The Rookie (1990).

Review #2487: The Rookie (1990).

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Sergeant Nick Pulovski), Charlie Sheen (Detective David Ackerman), Raul Julia (Ulrich Sigmund Strom), Sônia Braga (Liesl Strom), Tom Skerritt (Eugene Ackerman), Lara Flynn Boyle (Sarah Ackerman), Pepe Serna (Lieutenant Raymond Garcia), Donna Mitchell (Laura Ackerman), Coleby Lombardo (Joey Ackerman), Marco Rodriguez ("Loco" Martinez), Xander Berkeley (Ken Blackwell), Roberta Vasquez (Officer Heather Torres), Hal Williams (Detective Powell), Paul Ben-Victor (Felix "Little Felix"), and Tony Plana (Morales)

Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, #1638 - Bird, #1757 - Sudden Impact, #1831 - High Plains Drifter)

Review: 

I'm sure you've heard this before: buddy cop movie pairing two distinct folks up for strange hijinks and action to go around. The script to the film is credited to Boaz Yakin (in his second credit after The Punisher [1989]) and Scott Spiegel (the co-writer of Evil Dead II [1987]). This was the second Clint Eastwood film released in 1990 after White Hunter Black Heart, a film that Eastwood apparently had a personal interest in (so, yes, "one for them and one for me"). While that movie wasn't exactly an audience favorite, The Rookie didn't fare too much better at the time because of its release in December 1990 that got overshadowed by Home Alone, released three weeks earlier (did you know that movie was the highest grossing comedy of all time for decades?). The highlight of the film for those at the time may have been the stunt work, with major scenes involving no miniatures or blue screens, which were filmed at night. Of course, this is also the movie where Eastwood gets sexually assaulted by a woman and it is also the same movie where Raul Julia and Sônia Braga were cast to play a couple of Germans. So there's that.

It is a silly and loud affair that almost seems tailor-made for those who enjoyed stuff such as Lethal Weapon, Tango & Cash, you get the idea. But I can't help but wonder if the problems with the film come from the fact that Sheen and Eastwood just don't mesh that well together. Even Tango handled that better. One sometimes wonders who exactly was thought of for the role besides him, as if even Emilio Estevez would've been better off playing the toils of someone trying to be by-the-book in a weary world (this is where I try to not just wish for a different movie in the middle of talking about this movie*). But Eastwood doesn't exactly come off that great either, as if he himself is tired of playing a Dirty Harry pastiche (ironically, The Dead Pool from two years earlier was a better movie). The movie just seems flat-footed for a good chunk of its two-hour runtime, never really getting into full gear with its energy beyond neat stunts (again, mostly at night). It just feels like an obligation film, one that goes through the motions that almost sounds like it was supposed to be a parody of the action thriller, right down to the assault scene which is there because, uh, because. But instead the parts that are meant to be funny aren't as funny and the parts that sound like they want to be serious (such as the flashback trauma) sound like a riff. Even the moments where Julia says racial epithets (get it, he's playing a rough German?) sounds like it was dug up for a joke for the parody rather than an actual serious/fun thriller. Boyle was on Twin Peaks in the same year this premiered and it can easily be said that she has more to actually do on that show than here*, which is kind of sad, and the less said about Skerritt's lack of presence, the better. Julia and Braga technically are the best part of the film, but they can't save the film from meandering as much as it does. As a whole, I wish I could appreciate the movie more, but there is a clear air of lethargic nature to the whole proceedings that you don't get from the usual Eastwood fare. Even when the Dirty Harry movies got a bit long in the tooth, you could still see some zip to them. Here it just doesn't sound like anyone but the stuntmen is having fun, but it doesn't seem quite enough to make for a well-rounded film to actually recommend.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

*For whatever reason, I thought of Tom Hanks. Or hey, what if it was Emilio Estevez matched up with his father Martin Sheen? Or even Eastwood playing the beleaguered lieutenant for a whole film would probably be ideal. 

*As a person who's seen the first six Twin Peaks episodes, anyway.

Foodfight!

Review #1766: Foodfight!

Cast: 

Charlie Sheen (Dex Dogtective), Wayne Brady (Daredevil Dan), Hilary Duff (Sunshine Goodness), Eva Longoria (Lady X / Priscilla), Larry Miller (Vlad Chocool), Christopher Lloyd (Mr. Clipboard), Robert Costanzo (Maximillus Moose), Chris Kattan (Polar Penguin), Ed Asner (Mr. Leonard), Jerry Stiller (General X), Christine Baranski (Hedda Shopper), Lawrence Kasanoff (Cheasel T. Weasel), Harvey Fierstein (Fat Cat Burglar), Cloris Leachman (Brand X Lunch Lady), Haylie Duff (Sweetcakes), Shelley Morrison (Lola Fruitola), and Edie McClurg (Mrs. Butterworth) Directed by Lawrence Kasanoff.

Review:

“We’ve got the movie, we’ve got the property, the place, the equipment, the talent, we’re there. Do we believe our next movie, Foodfight! is going to be a huge hit? Of course we do!”

Why don't we just do a whole review of short sentences that will sum up this film's sad history? I'll start: In development for a decade. Managed to lose the hard drive of assets that resulted in a restart. Directed by a guy who produced movies like Mortal Kombat while responsible for a Live Tour edition...with no other directing projects since. Managed to be sold off by debt collectors for at least $2.5 million after being made for roughly $45-60 million. Released in a theater for exactly one week in the United Kingdom, while everyone else "received" it on DVD or video-on-demand. Meant to aim for a cartoonish animation like the Looney Tunes shorts but ended up requiring motion capture animation (you thought The Polar Express was odd? Try this for ten minutes). A hodgepodge attempt at making a studio like Pixar with a cross between Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) and Toy Story (1995). Kasanoff planned a variety of media to tie-in with the film, including an ice show. Made by a director who was described by his crew as "idiosyncratic" that thought animation is the only part of film production where quality is on the rise while costs are going down. Filled with an assortment of brand names for supporting characters. Manages to have worse (unfinished) animation than Hoodwinked! (2005). Made by Threshold Entertainment, whose next animation venture was Bobbleheads: The Movie (2020). Written by Sean Catherine Derek, Lawrence Kasanoff, Brent Friedman, Rebecca Swanson with a story by Joshua Wexler & Kasanoff (who also co-produced the movie).

Inept. Irritating. Incoherent. Inconceivable. Trainwreck. Embarrassment. Need I go on with one-word sentences? How much can one really say about this movie? The very idea of brand names as lead characters for a film is cynically embarrassing on its own, but the very fact that this is the most embarrassing animated film I have ever seen is the saddest thing about the whole experience. 91 minutes of pain, pure and simple. You can laugh at the animation, true. To an extent, you can also laugh at the inexplicable innuendo and crass attempts at humor presented here. But one just seems downright sad at recognizing the various voices present to be in such a travesty. Sheen being here isn't exactly a surprise, because I can equally believe he would stoop to something for a paycheck regardless if it was the mid 2000s or 2012, mostly because one has to breeze a middling collection of cliches and not clap their hands in anticipation. Brady is obviously better to view on television, as I think anybody who is familiar with the medium will tell you, because heaven help the next person to say that cartoon sidekicks are the best thing ever. Duff doesn't even have to try when she spends half of her time off screen, so there is that. There are no winners in the cast, but at least Longoria seems to have a go at playing sultry and adversary in the same length. The less said about Miller, the better. Lloyd obviously likes to keep busy with roles (because this was the same year as The Oogieloves movie), and since he only has a handful of lines to go with a character that is jerkily animated, it sure makes an amusing sight more than a performance. Pairing Kattan and Sheen for a gag is probably better than eating year-old brand cereal. Asner (rest in peace) has less lines than one would expect, because clearly more time needed to be on the market and not the bare attempts at whatever "Brand X" is supposed to do with "Marketopolis". Kasanoff playing a weasel is a sentence that writes itself. As a whole, you don't need 1,000 words to say that the movie has no fundamental story worth investing in, because you can also look at the movie and hear its crass jokes and puns that confirm what a colossal waste one could have here. This is one of the worst films made with a substantial budget and likely one of the all-time worst animated films ever made. Might be good if you take certain substances or if you want to know what not finishing all of your work looks like.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Once more, because everyone deserves an eighth piece of awfulness. Fateful Findings.

Incidentally, if you ever find this review, check out this video someone made about the making of Foodfight! that provides more insight: ROTTEN: Behind the Foodfight

Being John Malkovich.

Review #1308: Being John Malkovich.

Cast: 
John Cusack (Craig Schwartz), Cameron Diaz (Lotte Schwartz), Catherine Keener (Maxine Lund), John Malkovich (John Horatio Malkovich), Orson Bean (Dr. Lester), Mary Kay Place (Floris), and Charlie Sheen (Himself) Directed by Spike Jonze.

Review: 
Have you ever wanted to be someone else? Did you ever find yourself with an opportunity to step into someone else's mind for a moment? The first question is an interesting one to think about, while the second is certainly imaginative enough for a film to make for quite a ride, one that is full of desires, interesting imagery, and plenty to talk about after it ends. Writer Charlie Kaufman had written the script for this film in 1994, a combination of separate ideas he had, one involving a man falling for a woman that wasn't his wife, and the other being a discovery of a portal into John Malkovich. His attempts at selling it to studios were not successful, but it eventually reached the hands of Francis Ford Coppola, who showed it to Jonze (who was involved with his daughter Sofia) in 1996. Jonze, who had been known for his work on music and skate videos, agreed to direct the film (which served as his feature debut). 

Sometimes you really have to just keep an open mind and let the film go where it feels like going in its run-time, and this sure is one of them, where one does not get left off the hook easily in its 112 minute run-time when it comes to overt sympathy for these characters and their human nature when it comes to choices. Being someone else isn't just wish fulfillment or a case of touch and go, really. In that sense, there is a fairly picked trio to go along with the dimensions of finding themselves with a portal to a famous person's mind: commercialization and experimentation, where they are not so much easy to like as they are just people we can at least understand on a basic level. Cusack does a fine job in that regard, capturing someone with plenty of self-involvement and neurotic devotion to his craft of puppeteering (in whatever form it may take itself) without becoming wrapped in too much pity. Diaz sinks into a homely role without much hesitation, a quirky person that is seemingly trapped in their marriage but finds their own means of escape and actualization. Keener is the bold part of the triad, filled with self-confidence and desire, which serve as a pretty clear contrast to the other two from the very moment she is introduced to the film. Malkovich (playing Malkovich) had initially wanted to just produce the film and find a different star to be the focus before ultimately signing on. In that sense, he serves as the highlight of the film, a man faced with the task of playing a version of themselves that happens to be intruded by people in your head alongside the usual trappings of being famous. He composes himself well in each scene is in, most notably when faced with being in his own head. Bean and Place prove quite eccentric when needed, and Sheen is exactly the kind of off-balance cameo one needs for a fantasy comedy-drama, really. 

Once the film gets itself going, it moves with weird confidence, appropriate for delivering useful entertainment without tricking or angering its target too much. This is a film with plenty of weird things to say and show that handles itself without too many bumps in the road, where offbeat seems to meet The Twilight Zone (such as with its ending, a can of worms that goes off fine for discussion) and conventions aren't all necessary. On the whole, this is a fairly good movie, utilizing its imagination to fine heights through a well-rounded cast and careful execution that make for quite a debut for its director and writer.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Eight Men Out.

Review #1287: Eight Men Out.

Cast: 
John Cusack (Buck Weaver), Clifton James (Charles Comiskey), Michael Lerner (Arnold Rothstein), Christopher Lloyd (Bill Burns), John Mahoney (Kid Gleason), Charlie Sheen (Happy Felsch), David Strathairn (Eddie Cicotte), D. B. Sweeney (Shoeless Joe Jackson), Michael Rooker (Chick Gandil), Don Harvey (Swede Risberg), and James Read (Lefty Williams) Written and Directed by John Sayles.

Review: 
Yes I know, not a horror film. However, today is the start of the World Series, which incidentally features my Houston Astros, so how could I resist covering a baseball movie? This one had been on my list for quite a while, so it only makes sense to do it now. Enjoy, and let's hope for a wonderful World Series result.

It is interesting to note the passing of 100 years since the Black Sox scandal, in which eight players of the Chicago White Sox were accused of throwing games in the 1919 World Series in conspiracy with gamblers. A public trial ensued in 1921, for which none of the accused players were convicted of any crime, although they were banned from playing professional baseball for the rest of their lives. A tale as old as time for baseball (a sport I adore) undeniably has inspired writers to adapt it into stories. Eliot Asinof wrote an account of the scandal in 1963, while W. P. Kinsella's wrote a magic realist novel with Shoeless Joe (1982, which was adapted into Field of Dreams the same year as this film). It isn't hard to say that baseball fans will certainly have interest in seeing this tale come to life in film while non-baseball fans will have a little harder time getting behind what this movie wants to show with this (questionably accurate) period drama. When it comes to baseball movies, this is probably safe middle ground stuff, doing just fine with its look and some of its ensemble moments while being a bit lacking when it comes to making everything really stick (particularly when it comes to some egregious liberties taken with real events, which is just as true with the novel and its combination of fictional characters into what is meant to be a non-fiction narrative). It clocks in at just a few seconds under two hours, for which the first half proves more favorable than the latter half (what better way to combine baseball cliches than courtroom cliches), seeming to have a few amusing moments with its cast. As such, the highlights include Cusack, Strathairn, Sweeney, and Rooker, with each actor of the conspiracy sticking out, such as Cusack and his bright disposition (even when faced with a bunch of crooked teammates), or the calmness of the others in their belief of that allure one calls more money. Minor highlights include James and Mahoney, making crucial points count just fine. How much guff can one give about accuracy about adapting the scandal to film with source material that took its own liberties with the facts (the Internet sure does help occasionally when it comes to finding tidbits of information, such as Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), who recently had made an article detailing numerous myths about the scandal, such as the White Sox actually having a high payroll (for 1919), or the gamblers being approached by the players (as opposed to the other way around), or the grand jury testimony being stolen (which they simply re-created later on anyway, which didn't have a big effect on the trial). If you really wanted to go further, the Internet is your friend for finding things to pick at (for better or worse). For me, it does tend to rankle me, in part because a film should know a little better about getting more than basic concepts right, especially stuff like Christy Mathewson (famed baseball legend) being the one that helped out the journalist investigation as opposed to Lardner (played by Sayles himself). In the end, I find that the film does best when letting the players speak for themselves along with its baseball action, with its foundation having quite a few cracks that can make this a hit-or-miss kind of movie. For me, it is a fair single, worth a look if one is curious enough for an old-timey but fair-minded day at an old ballpark.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Platoon.

Review #1090: Platoon.

Cast: 
Charlie Sheen (Chris), Tom Berenger (Sgt. Barnes), Keith David (King), Willem Dafoe (Sgt. Elias), Forest Whitaker (Big Harold), Francesco Quinn (Rhah), Kevin Dillon (Bunny), John C. McGinley (Sgt. O'Neill), Mark Moses (Lt. Wolfe), Corey Glover (Francis), Johnny Depp (Lerner), and Chris Pedersen (Crawford) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street)

Review: 
Platoon is a movie that is clear in what it wants to portray and show without feeling inauthentic in its depiction of battle, showing war as only a veteran like Stone would do. After serving a tour of duty in Vietnam in 1967-68, he had written a screenplay that had elements based on his experiences in the war (which he referred to as Break). Although the screenplay ended up not being produced, it served the basis for what became this film. Prior to directing this movie, he had served as screenwriter for films such as Midnight Express (1978) and Conan the Barbarian (1982), winning an Oscar for the former work while also directing films such as Salvador (1986). In any case, this movie was made in the Philippines on a budget of $6.5 million, with the main crew going through a two week basic training under Dale Dye, who served as military adviser for the production. It is evident from the first twenty minutes that this type of dedication helped in making for an authentic experience, with the actors showing signs of burn out and weariness that aligns perfectly with Stone's intent.

Even when Platoon has narration parts with Sheen, there isn't a time when the movie seems like it is using cliche parts just to make an everyday war movie, having a tone and pace that feels consistent in its two hour length. This is a harrowing film to watch, and it is the performances from its main cast that elevates the material, particularly from Berenger and Dafoe. Berenger shows a raw intensity to his portrayal that has a ruthlessness is relentlessly compelling, right down to the major face scar. Dafoe does a fine job with lending this character some compassion and straight edged nature that makes him easy to follow through with in his time on screen. Nearly lost in the shuffle is Sheen, who delivers a decent performance that serves as our face to watch act in an environment as frenzied as this without becoming just a face in the crowd. The other actors do fine jobs in the time they are on screen, such as David and his level-headed nature, Whitaker and his big-hearted but fitting essence, or McGinley and his weariness. The cinematography by Robert Richardson is also a fine standout, looking right for the film with its depiction of battle without being needlessly bright or dark. The film has a share of music it uses for good effect, such as Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit", but also most notably Samuel Barber's "Adagio for Strings", which is used to great effect anytime it is heard on screen, such as during the iconic death sequence with the raised hands, which one can even see on DVD covers for the movie. There is a certain kind of nightmare quality to it that this film evokes that makes it captivating to watch in seeing the depiction of war through the prism of what Stone showcases that seems to burn into one's memory every minute it is on screen. The movie was winner of four Academy Awards, winning for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Film Editing and Best Sound, and it isn't hard to see why that is the case, as this is a fine piece of work that has an honest hard edge to what it depicts without any shred of cliche nature.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Money Talks.

Review #1001: Money Talks.

Cast: 
Chris Tucker (Franklin Maurice Hatchett), Charlie Sheen (James Russell), Gerard Ismael (Raymond Villard), Heather Locklear (Grace Cipriani), Elise Neal (Paula), Michael Wright (Aaron), Paul Sorvino (Tony Cipriani), Larry Hankin (Roland), and Paul Gleason (Det. Bobby Pickett) Directed by Brett Ratner (#012 - X-Men: The Last Stand, #305 - Rush Hour, #306 - Rush Hour 2, #402 - Rush Hour 3)

Review: 
It is not so much that this movie is not good as it is that it is not worth giving extensive criticism to. Does one really need over 500 words to express how this is just a film I didn't care much for? In the four films that Ratner and Tucker have teamed up together for (with this being their first), I found only one of them (Rush Hour) to actually be satisfyingly entertaining enough, and that was because the duo of Tucker and Jackie Chan actually worked out quite well (the same can't be said for the sequels).

In this case, Tucker is paired with Sheen, who can be a decent actor when in a coherent comedy (and occasional drama), but they simply aren't an effective duo together. Sure, you could make the case that they aren't supposed to be like other buddy duos (after all, one is a reporter while the other is a hustler), but I never really found myself wanting to care about what goes on with these two. Tucker (and his shtick) is tolerable to a point, with some likely having more (or less) patience with him and his lines. He falls along the middle for me, but that's not really much of a compliment. He certainly is more interesting than Sheen, who doesn't really have much to do. The villain (Ismael) is fairly generic; the only other interesting supporting character is Sorvino, who seems right at home in this role somehow. Simply put, this is a movie without much fire in it. Why should I care about their attempt to get to sweeps week? Why should I care about the valuable diamonds? Or the random twist involving a minor character at the end? If you have read some of the reviews on this show, you know that I do not try to over-think things in a film or overtly go critical on a film, because what purpose does that serve to you? This is a movie that would likely be easy bait for someone wanting to get irritated while not striving for anything other than just being a piece of entertainment. It's not a movie to use as an example of lazy filmmaking nor is it something worth fawning nostalgic over (even after 20 years), but it's a film that is what it is. I can't say this is an awful movie, and I also can't say I blame someone if they like (or at least tolerate) the film. Take that for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Major League II

Review #444: Major League II.

Cast
Charlie Sheen (Rick "Wild Thing" Vaughn), Tom Berenger (Jake Taylor), Corbin Bernsen (Roger Dorn), Dennis Haysbert (Pedro Cerrano), James Gammon (Lou Brown), Omar Epps (Willie Mays Hayes), Bob Uecker (Harry Doyle), David Keith (Jack Parkman), Takaaki Ishibashi (Isuro Tanaka), Margaret Whitton (Rachel Phelps), Eric Bruskotter (Rube Baker), Alison Doody (Rebecca Flannery), Michelle Burke (Nikki Reese), and Randy Quaid (Unnamed Fan) Directed by David S. Ward (#426 - Major League)

Review
Major League had its shares of laughs, and while it could've been better, it was a good comedy, arguably a classic. Five years, they made a sequel. This isn't as good. It feels like a rehash at times, and while it does have its moments, it's an okay comedy, as it eventually seems to win down in the same way the first film went, but at least this film doesn't get too sappy, which I guess helps...sort of. The film even retains the same "villain" from the first film, though I do wonder if she would've been allowed to own the team again, what with her deliberately trying to sabotage the team last season and all but oh well. The actors do fine, and Omar Epps does an okay job replacing Wesley Snipes from the last film, not too bad. It's an okay film, having some laughs, but not rising above the first film, inspiring more comparisons to the first film than praise for it. But hey, at least Cleveland got to win something, and that's always nice to see I suppose. I love the fact I've reached 444 reviews, and on my first day back at school. Countdown to 450 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Major League.

Review #426: Major League.

Cast
Tom Berenger (Jake Taylor), Corbin Bernsen (Roger Dorn), Charlie Sheen (Ricky Vaughn), Margaret Whitton (Rachel Phelps), James Gammon (Lou Brown), Rene Russo (Lynn Wells), Bob Uecker (Harry Doyle), Wesley Snipes (Willie Mays Hayes), Charles Cyphers (Charlie Donovan), Chelcie Ross (Eddie Harris), Dennis Haysbert (Pedro Cerrano), and Andy Romano (Pepper Leach) Directed by David S. Ward.

Review
Major League may not bring too much of new things to the table that other sports films like The Natural or 42 have, but it has its own way of trying to reach the level of enjoyment that it mostly gets right. It has its moments of being funny, and while it is sometimes crude in approach, it is excusable because the characters are endearing after a while.  The actors are alright, Berenger and Bernsen do good, Sheen steals the show, but Bob Uecker of all people has memorable moments, even for an announcer, the one liners are memorable It feels dated at times, with the old, now demolished stadiums (Milwaukee County Stadium was used for filming, though it was used only because the stadium that is actually depicted (Cleveland Municipal Stadium) was too busy for filming), the uniforms and other such things, But this film has some charm, it feels close to home, there's always that team that just feels down on times, especially Cleveland teams, and while the idea of comeback is somewhat cliche, there's always something to try and make different about it, and while sports films do run into one another a lot, this breaks that mold, if only slightly.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Hot Shots! Part Deux.

Review #375: Hot Shots! Part Deux.

Cast
Charlie Sheen (Topper Harley), Lloyd Bridges (Thomas Benson), Valeria Golino (Ramada Hayman), Richard Crenna (Denton Walters), Brenda Bakke (Michelle Huddleston), Miguel Ferrer (Arvid Harbinger), Rowan Atkinson (Dexter Hayman), and Jerry Haleva. Directed by Jim Abrahams (#028 - Hot Shots!)

Review
It seems only yesterday that I reviewed the first Hot Shots! film. And if yesterday, I mean over 2 years and 347 reviews later. Oddly enough, this is the 375th Review. The first one parodied Top Gun, with the second being a parody of First Blood (#025), with may references to other films. But is the film funny even after 20 years (it being a parody and all) and such? Well...yeah. The puns and gags are endless and the lines may either make you go groan or chuckle, it depends. For me, it was the latter. The cast does a fine job of comedy acting, not too over the top. Sheen once again has a lot of energy that helps out in the action scenes. The action is over the top, as should be, given the parody material, but it manages to mix in the comedy in a strange blend that works well. Is it better than the first one? Not really, but it does at least come close enough, and it still entertains. And given the "parody" movies in recent years, this does the job of making you laugh, which given these days, it is a good thing.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Wall Street.

Review #095: Wall Street.

Cast
Michael Douglas (Gordon Gekko), Charlie Sheen (Bud Fox), Daryl Hannah (Darien Taylor), Martin Sheen (Carl Fox), John C. McGinley (Marvin), Terence Stamp (Sir Larry Wildman), James Karen (Harry Lynch), Hal Holbrook (Lou Mannheim), Sean Young (Kate Gekko), and James Spader (Roger Barnes) Directed by Oliver Stone.

Review
This film is a classic, pure and simple. Sheen and Douglas play each other off so well, with Douglas being the main man here, doing an excellent job, especially with his "Greed is good" Stone mixes so many things from different periods of time to get them all matched into respective characters. The one single flaw is Daryl Hannah. I don't know why, but her acting here is...Dull. I know she plays basically a lackey to Gekko, but couldn't they at least make her do a better job at it? The film is excellent in value that makes you interested and a little bit smarter at the end. We are close to 100 Reviews. Countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Hot Shots!

Review #028: Hot Shots!

Cast
Charlie Sheen (LT Sean "Topper" Harley), Cary Elwes (LT Kent Gregory), Valeria Golino (Ramada Thompson), Lloyd Bridges (RADM Thomas "Tug" Benson), Kevin Dunn (LCDR James Block), Jon Cryer (LT Jim "Wash Out" Pfaffenbach), William O'Leary (LT Pete "Dead Meat" Thompson), Kristy Swanson (Kowalski), Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. (Wilson), Bill Irwin (Leland "Buzz" Harley), and Ryan Stiles (Dominic "Mailman" Farnum) Directed by Jim Abrahams.

Review
This spoof of Top Gun might actually be better then Top Gun, with some good gags that might remind you of another spoof, Airplane! (That also had Lloyd Bridges) Anyway, the film is decent with performances, especially Sheen and Elwes. The film is decent enough to become good, making this a film to watch. While it may not be great-great, it at least is useful.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.