

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Directed by James Mangold 

Written by Halstedt Welles, Michael Brandt, Derek Haas

Starring Christian Bale, Russell Crowe, Ben Foster, Gretchen Mol 

Release Date September 7th, 2007

Published Septembeer 6th, 2007 

Director James Mangold made a splashy directorial debut with the gritty crime drama Copland. Though most remembered for star Sylvester Stallone's weight gain for the lead role, Copland was in fact quite good. His next feature earned him even more acclaim. Girl Interrupted was nominated for multiple Oscars and won one for Angelina Jolie's tremendous supporting turn.

Then Mangold drifted toward the mainstream with a pair of forgettable studio efforts, the dull time travel romance Kate & Leopold and an oddball thriller called Identity. Both were pro level efforts but they lacked heart. Then in 2005 Mangold found himself again and delivered Walk The Line. The biography of Johnny Cash was everything one could ask for in a bio of the legendary man in black.

As great as Walk The Line was however, with 3:10 To Yuma James Mangold has crafted his first masterpiece. This moody, manly western, based on an Elmore Leonard short story, stars Russell Crowe as Ben Wade a badass outlaw whose gang is a group of mad dog killers who will follow him straight to hell if need be.

The plot of 3:10 To Yuma is as stripped down and straight forward as any classic western. One brave man must escort a murderer to the 3:10 train to Yuma prison. There the killer will be hanged for his many crimes. Complicating manners is the bad guys gang of badass killers who will ride through hell or high water to rescue their boss.

It's not the plot that matters, but rather the motivations, the actions and interplay between the exceptional characters. Russell Crowe inhabits the evil Ben Wade with snaky charm and a sharp tongue. Though admittedly a killer and an obvious menace, Crowe's Ben Wade has the kind of charm that few women could resist and few men can compete with.

Compared to Crowe's Wade, Christian Bale's stalwart good guy Dan Evans is a bit of a wet blanket, initially. Part of the story of 3:10 To Yuma is Bale's Evans earning the respect of Ben Wade and those of us in the audience harboring a secret affection for Wade's charms. This battle between good and evil, shaded with the gray of desperation, fear and greed, is played out with blood, guts and bullets but more than anything, great old school filmmaking.

James Mangold's direction of 3:10 To Yuma is nearly flawless. From his dusty western landscapes to the brilliant interplay between Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, Mangold manages a classic western that never feels stale. Though this is a remake, there is no retread vibe here. 3:10 To Yuma modernizes the western aesthetic without gimmicks like modern scoring or quick cuts but rather with the awesome star turns of Bale and Crowe.

In the supporting cast I especially loved the inclusion of Peter Fonda as an old west lawman. Fonda has not been this good in awhile and his inclusion is yet another nod to the old school western, his dad Henry made a few pretty good westerns back in the day. The supporting performance that nearly steals the film however, belongs to young Ben Foster whose intensity almost exceeds Crowe and Christian Bale, two of our more ferocious leading men period.

As he showed in Alpha Dog and 2005's Hostage, Foster can play live wire with the best of them. In 3:10 To Yuma it's more of a controlled burn than a live wire but it's as fierce as those performances with a touch more maturity. Foster is developing into an excellent go to character actor and may have found a real niche with this performance.

My favorite scene in 3:10 To Yuma is one of the more quiet moments in the whole movie. Dan Evans and a small posse are hiding Ben Wade, preparing for the trip to Yuma, at Dan's farm. Wade joins the family for dinner and when Evans leaves the table to check in with the posse guarding the doors, Wade begins a conversation with Evans' wife played by Gretchen Mol, in her dowdiest school marm frocks. Mrs. Evans is fearful of Wade but its not long before you wonder if she'd be willing to run off with him if given the chance.

Crowe gets much of the attention in this scene but Ms. Mol's subtle changes in expression, her flushing cheeks and darting eyes are near perfect. The scene is perfectly captured by Mangold with tight close ups and framing that seem to draw the two actors into the same frame without them moving an inch. Though I noticed these subtle movements, I was watching for them, most audiences will experience them seamlessly and, I think, be as mesmerized by them as I was.

There are a number of similarly strong scenes in 3:10 To Yuma including much of the third act which takes place in a single hotel room as Evans waits to take Wade to the train even as the place is surrounded by Wade's gang. The original 3:10 To Yuma spent most of its runtime trapped in one hotel room under similar circumstances, these scenes in the new 3:10 To Yuma are as much a nice throwback nod to the older film as they are a necessary piece of plotting.

3:10 To Yuma is a masterpiece of style and substance. While some may fault the films logic of manhood and respect above all else, I dug the old school western values. I especially bought into the idea that Crowe and Bale's characters would hold these ideals above all else and be willing to give their lives for them.

When awards season rolls around in late December and early January expect to see 3:10 To Yuma on a number of lists. Especially keep an eye out for Russell Crowe who delivers a performance here that is arguably the best of his career.

You must see this movie!

Movie Review Halloween (Remake)

Halloween (2007) 

Directed by Rob Zombie 

Written by Rob Zombie

Starring Scout Taylor Compton, Sheri Moon Zombie, Tyler Maine, Danielle Harris, Malcolm McDowell

Release Date August 31st, 2007

Published September 1st, 2007

A question for fans of the Rob Zombie version of John Carpenter's horror classic Halloween (if there are any). What did you enjoy about this movie? This is honest curiosity. I watched Halloween aghast not necessarily because of the ample, overwrought gore. No, rather because Halloween manages to be sloppier and less professional than either of Zombie's previous two bad movies.

More to the point of my curiosity however is the question of what you really did enjoy. The film isn't frightening, it's too ineptly put together to be frightening. It's certainly not humorous, the violence and attitude that Zombie brings to the film is far too self serious for humor. Is it that you find this misogynist,  fantasy titillating? If that's the case boys, get out of mom's basement and get yourself a girlfriend or maybe some counseling.

Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) has no idea where she came from. The life she has known since being very small is one of loving parents and a beautiful home. She has no idea that she has a brother and that her brother changed her life forever by killing their parents. It turned out for the best for young Laurie, unfortunately her brother Michael did not turn out so well.

Committed to an institution for the criminally insane at the age of 10, Michael at first refused to acknowledge what he did, despite the caring entreaties of Doctor Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell. After 15 years and a couple more murders while incarcerated, Michael refuses to speak to anyone and Dr. Loomis is gone, having turned Michael's murderous life story into a bestseller.

It's Halloween; 15 years to the day Michael murdered all but his little sister. He is to be moved to another, more secure institution, when he decides he's had enough. Killing everyone in his path, Michael escapes and begins the trek home. Only Dr. Loomis is able to determine Michael's whereabouts and even his motivations. Michael is going home to see his little sister.

In John Carpenter's original Halloween no reason is given for why as child Michael Myers killed his older sister. Like more than a few horror fans, Rob Zombie was not satisfied not knowing why Michael became evil. Thus Zombie invents a family and an injurious back story that includes a vile, abusive step father (William Forsythe), a stripper mom (Sherry Moon-Zombie), and a resentful older sister (Hannah Hall).

Michael also has trouble at school where he is constantly made fun of by classmates. 10 year old Daeg Fanch is quite convincingly disturbed for a 10 year old and I credit Rob Zombie for finding the kid and giving him one creepy looking clown mask. That is where my praise of Mr. Zombie will end. The new backstory doesn't explain Myers' supernatural strength and ability to survive multiple bullet wounds and impalings.

What John Carpenter knew and what Rob Zombie ignores, is that not having a full backstory for Michael Myers allowed Carpenter to make him into whatever he wanted, including giving Myers the air of the supernatural. The backstory provides something of a psychological background but Zombie's reaching for realism sinks the film from a logical standpoint. Michael Myers can't survive all of those bullets, impaling's, and falls from great heights if you are aiming for 'realism'.

Of the many failings of Rob Zombie's Halloween is the lack of any kind of suspense. Zombie's approach to Michael Myers' taking of victims has as much suspense as a hammer hitting a nail. Put Myers in a room and whoever else is in the room with him is guaranteed death. That is, except for the lead actress who, at the very least, has to last to the ending. Whether she survives or not, I won't spoil it.

Maybe Zombie was too busy ogling his young female cast to consider that their deaths should have some significance or drama. Zombie's main concern throughout Michael Myers' second act killing spree is making certain that each of the young girls is topless before they are fileted like fish. That these actresses are playing under age characters, high schoolers, seems not to have bothered or put off Zombie in any way.

And yet, there is a classic horror movie clichéd conservatism to Zombie's approach. I have always been fascinated with the moralistic streak that horror films have and Rob Zombie's Halloween is no exception. As in many classic horror films the young victims, male and female, are decimated by the killer after having had pre-marital sex. Michael Myers, like his brethren Freddy and Jason, is the hand of a punishing god, killing for the sins of man.

Zombie lacks the intellect or insight to explore this horror movie moralism and abandons any notion of it after he has sliced and diced his nude teenagers.

Rob Zombie's Halloween pales in comparison to the compact, suspenseful horror of John Carpenter. A master of the genre, Carpenter knew that realism and grossout are not the real tools of the horror trade but rather that suspense and tension are what keep audiences on the edge of their seats. Yes, Carpenter spilled a great deal of blood and he knew how to use death for shock value but his skills far exceed those of Rob Zombie and that is why Carpenter is a legend and Rob Zombie is a low life hack.

Movie Review: Death Sentence

Death Sentence (2007) 

Directed by James Wan

Written by Ian MacKenzie Jeffers

Starring Kevin Bacon, Kelly Preston, Garrett Hedlund, Aisha Tyler, John Goodman

Release Date August 31st, 2007

Published August 30th, 2007

Death Wish is the Citizen Kane of revenge movies. That 1974 film starring taciturn tough guy Charles Bronson is too revenge what Julia Roberts is too romantic comedy. The writer of the book Death Wish, Brian Garfield is said to have liked the movie but subsequent sequels that deviated from his best selling book series had turned him off to Hollywood.

Now, more than 30 years later, one of Garfield's Death Wish follow ups, Death Sentence, has been turned into a Hollywood feature and while the author is said to be satisfied with the final product, audience expectations will be left unfulfilled.

Kevin Bacon stars in Death Sentence as Nick Hume a father of two with a great wife (Kelly Preston) and a great job that has given his family security. That security is shattered in the blink of an eye when, after taking his oldest son Brenden (Stuart Lafferty) to a hockey game, Brenden is gunned down at a gas station as Nick looked on.

The murder was committed by a teenager as a gang initiation ritual. Nick saw the kid who did it but when he is told that prosecutors will seek a plea bargain rather than a trial, he decides to take matters into his own hands. Nick tracks down the kid and reaps his vengeance. Actions have consequences however and when it turns out that the kid is the little brother of a ruthless gang leader named Billy Darley (Garrett Hedlund), Nick finds himself at war to protect what is left of his family.

Directed by James Wan, Death Sentence is a complicated revenge fantasy that becomes more and more outlandish as it goes on. Though grounded by a serious star performance by Kevin Bacon, Death Sentence paints an increasingly loony series of deaths and reprisals into its plot, so many that you may have a hard time keeping track of who's dead and who's alive.

That said, James Wan is a pro director. He was the progenitor of the Saw series with co-writer Leigh Whannell and invented the complicated aethetics and plotting of that terrific series. His follow up directing gig, Dead Silence was a twilight zone influenced mindfuck that worked cheap thrills into a grand guignol plot. With Death Sentence he makes an uncomfortable transition out of the horror genre.

In tact is Wan's talent for tight, quick visuals and snaky storytelling. What is missing however is depth and perspective. Where Saw is an intricate morality play covered in blood and Dead Silence was a twisty Twilight Zone homage, Death Sentence is mostly about its violence with only a passing glance at the merits of revenge.

Death Sentence wants to ask the question 'what would you do if someone killed your child'. Unfortunately, the script from first time writer Ian Jeffers becomes distracted with the battle of wills between Kevin Bacon's everyman and Garrett Hedlund's ruthless villain. The battle is kind of compelling but as the violence becomes more and more over the top; the perspective goes missing and it becomes little more than a series of staged gun battles.

It's a shame because there is a good deal of potential in this movie. One big missed opportunity comes in the character of Bones played by John Goodman. Introduced as a gun dealer, Bones' connection to one of the two main protagonists is a sly inclusion that should have had a more interesting payoff. As it is, the potential for this character is unrealized after just one terrific scene between Goodman and Bacon.

Death Sentence is a movie that should be better than it is. With Kevin Bacon's exceptional lead performance and director James Wan's skilled direction, it should be more satisfying than it is. As it is, Death Sentence is a modest disappointment. Not a bad film, just not a good enough film for me to recommend.

Movie Review: Balls of Fury

Balls of Fury (2007) 

Directed by Robert Ben Garant

Written by Thomas Lennon, Robert Ben Garant

Starring Dan Fogler, Christopher Walken, George Lopez, Maggie Q, Robert Patrick

Release Date August 29th, 2007

Published August 30th, 2007

Who is Dan Fogler? That is the question many who see the movie Balls of Fury will ask. Of course, most won't see Balls of Fury because they don't know who Dan Fogler is. Quite a conundrum. Nevertheless, Fogler is an acclaimed actor. He won a Tony award, Broadway's highest honor, for his work in the musical "The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee ''.How one goes from Broadway star to the star of a movie about ping pong is one of those curious quirks of Hollywood. Something linked Fogler to the guys from Reno 911, Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon, and thus they came to cast Fogler in their latest unfunny comedy Balls of Fury.

Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon are two of the creators of the often quite funny cops spoof Reno 911. However, their film work has been utterly atrocious. I've rundown the litany of their sins more than a few times and here they are again. The Pacifier, Taxi, Reno 911 Miami and Herbie Fully Loaded. Blech! Balls of Fury is as inept and misguided as any of those features.

The story begins at the 1988 olympics. 12 year old Randy Daytona (Dan Fogler) is America's hope for the gold in Ping Pong. Unfortunately, Randy gets beaten badly and embarrasses himself by knocking himself cold and proclaiming he was going to Disney World. Nearly 20 years later Randy is still playing ping pong, as a performer in a low class Vegas casino lunch room populated by the soon to the grave crowd.

There, Randy is approached by an FBI agent, Rodriguez (George Lopez), who explains that Randy is America's best chance to capture a legendary Chinese mafia figure known as Feng (Christopher Walken). Feng, it seems, is a ping pong aficionado and is holding an underground tournament for the best players in the world. Randy must get back in shape and with the help of ping pong guru (James Hong) and his smoking hot daughter Maggie (Maggie Q), prepare to play ping pong to the death.

Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant come from the world of sketch comedy and improv and you can see the influence of that in Balls of Fury. Sudden death ping pong is a good sketch comedy premise. Unfortunately, when stretched to the length of a feature film it wears thin quickly. You can see throughout Balls of Fury a number of unformed ideas that begin with the potential to be funny but peter out as the actors search for the punchline.

Dan Fogler is not a well known actor unless of course you are a fan of Broadway. The comic actor won a Tony Award for his work in "The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee". Of course few actors, even one with a Tony on his resume, could make this material work. Fogler's co-stars Maggie Q and George Lopez are only slightly more entertaining than Fogler, each struggling with the bad material and unformed ideas. Then there is poor James Hong. As Fogler's ping pong guru this longtime character actor is repeatedly humiliated in the filmmaker's attempt to find something funny.

The only actor to survive and even grasp this horrible concept is Christopher Walken. The legendary Mr. Walken finds what little funny there is in Balls of Fury by simply doing his own thing. Walken crafts his wacked out bad guy character, commits to every detail and belts it to the back of the room. Walken's seemingly method approach to this bizarre character, an American pretending to be a Chinese gangster, is at times utterly sublime simply for Walken's dedication to playing it straight.

Balls of Fury is a bad movie. Poorly crafted, poorly conceived and stunningly sloppy for a mainstream Hollywood release. Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant have once again failed miserably in attempting to translate their unique brand of sketch and improv comedy to the big screen. And yet, Christoper Walken is so classically Walken-esque, there is almost a reason to subject yourself to this piece of junk. I'm far from willing to recommend Balls of Fury, but fans of Christopher Walken with a lot of time to spare may find something oddly entertaining.

Movie Review: War

War (2007) 

Directed by Cory Yuen 

Written by Lee Anthony Smith, Gregory J. Bradley

Starring Jason Statham, Jet Li, Devon Aoki, Luis Guzman, Saul Rubinek

Release Date August 24th, 2007

Published August 24th, 2007

What a cool idea! Put Jet Li and Jason Statham together in a movie and have them beat the holy hell out of each other. It's the urban action movie equivalent of Freddy Vs Jason, if it's done right. You can't just put them in the same movie and then not deliver on the badass, hand to hand beatdown. Sadly, War does not deliver on this promise. This mindless shoot'em up places Li and Statham on opposite ends of a gang war and then, when it finally comes down to the two of them, as you know it should, War becomes a minor police action.

Jason Statham stars in War as Crawford a San Francisco FBI agent specializing in Asian crime gangs, the Yakuza and the Triads. When his partner and his family is murdered by the top Triad assassin, known only as Rogue (Jet Li), Crawford abandons his own loving wife and small child and goes on a three year, non-stop mission to find and kill Rogue.

After years of Rogue reshaping his face and globetrotting all over the world, he finally returns to San Francisco in unusual fashion. Having been the top assassin for the Triads, he returns to San Francisco and begins killing top Triad lieutenants. Soon he is helping the Yakuza obtain priceless art from the Triads only to then get the Triad guys killed. Essentially, Rogue has gone Rogue and is starting a war to kill off both gangs.

Crawford recognizes what Rogue is up too but cannot get past the death of his partner. Whether Rogue is doing him and the world a favor by eliminating two of the world's top crime organizations, Crawford still intends to kill Rogue. Thus the set up for what should be an epic showdown. Bullets fly, hundreds of extras are gunned down, all leading to the climactic head to head. And then.... And then...

Nothing. Well, not quite nothing. Jet Li and Jason Statham do get to go head to head but the fight, as choreographed and directed by Cory Yuen, it's beyond anti-climactic. Held at the mercy of a rather ludicrous plot twist, the fight is almost reserved, even genteel by Li and Statham standards. It ends at the mercy of the plot twist and the letdown drags down the whole film.

Though Jason Statham and Jet Li have worked together before in 2001's The One. However, they weren't really on the same star plain at that time. Statham was still a rising star and that interesting sci fi action flick ended not with Li vs Statham but Jet vs Jet Li. War finds Jet Li and Jason Statham as equals, Statham having rode The Transporter flicks to action star status, thus anticipation for their face off was high.

The whole movie lives and dies on Statham against Li and when director Cory Yuen blows that, he blows the whole picture. The fight is listless, uninspired and, as edited, almost incomprehensible. Then, of course, it ends too quickly at the mercy of one of the dumber plot twists we've seen in a while. If War were a better movie, the plot twist would have ruined it, as it is the plot twist only makes a bad situation worse.

War is a disappointment on even the modest scale of anticipation that greeted it. Action fans who wanted a knock down, drag out, hand to hand face off between Jet Li and Jason Statham will find little but disappointment in War. Li, as he has confessed in interviews, has clearly lost a step which may have contributed to the lackluster fight, but that does not excuse the failure of this potentially explosive face off.

If Jet Li couldn't go, he shouldn't have made the movie. Marketers should have especially not sold the film as a War between Jet Li and Jason Statham. What a jip.

Movie Review Stardust

Stardust (2007) 

Directed by Matthew Vaughn

Written by Matthew Vaughn, Jane Goldman

Starring Charlie Cox, Claire Danes, Robert De Niro, Michele Pfeiffer, Mark Strong, Sienna Miller

Release Date August 10th, 2007

Published August 10th, 2007

From the wildly inventive mind of Neil Gaiman comes Stardust. The fantasy of Stardust combines science fiction and romance with some wondrous takes on literary legends. On the surface; director Matthew Vaughn may not seem the ideal choice for such light hearted romantic notions. A protégé of Britain's maestro of violence Guy Richie, Vaughn's first outing as a director was the Richie influenced Layer Cake, a mob story with a pre-Bond Daniel Craig.

Nevertheless, Vaughn pulls off a near masterpiece of genre fiction in Stardust.

Tristan (Charlie Cox) is a fool for romance. He has fallen in love with the most beautiful woman in all of the town of Wall, Victoria (Sienna Miller) and will go to any length to win her heart, even if it means crossing the wall. The Wall that gives Tristan's hometown its name is a magical barrier between the real world and the realm of Faerie, a kingdom ruled by kings and witches and ghosts and flying pirates.

Most citizens are unaware of what is beyond the wall, only knowing that they are never to cross that wall. Tristan however, must cross the wall when he sees a falling star crash beyond the city limits and he promises that star to Victoria in exchange for her hand. Now Tristan will cross that wall and embark on a life altering adventure.

Opposing Tristan, without knowing it, is a trio of witches led by oldest sister Lamia (Michele Pfeiffer). She needs the star in order to replenish her and her sister's powers. Also on the trail of the star is Septimus (Mark Strong). He needs the star in order to finally inherit the throne of Faerie; ahead of his brothers, four of whom have met with an ugly fate, something that the others may meet as well if Septimus is to become king.

Meanwhile, the star is actually on earth in human form. Her name is Yvaine (Claire Danes) and when she is found by Tristan, the real love story and a truly grand adventure begins.

My description of Stardust makes it sound like a trifle, however, thanks no doubt to the hard boiled influences of director Matthew Vaughn, Stardust is a good deal more tart than I let on. The early scenes between Tristan and Yvaine crackle with conflict, as any good romantic match often does. She is aware that she has been sought as a gift for another, and though he finds her striking, Tristan longs for Victoria.

The film doesn't let this torturous banter go on to long and indeed doesn't play many of the typical romantic games in order to place roadblocks in the lovers path. Matthew Vaughn and co- writer Jane Goldman do a terrific job of allowing the romance to develop naturally and create roadblocks organically rather than by what is often dictated by the history of Hollywood romance.

With a light hearted take on some rather dark materials, Stardust is classically English in wit. Take for example Prince Septimus and his brothers. As they seek the crown, four have already been disposed of in ghastly fashion, even before we meet them. Each brother sticks around after his demise; left in the final pose of their passing. This provides a number of big laughs throughout the picture as the ghosts poke about.

The film also mines laughs from an unexpected source. Robert De Niro plays Captain Shakespeare, a blood thirsty air pirate who sails the sky stealing lightning and toughening up on anyone who dares board his ship unwelcome. When the Captain encounters Tristan and Yvaine, high in the clouds, the scene is strange not just for its location but for the wit of De Niro playing against type.

Who doesn't love a great romance? Stardust has a really good one in the story of Tristan and Yvaine. It's a story rife with conflicting emotions and grand romantic gestures and a good deal of suspense. The conclusion is not shocking but it's not predictable either, Yvaine is a star and must one day return to the sky. How that is resolved is a clever bit of romantic engineering, and don't forget that the lovely Sienna Miller plays Victoria.

Stardust also has a grand adventure as we take to the skies with pirates who harvest lightning and do battle with kings and witches. It's a wonderfully literate tale that will delight readers and non-readers alike. For the literate; nods to Tolkien and Shakespeare are a treat, while never distracting from the adventure and romance familiar to everyone. This is an artful yet still populist picture that can dazzle the film buff and the parents dragged to the theater by his teenagers, all in the same scene.

Stardust is a big step forward for director Matthew Vaughn. His leap in genre from hard boiled crime to light as a feather romance and broad science fiction; is a leap most directors could not make. His range is only a small example of his talent. Watching Stardust you sense a director of great confidence, poise and imagination. Beneath the surface of sometimes surly dialogue, is the soul of a poet and a big heart. All of which will serve Vaughn well as he strives for his first masterpiece.

Stardust is almost there. A terrific example of a talent on the rise, Stardust is a crowd pleasing romantic adventure for any audience.

Movie Review Ralph Breaks the Internet

Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018) 

Directed by Rich Moore, Phil Johnston

Written by Phil Johnston, Pamela Ribon

Starring John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Gal Gadot, Jane Lynch, Jack McBrayer, Alfred Molina

Release Date November 21st, 2018 

Published November 20th, 2018

Ralph Breaks the Internet is the most surprising movie of 2018. I expected the sequel to 2012’s Wreck it Ralph to be entertaining, sweet and funny like the original. What I was not expecting was for Ralph Breaks the Internet to have such a complex and emotionally fertile story, one that would leave me in tears of thoughtful joy. I had no idea that the makers of Ralph Breaks the Internet would offer one of the smartest, warmest and most mature stories of 2018 to tell.

Ralph Breaks the Internet picks up 6 years after the events of the original story with Ralph (John C. Reilly) and his best pal Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) still tied at the hip and, in Ralph’s mind, living the dream. Each day is the same, go to work and have fun and then meet up at the Tapper game and drink root beer and laugh till the day starts all over again. Ralph could not be more content with things but Vanellope is beginning to get restless.

Tired of racing and winning on the same three candy tracks in her game Sugar Rush, Vanellope confesses to Ralph that she wishes her game would be a little different from time to time. Thinking he can fix his friend’s problem, Ralph uses his strength to tear apart the background of Sugar Rush to create a new, more challenging track. Vanellope is excited to try it but while she’s racing the new track the person playing her game breaks off the steering wheel.

Because the game is broken, Sugar Rush is turned off and Vanellope and her fellow Sugar Rush cast are now homeless. The only way to save the game from being recycled for parts is to find a new steering wheel. The only place to find a vintage, intact, Sugar Rush steering wheel is the internet where one awaits on EBay. With Vanellope in tow, Ralph enters the newly installed internet port at the arcade and the two are off to the races inside the internet.

The satire of internet culture was something I was concerned would become obvious or cheesy but I must say, it’s spot on. The gags here are inspired as the creators of Ralph Breaks the Internet find one winner of a gag after another. It’s not perfect, there are a couple groaners here and there, but what Ralph Breaks the Internet does well is be consistently inventive in how the movie presents everything from EBay to video streaming to search engines.

As the story builds momentum a theme begins to reveal itself as Vanellope begins to find her place on the internet, especially in a Grand Theft Auto inspired online game called Slaughter Race. Wonder Woman star Gal Gadot gives voice to Shank, the best racer in Slaughter Race who takes an immediate liking to Vanellope. The two have a lot in common, despite the obvious differences in their game and Ralph begins to worry that Vanellope might have a friend other than him.

Amid the gags about insidious internet ads, get rich quick schemes and viral videos, Ralph Wrecks the Internet cleverly tackles a story that all kids will face in their own lives about how you have to make room in life for the lives of others. Ralph will slowly learn that because he was content with the status quo it doesn’t mean his best friend was just as happy. He’s going on a journey to learn how to be mature and respect that friends can want different things and still be friends.

It’s a lesson that even adults can stand to learn. The idea of learning to respect other people instead of demanding only what you want is a lesson too many adults haven’t fully learned. The final act of Ralph Breaks the Internet deals with insecurity and fear in a manner that is absolutely perfect and highlights how we all can feel insecure sometimes but it’s how we maturely come to terms with our insecurity that defines us as a person.

That is a brilliant and fresh piece of storytelling that could not be more important for both children and adults. That the film is also wildly funny and artfully animated only underlines why Ralph Wrecks the Internet isn’t merely the best animated movie of 2018, it’s one of the best movies of 2018 full stop. I rank this number 2 on my favorite movies of 2018, right behind a completely different but brilliant work of horrific art, Hereditary.

I completely adore Ralph Wrecks the Internet. I laughed loudly and easily and by the end I was deeply moved and quite emotional. This is the feeling we hope to have when we go to any movie, this just happens to be an animated movie intended for children. It may be aimed at kids but Ralph Wrecks the Internet can reach any audience, the film is simply brilliant on all levels, of the best movies of this year and animated milestone for this decade.

Movie Review Monty Python's The Meaning of Life

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983) 

Directed by Terry Jones

Written by Monty Python

Starring Eric Idle, Michael Palin, Terry Jones, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam

Release Date March 31st, 1983

Published March 31st 2013 

I have a horrible confession to make, I've never really been into Monty Python. I know, I know, anyone who considers themselves a serious fan of comedy tends to be into Monty Python but I've never really invested the time necessary to master the basics of Python's absurdist sketch comedy.

Sure, I can appreciate "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" but only as much as it reminds me of a more absurd version of a Mel Brooks comedy. It was with this in mind that I sat down for a 30th Anniversary look at "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" and once again I came away with a vague appreciation mixed with a bit of revulsion and a touch of confusion.

A Sketch Movie

'Meaning of Life' isn't so much a movie, in the traditional sense of the word, as it a collection of all new, in 1983 anyway, Python material reminiscent of the popular TV series that spawned the legendary comedy troupe. These however, are preceded by a wonderfully bizarre and oddly still trenchant today riff on corporate accountants called "The Crimson Permanent Assurance."

This 17 minute short film follows a group of accountants treated as slaves to their adding machines until the geezers decide to rebel. Once having seized the accounting firm they pull up anchor, hoist the main sail and suddenly the stodgy old English building is a working pirate ship enroute to a swanky financial district seeking the most hostile of takeovers.

Even today so-called Corporate 'Raiders' remain the pirates of Wall Street pillaging any company they choose and doing bloody battle with any company that stands in their way. The fact that so little has seemed to change in 30 years is disturbing and yet it adds an even greater tickle to this already delightful short satire.

Why Are We Here?

From there we are thrust into the Python troupe's sorta-kinda examination of the meaning of life, i.e 'Why are here?' ("At this restaurant?" "No sir, on this planet") First up for satire is the miracle of birth from different ends of the socio-economic ladder. On one end a woman finds herself almost ignored by doctors, played by Graham Chapman and John Cleese, more interested in playing with high end medical gadgets than in delivering her baby.

On the other end of the spectrum a poor bloke played by Michael Palin has just lost his job at the mill and must break it to his several dozen children that many of them will have to be given up for medical experimentation. This is merely the jumping off point for a soft-hearted satire of Catholics and the Church's illogical stance on birth control via the song via the not-so subtle tune "Every Sperm is Sacred."

The opening bit is tagged with another satire, this time of Protestants, played by Chapman and Eric Idle, as protestants who mock the Catholic stance on birth control yet never seem to take advantage of the birth control freedoms the clueless Chapman praises in volume and in variety as his wife listens ever to be disappointed.

Stiff Upper Lips and other Such Things

Further portions of 'The Meaning of Life' tackle learning from the perspective of a fearful Catholic school that teaches an abiding fear of God's wrath alongside a very liberal idea of sex education. Later the subject of War is lampooned with a joyously violent birthday celebration amidst the chaos of World War 1 and a tribute to the ever stiff upper lips of the English Officer Class.

Though these segments earn solid chuckles they are the least connected to the themes of 'Meaning of Life' and a brief break in the middle of the movie, actually called "The Middle of the Movie," seems to acknowledge the lack of connection while the following scene 'Middle Age' quickly moves to excuse it by openly mentioning how disconnected the film is from the title.

Not that formalism is on order for "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life." Directed by the wildly brilliant and unpredictable Terry Gilliam and fellow Python Terry Jones, 'Meaning of Life' as a title is merely a marketing tactic meant to tie together the Python's many bright sketch ideas and a few less bright ideas.

Mr. Creosote

Least among the sketches in "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life" is one that opens Part 6 "The Autumn Years." I can recall friends and comedians referencing someone called 'Mr. Creosote' and having no idea what the reference was about. Now having witnessed 'Mr. Creosote' for myself I am re-evaluating my friends and idols.

The sketch involves an exceptionally large man, played director Jones, dining at a fancy restaurant and repeatedly projectile vomiting onto anything and anyone in range. I get the joke, it comes from the sheer lunacy of the large man and his extraordinary amount of vomit but knowing that doesn't make me laugh. The premise is flawed and the denouement of the large man exploding after eating a tiny after dinner mint is a mere ripoff of an Warner Bros. cartoon writ with more gore.

I did however, enjoy the final sketch "Death." It begins with a wildly inappropriate and terrifically funny sketch about a condemned man, Chapman, allowed to choose his method of death. I won't spoil this part as it truly deserves to be seen; I will only say that I might choose such a method death were I in a similarly absurd condemnation.

So, after thirty years, do I recommend "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?" Yes and no. Yes, I recommend it for the truly curious who want to know more about the legendary Monty Python. However, because of 'Mr. Creosote' and another rather gory sketch involving forced liver donations, I must advise those with weak stomachs to pass on 'The Meaning of Life.'

Movie Review High Road to China

High Road to China (1983) 

Directed by Brian G. Hutton 

Written by Sandra Weintraub 

Starring Tom Selleck, Bess Armstrong, Jack Weston, Wilfred Brimley

Release Date March 18th, 1983

Published March 18th, 2013 

This weekend in 1983 a terrible Hollywood tradition continued; the tradition of the knock off. For every blockbuster movie there are at least one or sometimes a dozen similar movies hoping to strip mine the same success. In 1983 "High Road to China" arrived with hopes of glomming off the success of "Raiders of the Last Ark" and in grossing more than 28 million dollars it was a solid, entirely forgettable, hit movie.

Plot

In Turkey in 1920 pilot Patrick O'Malley (Selleck) is scraping out an existence as a pilot for hire who teaches rich folks to fly planes. O'Malley's life is altered forever when he encounters Eve (Bess Armstrong), a spoiled rich girl who needs to find her missing father before she loses her inheritance. Together the gruff O'Malley and the dilettante Eve go on an adventure that will lead them into the hills of Tibet and the fires of a revolution.

Review

Arriving at the box office a week after the execrable thriller "10 to Midnight," "High Road to China" must have been a breath of fresh air by comparison. 'High Road' has the breezy charm of an episode of "Magnum P.I" with the budget explosion and bullet budget only a big screen feature can afford. Selleck has the predictable charm of a roguish adventurer and plays well off of Armstrong's flighty socialite. That said, it's easy to understand how our collective pop culture forgot about "High Road to China." The direction is less than adventurous; the plot halts and stalls more than Selleck's planes and while 'High Road' is often mildly amusing it lacks the much needed sense of humor that marked the Saturday afternoon serials of the 1930's that inspired it.

Trivia

Director Brian G. Hutton is said to have given up directing after "High Road to China" and became a plumber.

Hutton's only other notable directorial effort was the 1970 war movie "Kelly's Heroes" starring Clint Eastwood, Telly Savalas and Don Rickles.

Final thoughts

Many different sources claim that "High Road to China" was Hollywood's consolation prize to Tom Selleck after he missed out on "Raiders of the Lost Ark." As 'Raiders' fans know Selleck got as far as the screen test wearing Indy's iconic hate and whip before losing out on the role because CBS would not adjust his shooting schedule for the TV detective series "Magnum P.I." It certainly doesn't seem coincidental that Selleck wound up playing an unlikely adventurer in the 1920's in an exotic location with a beautiful sidekick/love interest.

"High Road to China" is an indication of one thing for sure, Hollywood's love of knock offs hasn't changed. Thirty years later Hollywood still looks at one successful movie and attempts to clone it for a quick buck. For every blockbuster that lasts forever ala "Raiders of the Lost Ark" there is a "High Road to China" cynically chasing a buck in the blockbuster wake.

Movie Review 10 To Midnight

10 To Midnight (1983)

Directed by J.Lee Thompsom

Written by J. Lee Thompson

Starring Charles Bronson, Andrew Stevens, Gene Davis, Ola Ray, Kelly Preston

Release Date March 11th, 1983

Published March 11th, 2013 

30 years ago, March 11th 1983, the most talked about movie of the weekend had no Witches or Wizards or magic or wonder. Instead, a 'scummy little sewer of a movie,' "10 to Midnight" packed houses and continued to demonstrate the unlikely star power of a not so handsome brut named Charles Bronson, the man men wanted to be and women didn't mind hiding behind if a killer was coming.

Plot: A nude serial killer (Gene Davis) is stalking the women who've rejected him and offing them in gruesome fashion. Nearly captured by veteran Detective Leo Kessler (Bronson) and his young handsome partner (Andrew Stevens), the killer turns his vengeance on Kessler's daughter setting up a cat and mouse chase between cop and killer that tests the limits of the law and morality.

Review: Roger Ebert called "10 to Midnight" 'a scummy little sewer of a movie' and that's not mere hyperbole. "10 to Midnight" is a revolting little piece of trash that ranks alongside "I Spit on Your Grave" and the oeuvre of Eli Roth in the pantheon of sick and twisted movies. Harsh? Hardly, the film makes great sport of nude women cowering in fear from the killer as well as the killer's penchant for stripping nude to commit his murders. Bronson draws more laughs than drama from his reading of such abysmal dialogue as "Anyone does something like this (gesturing toward a nude stabbing victim), his knife is his penis."

Trivia: "10 To Midnight" features an early performance from Kelly Preston, billed as Kelly Palzis (a savvy career movie Kelly but we recognize you), and a pre-"Thriller" Ola Ray, both playing co-workers of Bronson's daughter.

Final thoughts: Why didn't Andrew Stevens make it as a star? Maybe it was this movie.

The title "10 to Midnight" means absolutely nothing. The title is never even hinted at during the film having apparently been selected at random by producers Menachem Golan and Yuri Globus.

Golan and Globus are two of the all time scuzziest producers in Hollywood history. Their anything for a buck style of movie making led them to release six films in 1983, none more memorable than "10 to Midnight."

Movies have seemingly grown tamer since the early 80's. It hardly seems possible that a movie as sadistic, misogynist, and featuring so much unnecessary naked flesh as "10 to Midnight" would get made in this day and age. Then again, it may also be an example of the evolution of taste; after all audiences once believed a two bit, one note tough guy like Charles Bronson was a star whose presence was worth the price of admission.