On Deadly Ground.

Review #1764: On Deadly Ground.

Cast: 

Steven Seagal (Forrest Taft), Michael Caine (Michael Jennings), Joan Chen (Masu), John C. McGinley (MacGruder), R. Lee Ermey (Stone), Shari Shattuck (Liles), Billy Bob Thornton (Homer Carlton), Richard Hamilton (Hugh Palmer), Chief Irvin Brink (Silook), John Trudell (Johnny Redfeather), Mike Starr (Big Mike), and Sven-Ole Thorsen (Otto) Directed by Steven Seagal.

Review: 

For a long time, I wondered exactly what to think about watching a movie featuring Steven Seagal. No, really. When one has seen countless action movies that have featured folks like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Bruce Willis, or even folks outside the Hollywood system in the heyday of action films, one does eventually wonder just how green the grass is on the other side when it comes to folks with reputation that could be considered "boorish" or "different". Of course, let's start at the beginning. Born in Michigan but raised in California, he actually started his adult life as a martial arts instructor in Japan before returning back to run his own dojo (of course, he had made claims that he actually had an association with certain CIA agents during that time, but this is dubious). Eventually, he broke into films, although he started out as a coordinator for stunts and martial arts. At any rate, it was the help of an agent within Hollywood that got him into his first film role with Above the Law (1988), which he also co-produced and co-wrote. This would be followed by a string of action vehicles such as Hard to Kill (1990), Out for Justice (1991), and Under Siege (1992), with the latter generally being considered his most mainstream hit. Seagal still persists on as an actor in film roles, although generally they are either "direct-to-video" or "video-on-demand" or "well, he has a supporting role, but he is top-billed like some other action stars". At any rate, 1994 Seagal had star power that he could use for something meaningful in films and he clearly wanted to make a feature film with a message. As such, On Deadly Ground is his debut feature film as a director, done in a deal with Warner Bros. that in exchange for directing that he could star in Under Siege 2: Dark Territory for them the following year.

Oh, he was trying to be serious with this film. With lines such as ”What does it take to change the essence of a man?”, you better believe that the action star wanted to create something thoughtful. Of course, he was quoted as stating he did not consider himself a martial-arts star, as if he did not in fact want to be thought of as the next incarnation of folks like Chuck Norris (another time, another time). Indeed, Seagal can state that he directed a film for a major studio that other stars did not...and he inadvertently made one of the most unintentionally hilarious films of its time, a movie that waxes on about the environment and what must be done about it while being stuffed with a body-count akin to a horror movie, complete with giving an esteemed actor like Michael Caine an unsightly hairdo in a role likely up there in amusement with Jaws: The Revenge. You could actually cut the movie to make it look like Seagal is some sort of slasher character, since he runs the gamut of creative death sequences for the folks he takes down (who are as one dimensional as he is), which revolves from setting traps to dropping people into oil. But hey, let's briefly talk about the supporting folks first, because they sure are disposable enough to make fun of. Caine looks and sounds befuddled here, as if he was wondering where the "Captain Planet" voice booth was instead, and he is given exactly the amount of depth one would expect from a cardboard cutout villain. Chen is the accompanying leading lady with Seagal, and it is amusing to see the absolute zero chemistry between the two, which is made more amusing with her being present for a variety of death scenes that involve no reaction on her part. McGinley plays the toady role with cheese that at least looks like he is having an ounce of fun (one wonders how Thornton did with his small part in amusement). Ermey is technically meant to be the adversary to Seagal, but since our hero never experiences any real threat, he is more amusing than anything.

I strongly suspect that there would have better movies to watch Seagal in before I tried this one, because no one could be this wooden. He may have the physique for an action star, but he seems far too wrapped up in...whatever his attempt at charisma is. There are lines that sound like they should be funny, but it is the stuff that is supposed to be taken seriously (such as the aforementioned line I stated in the previous paragraph...which he speaks to a guy he just beat up after doing a slap hand game) that is more amusing, as if he was playing a killer without any awareness at all. To top it all off, Seagal spends the last couple of minutes talking about the environment (as if to the audience), which apparently was actually cut down from the request of Warner Bros. (since Seagal had a much longer plan); it might be appropriate for Greenpeace but otherwise it proves hysterical when it comes from a movie where a dude just destroyed a rig and dozens of people. At any rate, the movie (known first as "Rainbow Warrior" and "Spirit Warrior" before this title) involved a guy trying to rectify the wrongs of an oil company that plans to use their latest device to drill before the native Alaskans can retrieve the land back, a vision quest, and dozens of amusing moments. Oddly enough, the most equivalent film in that regard might be Billy Jack (1971), since that movie also features a hero that is friendly with the natives that likes to kick and kick before preaching about a certain message (which was pacifism, although that movie had plodding sequences with hippies). Honestly, more folks should probably check this one out for its sheer failure in message and execution, regardless of how it easy it seems to pick on Seagal these days. This is the one chance you have to see him as both star and director, and it all comes in a flop like this.

 

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Fate lends a hand and delivers In the Name of the King for Black Friday.

The Ice Harvest.

Review #1616: The Ice Harvest.

Cast: 

John Cusack (Charlie Arglist), Billy Bob Thornton (Vic Cavanaugh), Connie Nielsen (Renata Crest), Randy Quaid (Bill Guerrard), Oliver Platt (Pete Van Heuten), Mike Starr (Roy Gelles), Ned Bellamy (Sidney), T.J. Jagodowski (Officer Tyler), and David Pasquesi (Councilman Williams) Directed by Harold Ramis (#138 - Bedazzled (2000), #208 - Caddyshack, #342 - Groundhog Day, and #804 - National Lampoon's Vacation)

Review: 

"This movie is about people who've lost any sense of meaning in their lives."

One wonders where the time goes when it comes to films that can be defined by one word: "should". But why don't we do a few pleasantries first, since this does fall somewhat into the yuletide spirit (a sort of alternative to the alternative of films set on Christmas Eve), and it can be said that there are some promising names involved. This was the tenth of eleven films directed by Harold Ramis, although it is one of four that he did not also write the script for, with writers Richard Russo (a fellow novelist in his own right) and Robert Benton responsible for the script (they had worked together previously on Twilight seven years prior, since Benton directed that film alongside adapting one of Russo's books into a film). They wrote the film as an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Scott Philips, which was written in 2000 as his first work (incidentally, the Wichita native had done a brief spell as a screenwriter), which he thought was unfilmable (he ended up liking the adaptation, so that is one relief). A book review from the New York Times had attracted Benton and Russo to doing a script, and Ramis eventually was brought in to do a film made with cheaper budgeting than usual for director and stars for Focus Features (who greenlighted it after six weeks for $14 million). There were a few differences made from novel to screen, such as the time (originally 1979) and the dynamic between Cusack and Platt's character (which went from brother-in-laws to friends who each were married to the same person).

So yes, there is that magic word that goes for this film. It should be better, honestly. Namely, it should be funnier, but if that option seems a bit locked out, then one should hope for a darker movie instead. This was the only film Ramis did that resembled a film noir, and it sure is a shame to see those results play out here. Simply put, it is a shaggy dog noir that seems to parade itself for 89 minutes with pacing equivalent to a fish in a tiny glass bowl. Dissapointment has never tasted so cold, particularly because one should know better when it comes to making an interesting experience with a cast like this. The performances are here and there, fleeting in those moments of actual, meaningful, useful, time to highlight. Cusack does fine in digging through the molasses, one who mixes smarm with dogged hope in the face of seedier folks around him. In other words, he comes off fine being the most likable one of the group. Thornton comes and goes with a lead heart towards scuzziness that seems to merit more interest, as if somehow he seems more interesting to see in the seen/unseen aspects of below-the-belt demeanor. Nielsen is okay, but one doesn't really seem grabbed by her as any sort of fatale presence, where one feels that they are instead waiting for the train to come in instead, as if vacancy is the one thing needed in a quasi-noir. Platt turns out to have the most presence in the film (obvious when playing a drunk), but while he is amusing in parts, one tunes him out gradually in the same way they might do if having to see an intoxicated fellow around them for nearly an hour. Of course there is Quaid, who in theory could have an interesting performance in booming presence....he doesn't show up until the last twenty minutes, and one wishes for something more from seeing him in one room and just that. Starr and Bellamy do fine in those small parts of amusement (with the former relegated to mostly voice duty, such as a bit when trapped in a box), so there is that for a positive, in the sense that mediocrity doesn't strike in every aspect of the movie. As a whole, it is an okay movie that should know better, one that seems vacant in either comic or dark aspirations, a movie that will come and go for 89 minutes with the bare minimum in shaggy dog ambition that is more bland than bleak to really be interesting to talk about beyond just the simple word of "should" to describe it. In other words, it should be more interesting, it should have a better pace, it should be anything else than it ultimately turns out to be, and it should be recommended for those who have an average streak with talented folks that should do better.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Monster's Ball.

Review #1530: Monster's Ball.

Cast: 
Billy Bob Thornton (Hank Grotowski), Halle Berry (Leticia Musgrove), Heath Ledger (Sonny Grotowski), Peter Boyle (Buck Grotowski), Coronji Calhoun (Tyrell Musgrove), Sean Combs (Lawrence Musgrove), Mos Def (Ryrus Cooper), Charles Cowan Jr. (Willie Cooper), and Taylor LaGrange (Darryl Cooper) Directed by Marc Forster (#384 - Quantum of Solace, #542 - World War Z, and #883 - The Kite Runner)

Review: 
"She came in and said ‘I know you guys don’t want me in this movie. You think I’m just a big pretty face, but I want this part.’ And she proved everybody wrong who thought that maybe she couldn’t do it.”

It can be a wonderous thing for a film to come together if the parts all sum themselves together to one good whole. The genesis for this film came from actors-turned-writers Milo Addica and Will Rokos. The two had written a draft by 1996, with the intent of finding interest from people they knew in the business while also angling for a small part themselves. The following five years was a parade of studio and writer struggles - while it attracted various stars in interest such as Sean Penn, it was mired in development over potentially lightening the script (including having one of the characters live rather than die) while the writing partnership between Addica and Rokos ended due to creative differences. Despite this, the film eventually came along with Lionsgate Films that had Lee Daniels (formerly a casting director and manager) as first-time producer. This was the third career work of Forster, raised in West Germany and Switzerland before deciding to do his studies in film with New York and its state university. Loungers (1995) was done on a cheap budget at the age of 26, but it was Everything Put Together (2000) that received attention from festivals and Daniels that helped Forster get his break.

"Monster's Ball" apparently refers to an old English term about a condemned man's old meal and his last night before execution in which his jailers threw him a "ball". But titles aren't everything in a movie, particularly when it comes to a film about desperate people and the bond that they share with each other despite all the odds, whether that means a cycle of violence or something else lurking deep in the surface. It is a dreary movie filled with people that nevertheless live in their surroundings with spoken and unspoken pain that does well with small-scale settings for raw intimacy that very much seems like it came from a novel of tragedy. It won't exactly hit all of the high points with emotional depth for everyone, and it may very well push itself to the limit at 111 minutes, but I generally liked what I saw in how it sticks to uncompromising melodrama with a fairly dynamite cast to go alongside it. Thornton leads the film quite well, weary and involving in a progression that hints at some form of redemption without necessarily becoming a caricature, instead finding himself wrapped between regret and moving on from it. Berry proves just as capable in delivering range of vulnerability and raw energy that makes for a great performance, one that invites a pondering of the soul in terms of what it means to be compelled to feel again, or to just feel something more than what has been felt before. Ledger doesn't have too many scenes, but he does make the most of it with tenderness that make a striking punch with Thornton, which make for a neatly wrapped ball of anguish. Boyle provides venomous conviction with his moments on-screen that work to where the film needs to go with a wince for what we don't see. What we have here is an executioner's song of nuance and hard-grained efficiency that touches upon what it means to lose someone and find something to reach upon without becoming infused with sentiment or movie hokum. This is especially true with the ending, which closes some of its loose ends while weaving an end for the audience to interpret for themselves in its true meaning. As an accomplishment for independent filmmaking, this is a stark film that one can't go wrong on if one is in the mindset for what it aspires to show in drama, complete with a well-picked cast to make things happen with honesty.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Bad Santa.

Review #1030: Bad Santa.

Cast: 
Billy Bob Thornton (Willie T. Soke), Tony Cox (Marcus Skidmore), Lauren Graham (Sue), Brett Kelly (Thurman Merman), Lauren Tom (Lois Skidmore), John Ritter (Bob Chipeska), Bernie Mac (Gin Slagel), Cloris Leachman (Granny), and Octavia Spencer (Opal) Directed by Terry Zwigoff.

Review: 
Admittedly, this is a movie that is not for everyone, but then again how many Christmas films need to be cheerful? This is a movie that basks itself in being cheerful in its rudeness and cynicism, and it sure does a fine job at keeping itself together with laughs. Thornton does a pretty good job in the main role, having a crude kind of soul with this character that keeps itself consistent with the film while never springing towards any kind of force sentimentality. He reflects the movie pretty well in that if you like his performance (or get some sort of kick out of it), you'll probably find the movie pretty enjoyable as a black comedy. The film's tone may seem like a novelty for some, but it definitely has a good share of amusing moments along with some fairly amusing performances. Cox proves to be a fairly entertaining partner as well, being fairly sharp. Kelly proves to be a fairly amusing kid, with a degree of intensity that you don't really see in other movies with kids in films like these. There is just something about how he acts around Thornton that makes for some particularly good scenes. Graham and Tom each don't have too much time on screen, but they do decent jobs. Ritter (in his last live-action role) does a fine job with what it given, staid but useful. Mac is also pretty amusing in an adversarial role that serves for a few odd moments that work well. This is a film with a bunch of oddballs for characters, and it is a movie that takes the risks head on and has a ball with all of its rude but amusing moments. Naturally, there exist numerous versions of the film, with one called "Badder Santa", which has a few more scenes added to it (for a movie that was already only 91 minutes long), and a director's cut that is three minutes shorter than the original release. No matter which version one picks, I'm sure that the film will work for anybody in the mood for some dark but fairly entertaining fare, whether around the holidays or not.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Puss in Boots.

Review #213: Puss in Boots.

Cast
Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Zach Galifianakis (Humpty Alexander Dumpty), Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris (Jack and Jill), Constance Marie (Imelda), Guillermo del Toro (Comandante, Moustache Man), and Mike Mitchell (Andy "Jack" Beanstalk) Directed by Chris Miller (#163 - Shrek the Third)

Review
This film is a spin-off of the Shrek franchise, and it works well enough to not have to depend on it for guidance. The acting is good, with Banderas stealing the show. The film has some good action and while not being entirely different from other animated films, it has enough charm in visuals and gold old action with some fun to win out in the end. It's good stuff for cat lovers as well (I couldn't resist saying that).

To the 97 people who have read this review: How did this review attract you, and how has this managed to be the highest rated one ever?

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.