Redux: Hudson Hawk.

Redux Review #307: Hudson Hawk.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Eddie "Hudson Hawk" Hawkins), Danny Aiello (Tommy "Five-Tone" Messina), Andie MacDowell (Anna Baragli), Richard E. Grant (Darwin Mayflower), Sandra Bernhard (Minerva Mayflower), Donald Burton (Alfred), Don Harvey ("Snickers"), David Caruso ("Kit Kat"), Andrew Bryniarski ("Butterfinger"), Lorraine Toussaint ("Almond Joy"), Frank Stallone (Cesar Mario), Carmine Zozzora (Antony Mario), James Coburn (George Kaplan), Doug Martin (Igg), and Steven M. Martin (Ook) Directed by Michael Lehmann.

Review: 

“It has very intellectual hip humor in it; it has very sophomoric broad slapstick comedy; it has elements of a road picture; it has more romance than any film that I have ever done; it has action; it has big stunts; it has a very dark sensibility… It’s a film that needs to be experienced more than explained…”  - Bruce Willis

A partial reading from my review on December 15, 2012: 

I almost forgot to mention the acting performances, which range from deliberately silly to deliberately over the top (possibly another word for silly), yet again resembling a Batman episode. You might think that it is a bit dumb to criticize this film for its surreal humor (I sure hope so, as for all I know it was meant to be serious, but they did this on purpose) with cartoonish slapstick. However, my reasoning is that it fails in some of those respects. It's mind-numbingly silly, it isn't entirely useful, and it (somewhat) does the crime of not being that funny.  But hey, what do I know.

Really, I could be saying the first few years of watching movies to "talk" about took a while to match my expectations of actually having fun with writing, which, well, eventually went beyond just watching whatever's on the shelf. But there must've been something curious that made my dad get this film on his shelf, because it lurked there for years and years. Most curiously, this was a movie that wasn't a hit with audiences of the time (particularly in America) despite being right in the apex of the career of Willis as a bonafide star. For all the time I remember watching Willis movies, I still have to remember that big steppingstone was winning an audition to star in Moonlighting (1985-1989) opposite Cybill Shepherd that even had him do music numbers on occasion. 

The genesis of the film came from the friendship of Willis and composer Robert Kraft, who were so interested in "The Hudson Hawk" that they even had come up with a song. Willis described it prior to release as "about greed and money in the `90s, with elements of a Bob Hope-Bing Crosby road picture. It`s a comedy with broad slapstick and moronic wit, and it has huge action beats.” Of course, for the screenplay credit, one sees the names of Steven E. de Souza and Daniel Waters (the former had co-written the first two Die Hard films while the latter had written Heathers, which had been directed by Lehmann), although there were plenty of re-writes to go around If one wants an actual detail of the production and its foibles, Richard E. Grant dedicated an entire chapter of his autobiography to it. It is pretty amusing to note to cover Oscar and Hudson Hawk in the same month, because both movies involved action stars trying to do comedy that were not well received and both movies were released a month apart from each other in 1991. And hey, what do you know, count me as a defender of Hudson Hawk, the younger version of myself was an idiot. Of course, one could take the word of one of its stars in Grant when it comes to assessing it as a "stinking pile of steaming hot donkey droppings". But the blend of cartoon sound effects and other various ideas in playing around as a "surreal comedy" is one that takes a while to really appreciate, and I'm surprised that it took me this long to really come around on it. I suppose audiences could accept a little bit of humor when it came to previous Willis works such as Die Hard as quips but they could just not go with a goofy movie that has candy bar names for secret agents to go with heists conducted by songs. Willis and Aiello clearly seem to be having some sort of fun with their back-and-forths, particularly when in song. Apparently both actors tried to get involved in the production (Willis as a producer and Aiello in trying to change the climax), which is amusing. MacDowell (cast at the last minute when Maruschka Detmers got hurt) doesn't have the easiest task and she probably does get swept away in the long run when it comes to middling chemistry with Willis and maybe one amusing scene in which she play acts as a dolphin. Besides, Bernhard acts circles around her in terms of delusional manic energy that proves that Lehmann really had an idea in mind to pair her with Grant in chaotic lunacy (regardless of how the film went, apparently Bernhard and Grant became good friends due to this film) that believes that things like history are trophies to hold in the den. It's funny that a film envisioned as an "anti-James Bond" features Coburn, star of the 60s Bond parody Our Man Flint (1966). He pops in and out for a few scenes of sell out villainy that he sells pretty well to go with a litany of goons in Harvey-Toussiant-Bryniarski (Caruso is also there, giving out note cards) that are goofy enough. In 

The 100-minute runtime is a bit fast-and-loose with its plot construction, with the climax being the flakiest (although it has one amusing idea when it comes to a fake-out that basically is "yeah, sure"). This is a film where its climax involves the last perceived enemy of our hero is blasted out of a window with a tennis ball launcher. It is funny that the movie basically flopped on the same level of Ishtar (1987) in terms of turbulent productions that precluded a litany of rough reviews. But Hudson Hawk has a far more likable duo and an actual aim in madcap stupidity, particularly since it is far more interesting than Lehmann's previous collaboration with Waters in Heathers. Of course, it was marketed as an action film rather than a show of, well, overacting. In the line of Willis movies that came and went in his career, Hudson Hawk was a curious one that maybe was a bit ripe to pick on in over-management but really is something that should be checked out for its idle curiosities in a real "thrown-on-the-wall" caper that might be worth your pleasure. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: ?

Redux: Die Hard.

Redux Review #014: Die Hard.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (John McClane), Alan Rickman (Hans Gruber), Alexander Godunov (Karl), Bonnie Bedelia (Holly Gennaro-McClane), Reginald VelJohnson (Al Powell), Paul Gleason (Dwayne T. Robinson), De'voreaux White (Argyle), William Atherton (Richard Thornburg), Clarence Gilyard (Theo), Hart Bochner (Harry Ellis), and James Shigeta (Joseph Takagi) Directed by John McTiernan.

Review: 

From my review on December 22, 2010: 

This film brings exuberant joy and all the fun and bang in a 2-hour action packed film set on Christmas Eve. The acting is alright considering this an action film an all, with fine action and some decent suspense. Willis is the standout with a decent performance that would jump-start his career. This film would begin a franchise, which I will attempt to cover soon.

It's one of the best action films ever made. How much is there to say about Die Hard in the 35 years that have passed since its release? How many times can one watch the film and find new ways and things to examine? Well, you would be surprised. I actually can't believe I only thought the film was just a 9/10 as a teenager, particularly since it was one of those films that endure in the memory for quite some time. Probably one thing that didn't come to mind the first time I saw it is that it was actually based on a 1979 novel called Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp (a writer who also dabbled in a detective agency in his youth). The author had written the book as a follow-up to his previous procedural novel in The Detective, with this being inspired by a dream he had about men chasing each other through a building...after he had saw the 1974 film The Towering Inferno. I'm sure you can see those similarities and differences pop up: an aging ex-NYPD detective is being chased by terrorists (led by a man named "Tony the Red" Gruber) and tries to save his daughter (a Ms. Gennaro) through stunts such as crawling through ducts while LAPD cops can only listen to him on the radio (the book is told all in POV of the detective). Jeb Stuart was tasked to write a screenplay with that in mind (as proposed to him by Lloyd Levin, who had been trying to get development done for it at 20th Century Fox), which would be pitched as "Rambo in a building". Of course, for Stuart, the real big thing to making it a useful screenplay was as he put it, "about a thirty-year-old who should have said he’s sorry to his wife and something really bad happens.” Written with undertones of thriller and the Western genres, Fox went right in with this for a target of Summer 1988, although Steven E. de Souza was tasked with doing a few re-writes as an experienced writer of blending action and comedy. de Souza (a Philadelphia native) went from story editing in television to producing TV to film writing with stuff such as Arnold's Wrecking Co. (1973), 48 Hrs. (1982), and Commando (1985). Lawrence Gordon and Joel Silver produced the film and had such a good time with John McTiernan when he did Predator (1987) for them that he was brought in to direct this film, provided that he put "some joy in it". It was the third theatrical film for the director and a hit that he returned to for the third film of what became a franchise: Die Hard 2 (1990), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Live Free or Die Hard (2007), and A Good Day to Die Hard (2013).

Everywhere you look and listen with this film is a success on every level, particularly for its genre. 132 minutes never has seemed so swift for a fun thriller that is so crisp in its execution that it could be watched on any day of the year. You could just make a list of people to give credit for it being a success that would seem like a laundry list that goes from McTiernan to the cinematographer in Jan de Bont (himself a future action director) to music cues from Michael Kamen (who initially resisted the idea of McTiernan to have Beethoven's Symphony No. 9) to Stuart & de Souza to a well-rounded cast from top to bottom that grows upon every viewing. Willis (born in West Germany but raised in New Jersey) had exactly two film credits: Blind Date (1987) and Sunset (1988) to go with his most prominent role as an actor at that time in the TV show Moonlighting, which had run from 1985 to early 1989 (the production of the film and the last episodes of the show were an ordeal to film back-to-back for Willis, obviously). The laundry list of people who rejected the lead role before Willis could make its own comedy: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Burt Reynolds, Al Pacino, etc, etc. Willis is basically playing a Western hero that would be right at home for those who like High Noon (1952), complete with that interesting sense of vulnerability that comes through in all of the obscenities and observations. He does kick ass, but he is also one man left to dig out of the mud, and this makes for a compelling action thriller. If it was only him, the film would be pretty good, but having Rickman there to counter Willis with his composed nature of cutting charm and style is the best thing imaginable. He was a Tony Award-nominated actor in his forties that had to get over his doubts of having this serve as his debut into film. Can you think of a better background to go with a film debut like this? I sure can't think of many. He walks through the film with such sharp timing and dress sense (standing out from the others, which includes a former ballet dancer-turned-actor in Godunov) that can even make a solid attempt at an American accent. The highlight scene is a tough one to nail down, because he maneuvers the thriller angle with no sense of drying away from what could've just been nailed-down cliches from lesser actors so well. I think the scene where he is listing "demands" involving freeing a bunch of prisoners as if he was reading them off a magazine that he happened to glance at is probably him at his peak in terms of commanding presence and illusion without turning it into just a routine. Sure, there are plenty of action films to enjoy when it comes to the routines of slam-bang things or choice phrases, but one cherishes those character-driven ones so much more when you really do care about how it all goes down in stakes and in execution. With such time spent to praise Willis and Rickman, it might be easy to say they dominate over the other cast members. But they prove just as special in support when it comes to that specific nature of balance with Willis (and because of the nature of filming and in general when it comes to the rewrites). VelJohnson and Gleason make watching the terror down below matter in perspective when it comes to doubts and fears. One needs those vocal interactions between VelJohnson and Willis to accentuate the struggle that comes in "one vs. the world" to make it all matter just as much as seeing Bedelia react to the dread building around her or a blowhard in relief with the immeasurable Gleason and Atherton. Simply put: you might be able to assemble an entertaining film of some kind even if you split the cast in two. Like an inferno, it burns to a fever pitch that can't be extinguished easily or copied so easily. The irony of a pitch of "Rambo in a building" for this film is that its success would see other films being likened as "Die Hard on a [X]" when it came to an everyman dealing with terror on say, a bus or a battleship. In the end, this is a wonderful film for the season of anytime because it is timeless and effective on every level required, from its lead actors to its director to its sense of scale and sense of timing that makes you remember why you find the need to go back to it every now and then as you would expect from a classic.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Red (2010).

Review #1824: Red.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Frank Moses), Morgan Freeman (Joe Matheson), John Malkovich (Marvin Boggs), Helen Mirren (Victoria Winslow), Karl Urban (William Cooper), Mary-Louise Parker (Sarah Ross), Rebecca Pidgeon (Cynthia Wilkes), Brian Cox (Ivan Simanov), Richard Dreyfuss (Alexander Dunning), Julian McMahon (Vice President Robert Stanton), Ernest Borgnine (Henry, the records keeper), and James Remar (Gabriel Singer) Directed by Robert Schwentke. 

Review: 

Red (standing for Retired: Extremely Dangerous), if you didn't know, was originally a comic miniseries (or as the film credits put it, a graphic novel), done by writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner that was published from 2003-04 by Homage Comics (a subdivision of comic imprint Wildstorm, which in term was a publishing imprint of DC Comics until its shutdown in 2010). So technically speaking, one is dealing with a comic book movie, although it apparently is lighter in tone (as scripted by Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber) than the actual comic, judging by the cursory glance at the plot (Ellis once stated that while the script wasn't exactly the book, he felt it wasn't a bad script, noting the tight casting). This happened to be released in the same year of The Expendables, which also recruited a bunch of familiar names for an action film with a few select quips (which incidentally had Willis in a cameo). This was the fifth feature film for its director in Schwentke, a West German graduate of Columbia College Hollywood.

You get what you pay for when it comes to recognizable names maneuvering their way through an ensemble designed to draw smiles without too many story beats to count on (in other words, smiling at Borgnine is more interesting than the climax reveal). By this point in his career, Willis was 45. In the decade of the 2010s, he would do a variety of action appearances...alongside plenty of direct-to-video work ("on demand", specifically). It probably isn't a surprise that Willis was the prime actor in mind when it came to casting, since his sly charm is suitable for what is needed here in the small parts before the action pastiche moments come around, which turn out fine (modern movies have certain aims and limits, remember). Freeman doesn't exactly have much to really do here, seemingly overshadowed by the eccentrics like Malkovich with calmness that only works to a certain extent, likely because the film pulls a fake-out involving the character being "dead" for a time. Malkovich makes for a paranoid ham for some splendid amusing moments, which work out for the best without turning into a drudge. Urban lumbers through as the foil for most of the film which works out for engaging action moments. Parker seems bemused just to be there, contributing a few chuckles while having a quirky chemistry with Willis that at the very least doesn't become consumed in all the cliches needed. Mirren seems pleased to be there with graceful engagement that works when finally presented as the last piece of the ensemble for useful effect. One could only hope for further time with Dreyfuss, who has exactly two scenes with a bit that seems honed right in with cliches from the 1980s that is lost in the shuffle. Granted, the movie is going for a light touch when it comes to story, but still. One knows Cox is putting on an accent, but he seems firmly game to make the bit count, which works pretty well for those small moments with Mirren. 

The 111-minute run-time is fairly serviceable, in that the film manages to have enough action set-pieces to go along with occasional chuckles without slowing to a halt too many times, although the climax does nearly slug itself out with abrupt set-ups to nearly derail it. Honestly, the movie is fine. Granted, it might not exactly win many favors as an action spectacle, but it is at the least something that proves suitable for enjoyment with fair style and sly charm. Technically speaking, this is a cast that might have been really, really captivating a couple of years ago, if only to note the names that come together to (put it lightly) "kick ass". It moves through the cheesy aspects with an awareness that it is meant to be that way, not trying to take itself too seriously, which results in a decent movie with only a few surprises but a suitable ensemble film. It could have been better with the number of names involved, but the fact that it slugs through the finish line without many stilted bumps in terms of action sequencing and light touches means that it will prove worthy of your time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Review #1702: G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Cast: 

Dwayne Johnson (Marvin F. Hinton / Roadblock), Bruce Willis (General Joe Colton), Channing Tatum (Conrad S. Hauser / Duke), Jonathan Pryce (Zartan / President of the United States), Byung-hun Lee (Thomas Arashikage / Storm Shadow), Ray Park (Snake Eyes), Elodie Yung (Kim Arashikage / Jinx), Ray Stevenson (Firefly), D.J. Cotrona (Dashiell R. Faireborn / Flint), Adrianne Palicki (Jaye Burnett / Lady Jaye), Luke Bracey (Rexford G. 'Rex' Lewis / Cobra Commander; Robert Baker as voice), Walton Goggins (Warden Nigel James), Arnold Vosloo (Zartan), and Joseph Mazzello (Morris L. Sanderson / Mouse) Directed by Jon M. Chu.

Review: 

Do you remember G.I. Joe? All power to you then, because it has been essentially nine years since I last thought about it. G.I. Joe is a series of doll-I mean action figures that Hasbro began production on in 1964. There had been comics involving G.Is for decades, but Hasbro eventually came up with their own attempts at comics, with the most notable being a G.I. Joe series with Marvel Comics in the 1980s; an animated series also ran during that time that promoted the toy line and had its own film (which went from plans for a theatrical release to television after the failure of The Transformers: The Movie). At any rate, it should only make sense that a Hasbro property like this would eventually be turned into a live-action feature, seeing how Transformers (2007) turned out so "well". Five writers later, G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra (2009) came out to box office success amid ridicule from anybody looking for a good one to make fun of. I remember being twelve years old and seeing this movie in theaters only because I got a gift card to the movie theater as a present around that time,; I've probably seen that movie once or twice ever since, and its qualities haven't exactly improved since then. You don't really need me to tell you in a long spiel that it was a dumb movie, one catered to the tastes of script-logic akin to Transformers that had plenty of clunky moments.

So yeah, a sequel was warranted, and I guess it only makes some sort of arcane sense to get a director best known for dance movies to direct. The sequel was meant to be released in 2012, but Paramount Pictures (who in their odd wisdom wanted to do a reboot but not a reboot) shifted its release five weeks before its intended release because they wanted to convert the film to be shown in 3-D (because they wanted to make more money with a fad-I mean a great process for experiencing movies). Despite all of the hubbub, it was essentially just as successful as the original feature was (i.e. making back twice its budget). Eight years later, here we are talking about the release of a new G.I. Joe film...an origins story, which is amusing to think about (because hey, Transformers did it, so...). Anyway, this feature film was written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who were best known for their work on Zombieland (2009). You would think that making an ensemble cast movie series would mean that there is a bit of cast continuity between features...well, try again. Five cast members (Lee, Park, Pryce, Vosloo, Tatum) return from the previous film, and only two of them has a substantial speaking role as a hero (Park plays a mostly quiet ninja commando, but still). For a run-time of 110 minutes, this is a film that does the bare minimum in every department and flails slightly less than its predecessor in the art of balancing spectacle and the little thing they call "substance". Some movies can get away with being a fun time without having the greatest plot (like Commando, for example), but this is not one of those movies. There are not many sequels that are better than the first one that are also quite forgettable, but this sure is one of them. It is just a middling movie, one that fundamentally has no one great (or terrible) sequence to think about, because there are just a bunch of "eh" scenes with a plot that kind of floats around with a cast that doesn't have much footing to go around besides a few attempts at humor. Johnson surely seems like the kind of presence one would see coming to try and invigorate interest in a film, particularly since action seems to be right up his alley. While I can't say his performance is exactly anything good, he at least seems game for a movie with plastic ambitions at action with fairly solid composure; somehow, the filmmakers had the bright idea to kill off the lead guy of their first film with Tatum, and he looks about as interested as waiting for soup to cool off. Honestly, I can't tell which actor seems more in it for the money, Willis or Pryce (one gets to play the President and the other doesn't have to show up for almost a hour), and it is almost amusing to see them see them try to make these lines seem anything other than lines spoken by committee. I guess Lee does well here, in that he gets to a bit of swordplay and not have to wear a mask the whole time (as opposed to Park). The other members of the ensemble don't fare too well, seeming about as interested in talking action spiel as one would be interested in talking about the dynamics of why baseball is the greatest sport to follow to a bunch of Yankees fans. As a whole, what we have is a bland movie that goes boom a few times but never really goes farther than "do something!" in terms of maneuvering an interesting plot or characters beyond cliché. If one needs some sort of action fix in the modern era or need to waste time with people who should know better, at least make sure you check the whole totem pole of options before thinking about this one.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

A Good Day to Die Hard.

Review #1609: A Good Day to Die Hard.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (John McClane), Jai Courtney (John "Jack" McClane, Jr), Sebastian Koch (Yuri Komarov), Yulia Snigir (Irina Komarov), Radivoje Bukvic (Alik), Sergei Kolesnikov (Viktor Chagarin), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Lucy McClane), Cole Hauser (Mike Collins), Aldis Hodge (Lt. Foxy), and Amaury Nolasco (Murphy) Directed by John Moore.

Review: 
"I have a warm spot in my heart for Die Hard...It’s just the sheer novelty of being able to play the same character over 25 years and still be asked back is fun. It’s much more challenging to have to do a film again and try to compete with myself, which is what I do in Die Hard. I try to improve my work every time. I get to do different things and look differently, and it’s still accepted, and people come out. It’s just an amazing thing.”

Sometimes one should just start with something cordial before the storm hits. After all, this is the fifth and presumably last installment in the Die Hard franchise, one that has had such irregularity with its sequels that followed since the original icon that came out in 1988 (a great action film and Christmas movie). Granted, I didn't hate any of the sequels, but I certainly grew up with enough viewings of the first three to see how much charisma and action can be carried with Bruce Willis as a star. Live Free or Die Hard (2007) is probably the one I've seen the least amount of times (one), but that didn't mean it was bad or anything, it's just a byproduct of not going around to watch modern films more than once (unless I really want to). So, here we are, with an R-rated Die Hard film again, and it happens to be the only one that is an entirely original work (the first two were loosely based on books, the third was an unused script and the fourth was a Wired article and a separate script) that was written by Skip Woods, writer of films such as Swordfish (2001) and The A-Team (2010). One working title was apparently "Die Hard 24/7", which I can only imagine would have been just as silly in whatever it would have to do in 24/7 mayhem (or a crossover with some number-related TV show that I've never seen). The director for this film is Irish director John Moore, a graduate of Dublin Institute of Technology that made his own short films and commercials alongside work for the camera before being brought in to direct for 20th Century Fox with Behind Enemy Lines (2001), with this being the fifth and last film Moore has made for the studio.

One knows they are in for some trouble when they realize it is only 97 minutes long. Every one of the previous films was two hours long, and that is likely because those actually seemed to have a useful structure built in that made for useful entertainment without being just a vehicle for action and cardboard. Besides, those films generally had a set-up of a man caught in the middle of violent crisis that is usually one's only hope, whether that involves terrorists on a building, planes stalling, robbing the Federal Reserve, or cyberterrorism. Now, we have a film that takes its cue from the last film in making it a family affair, now set mostly in Russia (or rather Hungary with location shooting) that finds itself involving McClane in a plot with the CIA and secret files involving Chernobyl, and hues of blues and oranges that will make one blur their eyes in agony. The film that comes from it isn't too much better, as it is the worst of the five Die Hard films without any doubt, committing the clearest sin imaginable: being just a bland action movie. Its attempt at blurring the lines with who its villain is alongside a middling father-son act mean that we have a muddy movie, one that might as well be turned into one of those "choose your own adventure" books or video games, being the equivalent of a three-day old cheeseburger with flat soda. One won't hate what they see play out on screen because they will probably be bored stiff by it instead. At the time of the release of this film, Willis was the same age as another icon at the end of his tenure in Roger Moore for A View to a Kill (1985). Strangely enough, I don't see this film receiving any sort of lingering campy sentimental push like that film has. Willis isn't quite at the point where he seems a bit too old to still be an action star, but he sure doesn't seem like he is having much to do here, doing a few quips that have the hitting power of one going through the motions. Courtney isn't too much better either, since one doesn't really feel (or care) about their bond as father and son and therefore just sees an action film that gives them a gruff attitude and not much else. Koch joins them for a time as the target of interest that has a resolution that is meant to be a surprise but is instead a yawning sigh. Snigir isn't too much better, because there really is nothing here to grab on to in scenery or with drama - so one can't find much to point and laugh with in bland popcorn. By the time the climax happens, I'm just trying to make sure my eyes don't strain from how murky it looks (no, cheating by simply turning the brightness all the way up won't help), and I can't imagine how a sixth film would have looked, honestly. Look, if you want to see things explode or people jumping through windows, you will likely find it done in better films, and they might seem less murky in enjoyment and/or the laws of physics. Truly, it should have ended after four films (or three). It comes, it goes, it bores, it snores, it stinks. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Looper.

Review #1563: Looper.

Cast:

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Joe), Bruce Willis (Old Joe), Emily Blunt (Sara), Paul Dano (Seth), Noah Segan (Kid Blue), Piper Perabo (Suzie), Jeff Daniels (Abe), Pierce Gagnon (Cid), Summer Qing (Joe's Wife), and Tracie Thoms (Beatrix) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi and #1306 - Knives Out)

Review:

"For Looper, I very much wanted it to be a more character-based movie that is more about how these characters dealt with the situation time travel has brought about. So the biggest challenge was figuring out how to not spend the whole movie explaining the rules and figure out how to put it out there in a way that made sense on some intuitive level for the audience; then get past it and deal with the real meat of the story."

As long as there is a good story somewhere in the margins and people involved enough to keep it useful for entertainment or notice to keep attention, you can't go wrong. Born in Maryland but raised primarily in California, Rian Johnson had an developed an interest in film from a young age (noting inspirations such as Martin Scorsese and Annie Hall), graduating from the University of Southern California and its School of Cinematic Arts in 1996 (his first film was a short called Evil Demon Golf Ball From Hell!!!, a low-budget psychological thriller inspired by The Tell-Tale Heart). He would spend years developing and pitching what eventually turned out to be his first feature film in Brick (2005), which proved successful on a budget of less than $500,000. He has continued to keep himself invested in doing distinct movie as director and writer that tell stories in familiar genres that utilize the expectation of the audience at part of the storytelling, which have resulted in five feature films alongside work in television such as Breaking Bad that have been met with fair success.

What, a time travel movie that relies on character-based drama and not so much on time travel as a whole from the 2010s? Granted, Safety Not Guaranteed is a dubious film to compare this to, but the easiest thing that can be said about Looper is that it is an entertaining movie that maintains consistency and entertainment with dutiful direction and cast without shambling into cliché. It certainly seems familiar to those who who have seen the films that proved an inspiration to this feature that ranged from The Terminator (1984) to Witness (1985) to Akira (1988). It loops itself together with enough suitable enjoyment for where the story could unfold next that comes from making a living killing others from a time you have yet to see and then your future ends right by your own hand. It makes a suitable movie about the future and what can come from decisions made or ones that have yet to be made with interesting atmosphere that treats its sci-fi aspects equally with its drama that makes the challenge more about seeing two actors play the same person and how they play off with themselves and others. Gordon-Levitt (wearing make-up to more closely resemble Willis) does a pretty good job here, wry and efficient that comes off with similarity to a youthful Willis without becoming mere imitation, which goes well in tension with Blunt. Willis is given the task of doing his part to play without as much dialogue in general, but he does fairly well regardless, showing the anguish and efficiency that comes from a lifetime that required the latter but didn't see the former coming, and the diner scene where they confront each other (involving a clever way to get around detailing how time travel works without needing exposition) is the best scene with the two in general that lends an edge to the nature of what we're dealing with for a hunter/hunted kind of film. Blunt does well with her gradual role, showing conviction and care as the last key adult piece to the puzzle, going with Gagnon as an interesting family to see play out on screen that gravitates well to our attention from their first few moments on screen. Dano and the other supporting members (including a big-bearded Daniels) do well in lending out the layers of the world the film wants to show involving making a living through a hard and cheap life in the not-too distant future. On the whole what we have here is an intelligent film that rounds its bases with an interesting handle on human nature within time travel that utilizes its expectations from the audience into an engaging time with its own welcome surprises and efficient acting to make for an excellent time to go through 113 minutes with.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

16 Blocks.

Review #1542: 16 Blocks.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (Det. Jack Mosley), Mos Def (Edward "Eddie" Bunker), David Morse (Det. Frank Nugent), Jenna Stern (Diane Mosley), Casey Sander (Capt. Dan Gruber), Cylk Cozart (Det. Jimmy Mulvey), David Zayas (Det. Robert "Bobby" Torres), Robert Racki (Det. Jerry Shue), Patrick Garrow (Det. Touhey), and Sasha Roiz (Det. Kaller) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, #734 - Lethal Weapon 4, and #1452 - The Omen)

Review: 
"I think as filmmakers, we all kind of reflect who we are, what we stand for, how we treat the whole relationship of motion pictures. My wife is a really great producer, and she always says to me, when you’re making a movie, and you’re hiring the director, invariably, the director’s personality comes across on the screen."

Perhaps the saying that goes right with this film is that some old habits die hard, particularly when it comes to prominent actors or directors. This is the 20th feature film directed by Donner (and first since Timeline three years prior) and as of now is his last effort as director. This is the third writing effort of Richard Wenk (Vamp (1986) and Just the Ticket (1998), which he also directed) with the original intent of also taking on directing before Donner became interested in doing the film himself. What better pairing for an action thriller than usual favorite Willis, child-actor-turned-rapper Mos Def and Morse (best known for St. Elsewhere and various character roles)? Sure, why not a film about keeping time and focus on just a few characters. Of course the film has also been compared to Clint Eastwood's The Gauntlet (1977), which from a description I read about the film involved a weary cop trying to escort a witness (a prostitute, who he falls for) to survival while dealing with trouble from cops (hence a "gauntlet" of them). I don't know if that film has its own shuffling of clichés like this film does, but then again one wonders when they will get tired of cop movies like if the talent doesn't live up to standard. But there's a simple fact that remains when it comes to films in the 20th or 21st century: it may be familiar in the faces or some of its story beats, but I generally found this to be a decent experience, one that hits the right boxes with a charming enough main trio and enough competent moves to justify its 102 minutes despite being one of Donner's most average works.

One starts easily with Willis, who certainly has had quite a progression of curiosity and charisma since his days of Moonlighting and Die Hard in the 1980s. He eventually progressed to a version of the weary cop routine in Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995, a film that either ranks as the best sequel to the original or as the silliest) and other various roles that make for an interesting way to age as an actor, which when given focus can result in something interesting. In this sense, he seems to be having a good time in making a weary role like this work with conviction. He moves on the edge with burnout that nevertheless is easy to go along with without falling into disrepair. Def (who had a few supporting roles in films like Bamboozled (2000) and Monster's Ball (2001) alongside TV work) follows along with another cliché as the motormouth accomplice, but this works itself out in that Def actually proves himself quite well in making a rapport with Willis stick with care and honesty that make a few worthy barbs and other moments that help to sell a film about trying to make change in their life stick. Morse proves a worthy enough adversary (or at least one that follows the idea of a person that we can at least believe thinks they are right without dismissing it immediately) in carefully-planned menace that generally keeps things rolling in pursuit that sells himself well without having to ham things up or become an action cliché to be ignored. On the whole, the film moves along with a reasonable pace and handling of its characters with enjoyment and patience that tries to find itself out of the muck of the genres it is in alongside burst of sentiment and just ekes out safely with at least some basic satisfaction. For me, I thought it was a fine movie, wrapped in a degree of familiarity that will either make for an alright time or will just hamper it in mediocrity. Whatever works best is the way to go, I would say.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

12 Monkeys.

Review #1511: 12 Monkeys.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (James Cole), Madeleine Stowe (Kathryn Railly), Brad Pitt (Jeffrey Goines), Christopher Plummer (Dr. Leland Goines), David Morse (Dr. Peters), Jon Seda (Jose), Christopher Meloni (Lt. Halperin), Frank Gorshin (Dr. Fletcher), and Vernon Campbell (Tiny) Directed by Terry Gilliam (#1448 - Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Review: 
"I do want to say things in these films. I want audiences to come out with shards stuck in them. I don't care if people love my films or walk out, as long as they have a strong response."

When it comes to films that have a bit of magic realism with a particular style of imagination, Terry Gilliam is a good director to start with. He had first started with cartoons and animation, such as with Help! magazine (before it closed in 1965) before moving to Europe and eventually moving into work within television with Do Not Adjust Your Set (1968). He would do both animation and various parts for a show that would become famous in England beyond its run in television with Monty Python's Flying Circus. He would serve as the co-director with Terry Jones in his first feature with Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). He has done a fair mix of comedies, fantasies and adventures in his life, which has resulted in a share of success and clashes with meddling studio makers for films such as Time Bandits (1981), Brazil (1985), and The Fisher King (1991). This is the seventh of thirteen films by Gilliam, which is inspired by the 1962 short film La Jetee (directed and written by Chris Marker). That film told a story of time-travel experiment in a post-apocalyptic France, with travels into the past and future that was told as a still image film (except for one distinct moment) for 28 minutes. Executive producer Robert Kosberg pitched the idea of doing a film based on the short to Universal Pictures and this led to David and Janet Peoples being brought in to do the script while Gilliam was brought into the fold by Universal because of their belief in his style fitting what they needed here (with Gilliam liking the "disconcerting" story).

What we have here is a film about how nothing is ever like it seems, one that wants us ultimately to focus not on the past but instead to pay attention to what happens in the present, in all of its strange settings. With a world coming apart, one can see in this film both death and rebirth for a steady and dutiful 129 minute tale of morose but ultimately fruitful experience with a solid cast ready for the undertaking Gilliam requires in style and execution. The film jumps from time to time with a clear edge for distinguishing past from future with its use of various salvaged and acquired material that make for an unsettling future in creeping technology and even bleaker outlooks. In this sense, it should prove no wonder why Willis (in the midst of a prime career generally with action flicks) decided to do the film on a lower salary just to work with Gilliam and this role. He pulls wonders in the dreariest of requirements: a man lost in time with no future who has to discern what is and what isn't true. Willis weaves weariness and sensitivity with care to making the time go by with conviction and fine timing to fit what is needed without needing to do any tricks to the eye. Stowe follows along with rational care and a resoundingly shaky rapport with Willis that runs with pragmatic care. Pitt shows his resilience as the useful wild card in nervous rapid speech that goes with what is needed in a flickering state of chaotic agitation that makes for dazzling moments in and out of the looney bin. Plummer and Morse accompany the margins with mindful ease. In the end, what matters most is how much the narrative (which will be mostly fine to follow along with) resonates with the viewer in keeping interest with its eye on the present and future, where the pursuit isn't just the virus in front of you (or even shown to you) but instead on what it means to even have a future in the first place. Fear of the unknown can be a foreboding one, but it certainly beats knowing what is to come at all, with this working itself out in time as a carefully-cut curiosity to seek out for its beats in science fiction with a director suited for this particular story to make it right in logical rawness.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Pulp Fiction.

Review #1218: Pulp Fiction.

Cast: 
John Travolta (Vincent Vega), Samuel L. Jackson (Jules Winnfield), Uma Thurman (Mia Wallace), Harvey Keitel (Winston Wolfe), Tim Roth (Ringo/"Pumpkin"), Amanda Plummer (Yolanda/"Honey Bunny"), Maria de Medeiros (Fabienne), Ving Rhames (Marsellus Wallace), Eric Stoltz (Lance), Rosanna Arquette (Jody), Christopher Walken (Captain Koons), Bruce Willis (Butch Coolidge), Bronagh Gallagher (Trudi) Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, and #1180 - Reservoir Dogs)

Review: 
It isn't hard to say that this is a wonderful film. 25 years since its release, Pulp Fiction is a wonderful exercise in film-making and storytelling, managing to be entertaining from start to finish with the stories and characters weaved through the story work of Tarantino and Roger Avary. It has its share of violence and vulgarity, but it is a fun kind of movie that also has its share of humor and people that roll with what is going on that seem like it is culled from an older time without choking on its own homages and references. In an interview talking about inspiration for the idea in the film, Tarantino stated that these were "...ones you’ve seen a zillion times—the boxer who’s supposed to throw a fight and doesn’t, the Mob guy who’s supposed to take the boss’s wife out for the evening, the two hit men who come and kill these guys.” Tarantino knows where to go with his movie in part because of his love for them, knowing the best way to go isn't so much a straight line but a circle. This love is pretty apparent with the scene in the restaurant, having people dressed up as film stars and others and having plenty of posters around (such as Attack of the 50 Foot Woman). Travolta and Jackson shine brightest whenever on screen, eliciting plenty of interest and chuckles when in conversation, such as when talking about the way they survived as a sort of miracle or about Royales with cheese. Travolta in particular is wonderful, casual yet inviting - highlighted when he dances with Thurman, for example. Jackson isn't hard to forget, however, and it's the closing sequence involving him trying to make a way out of his current path and onto something else that makes the whole film complete, selling the whole exchange with Roth without hesitation. Thurman plays well with her gun moll type character, having plenty of spry charm with her time on screen. Keitel is efficient in his brief time on screen, controlling the room with intimidation that fits just right for his scene. Roth and Plummer are quite effective with their roles when needed. Rhames does quite well with his role, rough and compelling even when just shown with just the back of his head. Walken has one scene in the film, but he sure makes it one worth viewing, telling his story without fail. Willis plays a familiar character type with raw charm and effectiveness one would expect from him without having to say too much. With a run-time of 154 minutes, it never proves to be overlong or plodding in one story too much without purpose. Even when it makes references, it never feels like it is being done just because one could, and there's plenty of depth to go around. It is quite the accomplishment for a film made on a budget of $8 million and a quality cast to go with it. At the Academy Awards ceremony months after release, the film recieved plenty of nominations to go around, three of them for its leads alongside Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture. While the film lost in six of its categories (most notably losing to Forest Gump for the latter category), Tarantino and Avary received an Oscar for their screenplay, which is certainly well warranted by the film's result - a modern masterpiece for the ages. You could highlight at least five scenes to show someone how the film is and still wonder if you could add another to say how much fun it can be.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Glass (2019).

Review #1184: Glass.

Cast: 
James McAvoy (Kevin Wendell Crumb / The Horde), Bruce Willis (David Dunn / The Overseer), Samuel L. Jackson (Elijah Price / Mr. Glass), Sarah Paulson (Dr. Ellie Staple), Anya Taylor-Joy (Casey Cooke), Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn), Charlayne Woodard (Mrs. Price), Adam David Thompson (Daryl), and Luke Kirby (Pierce) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense, #902 - Split, and #1183 - Unbreakable)

Review: 
There is a certain absurdity to the fact that this film exists, acting as a sequel to two different movies while being the final part of a trilogy labeled by some as the "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" that are fairly different from each other in tone from film to film. Unbreakable (2000) was a mystery kind of thiller, Split (2016) was a horror thriller, and this film certainly feels like a psychological thriller. I suppose the tradition must follow that the last installment is the one that helps deliver satisfaction and/or answers to its audience that makes it stick out from the previous ones. Well, there are certainly answers given in this film...along with more questions. What can one expect from something that resembles One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) for comic books? It is the kind of movie that clearly has ambition to inspire discussion and interest over a variety of things (specifically within human nature) while trying to play with the expectations of the audience within the script, which ultimately plays into a flawed but interesting result. It definitely feels like the weakest of the three films, but I did find something worth watching, even if it perhaps took a bit longer than it should have, particularly with something that lasts 129 minutes. There are clear highlights on a technical level such as Mike Gioulakis and his cinematography (which certainly shows off a variety of colors) and West Dylan Thordson with the music, and Shyamalan does manage to make something worth inspiring curiosity in, even if he can't quite resist trying to trick the audience perhaps one too many times with twists.

In the long run, the film rests on the shoulders of McAvoy, who is the shining light among the others, managing to once again showcase the numerous personalities of the character he plays with effectiveness and no touch of tiresomeness. He inspires his share of terror and humor while keeping the movie rolling, and his scenes with Jackson or Willis are an enjoyment. If you thought that Willis was bit too subdued before with Unbreakable, then I suppose you will have quite the experience in seeing how subdued he is here, since he doesn't have as much presence (or lines) to speak of, although at least the climax does give him something to do. Jackson finds his footing and voice gradually, and it is interesting to see him to try and pull the strings as a take on the brilliant mastermind that works fairly well. The others don't have as much strength to their presence or as much interest. It is the character (and narrative) that Paulson plays that don't stir as much enthusiasm, since I am more interested to see her consequence for the idea that one can simply lock up super beings (the cliche of believing they can't escape is even present here) than what makes her tick. The returning three characters from the previous parts of the series are okay in the small amount of time they have. It is nice to see Clark return to reprise a role from nineteen years ago, but he doesn't really have too much to do before the last half. Taylor-Joy is fine, but the dynamic between her and McAvoy takes some time to get used to again, and the last scene is a bit of a weird sell. Woodard is alright in her small role. Honestly, this is an okay movie, but it is certainly one that require patience and some understanding to really help get a foothold on its thought process, one that likes to deconstruct the tropes of the hero and villain, which has its share of potential. It just so happens that the twists that occur within said narrative that make the true payoff a bit muddled but also one to give thought to. If one is expecting a big showdown for a climax, they won't get exactly what they may expect - but they may instead get something a bit more interesting if not offbeat. Time will tell what will occur to the reputation of this film as a whole - after all, the first film managed to develop a cult following over time. I can't say it is as consistent or as entertaining as the other two films, but this film does at least serve its purpose for a trilogy about super beings without serving as a letdown.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Unbreakable.

Review #1183: Unbreakable.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (David Dunn), Samuel L. Jackson (Elijah Price/Mr. Glass), Robin Wright (Audrey Dunn), Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn), Charlayne Woodard (Mrs. Price), Eamonn Walker (Dr. Mathison), Leslie Stefanson (Kelly), Michaelia Carroll (Babysitter), Whitney Sugarman (Physical Therapist), Bostin Christopher (Comic Book Clerk), Elizabeth Lawrence (School Nurse), and Chance Kelly (Orange Suit Man) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense and #902 - Split)

Review: 
What would the world be like if a super human suddenly existed? Unbreakable (the fourth film directed and written by Shyamalan) puts forth the possibilities of what could happen through its own take on the superhero origin story that has stood out in the years following its release. When it was released in November of 2000, films involving superheroes (with their respective origins) were not as vast as they are today, particularly one like this that takes itself seriously as a mystery thriller and make it work for the most part while having its parallels to the three-part structure of a comic book story.

Undeniably, it is the performances from Willis and Jackson that really dominate the film, whether when by themselves or when they act against each other. Willis delivers a subtle performance, being easy to follow along with his pursuit of meaning without needing to make a quip or feeling bland. On the other side of the coin, Jackson does well with his performance with a good degree of subdued nature that is interesting to watch. One particular favorite scene of mine involves him arguing with a customer wanting to buy a comic book drawing for his 4-year old son, as one can see his point (in some way) about being insulted at the idea that his collection is like a toy store in his delivery of said lines. Clark is certainly one to take time to get used to, but he does a fine job with acting opposite Willis as an on-screen son that drives the points for the film home handily. This can be applied to Wright as well, who shows off a human element for her parts on screen.

The movie doesn't rely on action to drive its point home, relying on music from James Newton Howard and cinematography by Eduardo Serra to carry a mood of suspense, with only one fight sequence occurring near the end, which is quiet but effective in its own way. Admittedly, the part that doesn't stand quite well as the other aspects of the film is the nature of the ending. I find that the twist is fairly clever and that it likely works just as well upon a re-watch, but it is the sudden nature of the ending (complete with a title card) that makes the execution feel a bit abrupt. The best thing that can be said is that at least the problem isn't that there needed to be a big grand climax to make this tale more interesting, since the movie works just fine without needing too many effects. With the entertainment that the film delivers, it is no wonder that the film eventually received a follow-up, although not certainly in the way one expected. Although the film was a moderate success that made back three times its $75 million budget, no direct sequels followed for over a decade. Sixteen years later, Split snuck into theaters as a psychological horror thriller through the eyes of a super-villain (who had a presence in early drafts for this film before being dropped) with a subtle connection to this film that eventually resulted in a sequel (and the third part of what is considered a trilogy) named Glass (2019). In any case, this is a rewarding movie with an interesting story and characters that is light on spectacle but filled with perspective on the human element for a superhero tale.

Next Review: Glass (2019).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Last Man Standing (1996).

Review #1091: Last Man Standing.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (John Smith), Bruce Dern (Sheriff Ed Galt), William Sanderson (Joe Monday), Christopher Walken (Hickey), David Patrick Kelly (Doyle), Karina Lombard (Felina), Ned Eisenberg (Fredo Strozzi), Michael Imperioli (Giorgio Carmonte), R. D. Call (Jack McCool), Alexandra Powers (Lucy Kolinski), Ken Jenkins (Capt. Tom Pickett), and Ted Markland (Deputy Bob) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs)

Review: 
The film is a remake of Yojimbo (1961), directed by Akira Kurosawa, with the screenplay done by Ryūzō Kikushima and Kurosawa. It featured Toshiro Mifune as a rōnin (a samurai with no master) that arrived in a town with competing crime lords vying for supremacy that was set in 1860 in Japan. An unofficial and unlicensed remake followed in 1964 with Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars, but Last Man Standing is an official remake that gives Kukushima and Kurosawa credit for the story, with Hill providing the screenplay. With all of that information, how does this movie manage to be a dreary failure? It certainly is consistent with its tone of dry entertainment, in that it has its share of brutal action sequences and a look from Lloyd Ahern II that will certainly test the eyes of how many times the color orange dominates the screens - for better or worse. Even comparing its style to the film noirs that it seems to emulate goes against the movie's favor, since it isn't as alluring as those. It isn't so much that this is a boring thing to watch, it's just that it is a disappointing thing to see play out, with one-note characters and an execution that likes to throw its situations all over the place but not have them be readily interesting. Willis delivers a performance that seems to match the film in that it shifts between mild grinning and stale wanderer type. He may seem best when doing action sequences, but he doesn't seem to feel too comfortable in making this character seem less than stale. Dern is fairly decent, although he doesn't have too much time on screen. It is nice to see Walken when he's on screen, but there is something about the character (whether due to him or the writing) that doesn't really make him as menacing as you'd probably expect, which makes the final showdown seem less interesting than it probably should've been. The other cast members come and go with their performances, for better or worse. That's not to say that the movie would've been better if it had comedy bits, but there is certainly something lacking in terms of excitement, where one can't really revel in its attempts at trying to be compelling. In its 101 minute run-time, this isn't a terribly long slog to go through, but even as a bad film it isn't fun to pick at, more of a thing to just look at and ponder in its mundane nature.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Whole Nine Yards.

Review #1074: The Whole Nine Yards.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (James "Jimmy The Tulip" Tudeski), Matthew Perry (Dr. Nicholas "Oz" Oseransky), Rosanna Arquette (Sophie Oseransky), Michael Clarke Duncan (Franklin "Frankie Figs" Figueroa), Natasha Henstridge (Cynthia Tudeski), Amanda Peet (Jill St. Claire), Kevin Pollak (Janni Gogolak), and Harland Williams (Special Agent Steve Hanson) Directed by Jonathan Lynn

Review: 
This is the kind of film that will linger on a movie shelf for years that you notice one day, and it inspires you to ponder on how it sat there - and the question pretty much remains prevalent even if you watch it. This is an easygoing kind of film, not having anything too particularly funny, but also nothing too particularly awful to it either, having a fine cast for a black comedy that will elicit some laughs.  At 98 minutes, it doesn't come off as a tiresome dredge, so there's that going for it. The story has its bits of turns, blurring the lines of cliche and clever at times in its execution. I did find it amusing that it's set in Montréal, though. Willis does a fine charming job with the slick role he is given, exuding a manner that is fairly amusing. Perry does a decent job, garnering a few laughs and making for a fairly watchable one to pair off Willis at times that doesn't get too grating. Arquette is fairly grating, as per the script, and the French accent does tend to border a bit on Inspector Clouseau at times - but I can't say I'm too surprised at that, so annoying or not, she is an okay adversary I suppose. Duncan does his enforcer well fairly well, complete with a bit of charm. Henstridge is fairly intriguing, having slight chemistry with Perry.  Peet delivers a fairly charming performance for the time she is on screen, managing to elict some laughs with a charm and style that makes her irresistible to watch. If you find the film something that engages you with its good intentions of dark-ish humor, you will find something worth watching; on the other hand, if you find the humor to be a bit like a sitcom without much bite, you might see the film as an afterthought. I didn't feel bored all too often, and I felt it was at least an okay crime comedy, so take that for what it's worth. It isn't a classic in any sense, but it will probably satisfy the curious tastes of most of the people picking it out. For me, it's just okay. It isn't a classic in any sense, but it is at least entertainment that succeeds - for the most part.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Expendables 2.

Review #675: The Expendables 2.

Cast
Sylvester Stallone (Barney Ross), Yu Nan (Maggie Chan), Jason Statham (Lee Christmas), Dolph Lundgren (Gunner Jensen), Jean-Claude Van Damme (Jean Vilain), Bruce Willis (Church), Arnold Schwarzenegger (Trench Mauser), Terry Crews (Hale Caesar), Randy Couture (Toll Road), Chuck Norris (Booker), Jet Li (Yin Yang), Liam Hemsworth (Billy the Kid), and Scott Adkins (Hector) Directed by Simon West (#458 - Lara Croft: Tomb Raider)

Review
It figures that I'd get to this eventually. And 628 reviews later, a review of the sequel to a movie that to begin with was a nice little capsule for action stars old and new...now with two sequels in tow. Granted, it is fun to see Schwarzenegger in an action role (as opposed to a cameo) again, and I admit, this is more of a guilt pick for me. And yes, Van Damme plays a villain called Jean Vilain. He's actually pretty decent in this film, and he's about as right for this film as tanks getting blown up. Really when you think about it, this is a sandwich of action with a slice of referential humor in there for effect, with the plot representing the condiment on the sandwich (or bagel, if you prefer), which I guess makes sense. Or it makes me hungry. The cast is enjoyable (Terry Crews especially, but hey, even Lundgren is cool). Nan provides a breath of fresh air to the movie, which is a good thing. The movie is what you want: awesome fun that doesn't drag too much. Honestly, it's better than the first film, even if still gets the same rating, so make up your mind on that one. Tomorrow (December 20th) is the 4th Anniversary of the show, so I've got something planned for it. Stay tuned.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Beavis and Butt-head Do America.

Review #570: Beavis and Butt-head Do America.

Cast
Mike Judge (Beavis, Butt-head, Tom Anderson, Principal McVicker, and Mr. Van Driessen), Demi Moore (Dallas Grimes), Bruce Willis (Muddy Grimes), Robert Stack (ATF Agent Flemming), Cloris Leachman (Old woman), Richard Linklater (Tour bus driver), Dale Reeves (President Bill Clinton), and Greg Kinnear (ATF Agent Bork) Directed by Mike Judge.

Review
To be honest, I never really watched this show (Of course not being alive when this show first aired helps), and while I know about the two characters, I watched this in the morning with a mostly open mind. It should be noted that following Gone with the Wind is a tough challenge, but at least this didn't last over 3 hours. So how is the film? For all of its weirdness, the movie is pretty funny. This is a rambunctious, wild, and out of control movie that is perfect for these two (no point in lying) dummies. The cast is enjoyable, all of the randomness and bizarre nature make for a movie with much enjoyment. The animation is silly but fun to watch, even during the hallucination sequence, which is as random as it gets. You want a movie that sums up the 1990s? This is for you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: North.

Review #363: North.

Cast
Elijah Wood (North), Jon Lovitz (Arthur Belt), Matthew McCurley (Winchell), Alan Arkin (Judge Buckle), Jason Alexander, Julie-Louis Dreyfus, Dan Aykroyd, Reba McEntire, John Ritter, Abe Vigoda, and Bruce Willis. Directed by Rob Reiner (#108 - This Is Spinal Tap, #180 - Stand by Me, #232 - The Princess Bride)

Review
It's sad, a cast that looks recognizable, and a director with a good record on the reviews all got together to make this. The only reason I know about this film is due to Roger Ebert and his review of the film, absolutely destroying this film. But does the film have ANY respectable thing going for it? Does it have anything that makes it any better than something like, say The Room? Well........No. Kind of expected, actually. But hey, it-No wait, it really can't be that worse. The film starts and ends...with Bruce Willis. Seriously, he pops up seven times, and not one of them makes any sense. Is he his guardian or does he really just pop up for no reason? It's sad that that this is my first review of Elijah Wood (Okay second counting 9, but first live action film.), and he actually does a decent job, not annoying. That goes to Matthew McCurley, who oddly enough reminds me of Macaulay Culkin, but he's actually worse, not having one degree of subtleness or even a smudge of actual character.  What's sadder for me is that Rob Reiner directed this, a director who's last three films reviewed here got scores of 8, 9, and 10 respectively, and he churns out a painfully unfunny film. I wondered who they made this for, who would possibly like this. Kids? Maybe, but then they would grow older and hate this film and tell others to stay away. I figured this would be easy to watch, given it's scant 88 minute run time. I was wrong. While the film does boast showing locations from Alaska to...South Dakota, it practically has a checklist of what things to make "fun" of, none of them working. What's even stranger is that this was based off a novel named "North: The Tale of a 9-Year-Old Boy Who Becomes a Free Agent and Travels the World in Search of the Perfect Parents" by Alan Zweibel, and this film was even co-produced and screenwriten by the author. Clearly, this isn't a case of "Bad novel adaptation", this is a rare case of "Bad movie coming from possible bad novel", which is extremely rare. Clearly this film was made for the sole purpose of having exotic film locations to film in more for vacationing than actual good movie making. But to close this review, I will let a definite judgement of the film come from someone else more experienced for over 45 years sum it up: "I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. I hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it." Roger Ebert, everyone.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Last Boy Scout.

Review #357: The Last Boy Scout.

Cast
Bruce Willis (Joe Hallenbeck), Damon Wayans (James Dix), Noble Willingham (Sheldon Marcone), Taylor Negron (Milo), Danielle Harris (Darian Hallenbeck), Halle Berry (Cory), Chelsea Field (Sarah Hallenbeck), and Bruce McGill (Mike Matthews) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun and #253 - Unstoppable)

Review
This film is like a checklist for action films in some senses. Longtime action star? Check. Second cast member who helps out the first action star? Check. 80s-90s feel? Check. Writer of a previous action film? Check. Director of previous action films? Check. But the last question is: Is it any good? Ehhh...sure. Willis tries his best given the limited range for this character, but I'll certainly say he does better than he did in Hudson Hawk. Wayans does okay, nothing really that special. The rest of the cast is okay, either being over the top or just okay.The action isn't all that bad, it has its moments. The film reminds me of Lethal Weapon, with its small bits of comedy and action sequences, both sharing the same writer, Shane Black, who coincidentally is directing Iron Man 3. It has its moments despite not really being any different from other action films, but it isn't that bad.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Live Free or Die Hard.

Review #320: Live Free or Die Hard.

Cast
Bruce Willis (John McClane), Justin Long (Matthew Farrell), Timothy Olyphant (Thomas Gabriel), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Lucy Gennero-McClane), Maggie Q (Mai Linh), Kevin Smith (Frederick "Warlock" Kaludis), Cliff Curtis (Miguel Bowman), and Jonathan Sadowski (Trey) Directed by Len Wiseman.

Review
302 Reviews (#014, #016, #018) after the last Die Hard (With the two films having a twelve year gap) film, I wondered if this would be just as good as the last three. I was right. It's essentially a standalone installment, not carrying much from the other three (Save for McClane and his daughter), but the film still has a feel from the others, which is a good thing. And the best part? Willis does a great job once again, commanding over the film and delivering lines that actually made me laugh. His character goes trough a lot, with blood and wounds all through out him, much like the last three. It's a split decision over if Long's character is either annoying or slightly beneficial. I pick the middle. He's a bit grating, but he's not the Chris Tucker of partners. The two do have some good lines together (*After McClane jumps out a car that later hits a helicopter, which actually is one of the moments of awesome moments (for me anyway)* You just killed a helicopter with a car!" "I was out of bullets", *McClane is standing next to a Boba Fett cut out* "What, like, you a big fan of the Fett?" "No. I was always more of a Star Wars guy"), and while the partner thing has been done before in Die Hard with a Vengeance with Samuel L. Jackson, this doesn't feel very off. The action is good, keeping the entertainment value at good levels, and keeping itself in check. Olyphant is an alright villain, definitely not the best, but still a useful threat. (Strange fact: It was originally called Die Hard 4.0) Overall, it's a good film (for what it's worth), that satisfies anyone wanting more Die Hard (Fun fact: There's actually a fifth film coming out soon called A Good Day to Die Hard. Heh.), or some good fun. I will only say this once, and for the sake of the film it works, so here you go (for anyone wanting some more quotes): Yippee-Ki-Yay, Motherfucker.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Sixth Sense.

Review #039: The Sixth Sense.

Cast
Bruce Willis (Dr. Malcolm Crowe), Haley Joel Osment (Cole Sear), Toni Collette (Lynn Sear), Olivia Williams (Anna Crowe), Donnie Wahlberg (Vincent Grey), Glenn Fitzgerald (Sean), Mischa Barton (Kyra Collins) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan.

Review
Ah, this movie. This jump started M. Night Shyamalan's career, and most regret that he made more after. Granted, I have not actually watched any of his films (That would require me having to say "Let's watch The Happening" with a straight voice) Anyway, this film has suspense that develops as the film progresses. It doesn't rely on CGI, most of the effects are just for the dead, as it scares using moments such as the school scene (won't spoil it) or the famous hospital scene. The film foreshadows what you get in the end, which then makes you want to watch it again to see if you missed anything. This films benefits from good atmosphere and good acting, especially from Willis. Directing is fine, but if you thought it would get better, you're wrong. Dead wrong (Pardon the pun)

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Fifth Element.

Review #027: The Fifth Element.

Cast
Bruce Willis (Korban Dallas), Gary Oldman (Zorg), Mila Jovovich (Leeloo), Ian Holm (Vito Corneilus), Chris Tucker (Euby Rhod), Charlie Creed-Miles (David), Brion James (General Munro), Tricky (Right Arm), and Tom Lister Jr. (President Lindberg) Directed by Luc Besson.

Review
This film is not like other Science Fiction films, like Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (#113), 2001: A Space Odysesy (#93), Alien, and many others. It's a weird breed with flying cars and more in a futuristic tale (Not like another one with cars that fly. But that had some sort of organic robots) It's a strange plot, but it's a little creative, and the acting (Save for Chris Tucker, who gets the award for least subtle preformance ever) One odd end to mention is that the main hero and villian never meet. Overall, the movie is a weird breed, but it all works in the end, making this a good film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars..