A Rage in Harlem.

Review #2513: A Rage in Harlem.

Cast: 

Forest Whitaker (Jackson), Gregory Hines (Goldy/Sherman), Robin Givens (Imabelle), Zakes Mokae (Big Kathy), Danny Glover (Easy Money), Badja Djola (Slim), John Toles-Bey (Jodie), Tyler Collins (Teena), Ron Taylor (Hank), Samm-Art Williams (Gus Parsons), Stack Pierce (Detective Ed "Coffin Ed" Johnson), Willard E. Pugh (Claude X), Helen Martin (Mrs. Canfield), Wendell Pierce (Louis), T. K. Carter (Smitty), Jalacy Hawkins (Jay "Screamin' Jay" Hawkins), Beatrice Winde (Clerk), and George Wallace (Detective "Gravedigger" Jones) Directed by Bill Duke.

Review: 

“I’m not interested in making ‘Black’ movies. I’m interested in making movies that reflect my reality as I perceive it.”

Honestly, this movie was lightly on my mind for a few years. You might remember that Cotton Comes to Harlem (1970) and Come Back, Charleston Blue (1972) were loosely based on the works of Chester Himes involving Harlem detectives that had Godfrey Cambridge and Raymond St. Jacques as the stars.  But first, let's talk a bit about this being the feature film debut of Bill Duke. Born in Poughkeepsie, New York, Duke was curious about writing from a young age, mainly because he wrote a journal from a young age because in his words, he wasn't a good verbal communicator but his poems were liked by a teacher of his. He attended Dutchess Community College and was encouraged to enroll in drama that saw him want to do acting. He studied at Boston University and subsequently New York University's Tisch School of the Arts before getting a role on Broadway in 1971 with "Ain't Supposed to Die a Natural Death.”  Duke broke into film with Car Wash (1976) before eventually coming onto the need to study film, which he did with the AFI Conservatory. Duke became a director for a variety of television shows in the 1980s that ranged from Falcon Crest to Knots Landing. Duke made his directorial debut with the made-for-PBS The Killing Floor (1984) before moving into film with this movie. William Horberg got the rights to the Himes novel and eventually got the efforts of Stephen Woolley to get the idea of doing a film sold to Miramax Films. John Toles-Bey and Bobby Crawford were credited as having written the film. Apparently, halfway through the production, Woolley claimed that the film was meant to be a comedy and that Duke disagreed with that sentiment. At any rate, the movie made roughly $10 million. Duke's next film was with Deep Cover (1992).

You've got a movie wrapped in the vibrant atmosphere of Harlem (okay it was filmed in Cincinnati but still) that has a carefully wound-up game of wits and oddball characters for a few interesting moments (and, arguably, a few chuckles, so maybe Woolley wasn't too far off). Its tale of lust and larceny isn't too far off from a B-movie or, say, those 70s movies I had mentioned earlier that makes for a decent first effort. It doesn't exactly have every plot beat down to a T, mainly because the chemistry between the characters work far better than any motivations involving gold and sheer hokum. Of course, it also is an off-kilter romance (when not dealing in clash of street/book smart) that basically lends itself to a handful of curious moments of who really is in control of their own desires and sense of self. In that sense, Whitaker and Hines make for a couple of entertaining leads to counteract each other as if one was in a hardboiled buddy film (with perhaps a bit of a coming-of-age sprinkled in, neo-noir style). This was the first prominent film role for Givens, who previously had been featured in Head of the Class for television. She makes for a quality femme fatale, one with sultry grace that manages to have the right time of timing to make the tenuous dynamic between her and Whitaker a compelling one. There are a wide variety of characters to come and go with charm to spare, whether that involves a cross-dresser played by Mokae or with heavies in Glover and Djola (or Williams, but he is only in it for a while). In general, the film is quick on its feet to make its 115-minute runtime feel like a breeze worth passing through to see it play all the way to the finish that manages to hit most of the right notes for a fairly satisfying first effort.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars. 

Another Movie Night Song of the day

To Sleep with Anger.

Review #2346: To Sleep with Anger.

Cast: 

Danny Glover (Harry), Paul Butler (Gideon), Mary Alice (Suzie), Carl Lumbly (Junior), Vonetta McGee (Pat), Richard Brooks (Babe Brother), Sheryl Lee Ralph (Linda), DeVaughn Nixon (Sunny), Reina King (Rhonda), and Cory Curtis (Skip) Written and Directed by Charles Burnett (#1975 - Killer of Sheep)

Review: 

"There’s always been this issue of the black middle class’s responsibility to continue to be a force in the black community. One of To Sleep with Anger‘s themes deals with that issue, of the middle class abandoning the rest of the race, deserting the culture and then returning to it. The film is really about connecting the past to the present."

Admittedly, Charles Burnett deserved better as a filmmaker when it comes to actual attention for such a worthwhile debut. Killer of Sheep (1978) had the reputation of a classic for years before actually getting a real release decades later. Burnett's second feature suffered worse: My Brother's Wedding (1983) got screened to a film festival by foolish producers before he could finish editing that scared off distributors when the movie got mediocre reviews. It took until *2007* before the movie could even be re-released to considerable attention. And yet, To Sleep with Anger (1990) had its own fate. The movie apparently came out of the failure of producing a PBS film about irony and tragedy (yes, even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can be picky with how they want their money spent). Instead, he sought out to do a movie about folklore and "the Black experience"; you have to remember Burnett was raised in Watts as the family moved from Mississippi when he was three years old. According to Burnett, the character played by Glover is based on a folk story called "the Hairy Man", which evidently refers to a part-devil, part African spirit, part-conjure doctor. Made on a budget of $1.1 million for distribution by The Samuel Goldwyn Company...the movie was not a financial success, which Burnett attributed to distribution, stating that it never got shown in more than 18 theaters. Apparently, it did not get a DVD release even as late as 2011, but hey, one can even find a Criterion DVD of this movie nowadays. Burnett's next film would come with The Glass Shield in 1994.

 

Within folklore and slow building curiosity is what happens when one really can just get under one's skin in the strangest ways possible. The 102-minute runtime is palpable enough for tension that wraps around an entire family because certain things really can upset the illusion of stability. Past and present are wrapped in a tug-of-war that should be pretty clear when you see the introduction that has a guy in flames while “Precious Memories" plays in the background. There have been quite a few movies and stories about the perils that come with looking upon tradition versus roots (I'm reminded of the Alice Walker short story "Everyday Use" in that sense), but with this one, family really can be forever in the folk sense. The movie probably benefits best from looking at it unfold its layers with its intriguing ensemble. Butler was more of a stage presence than a regular film actor, but he manages to do well in those moments spent toiling as a patriarch that we can relate to in terms of someone who clearly has something of the old place in their ways, which goes just as much for Alice and her carefully stated homespun charm. Glover's character basically has the shadow of the Devil around him with that worthwhile charm that manages to do so much or a movie that grounds itself in what you can and can't see around its odd atmosphere (admittedly, the high-rolling friends that arrive in the shadow of Glover that never leave will be pretty relatable for some in more ways than one). He is the stirring of the part of the soul that we think we have buried down there. It proves pretty clear with the simmering animosity one sees between Lumbly and Brooks (the latter is the youngest son, which naturally leads to the nickname "Babe") when it comes to how one approaches tasks in the family that are totally real to see play out because of the commitment on screen. The simmering discontent between a family that is more tightly wound than tightly knit before the arrival of a certain harry presence makes for a neat enough conclusion in playing things out to the crispest joke of them all in togetherness and resilience. As a whole, the tapestry of a family can wither or grow depending on how one sees the face of superstitions and things around them, and To Sleep with Anger makes for a fairly clever broiler with plenty of charms to go around.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Saw (2004).

Review #1750: Saw.

Cast: 

Cary Elwes (Lawrence Gordon), Leigh Whannell (Adam Stanheight), Danny Glover (David Tapp), Ken Leung (Detective Steven Sing), Dina Meyer (Detective Allison Kerry), Mike Butters (Paul), Paul Gutrecht (Mark), Michael Emerson (Zep Hindle), Benito Martinez (Brett), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young), Makenzie Vega (Diana Gordon), Monica Potter (Alison Gordon), Alexandra Bokyun Chun (Carla), and Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman and #1556 - Insidious)

Review: 

"It changed our lives. Sure, it really wasn’t the film I set up to do, yet it ended up being this cultural phenomenon that we never expected. I never expected that my first little, as I refer to it, my student film would ultimately go on to have such a cultural impact."

If any horror film could help to help define the first few years of the 21st century, you could likely make a great case for Saw to be in the argument. Oh sure, the quality of each feature has varied from film to film (for which there were six sequels in the next six years before the supposed finale was followed by two standalone movies), but one can't deny the lingering legacy that arose from an interesting presence from two soon-to-be known directors from Australia. James Wan and Leigh Whannell met each other when each were attending the Royal Melbourne Institute Of Technology, for which they bonded over their shared interest in horror. Years later, they wanted to make a film for as cheap ($5,000) and simple as one can make when having to work dead-end jobs; Wan and Whannell each suggested ideas to each other, but one idea by the former really stuck through: two guys in a room that had a dead body lying on the floor with a gun and a tape player. Whannell ran with the idea and expanded on it to what became Saw (for which he came up with the title); since they wanted to prove that they could actually do it, they took one scene from the film and shot it as a short (picking the scene involving the reverse bear trap for Whannell to act). Shot in Los Angeles in 2003, the short attracted attention from a variety of interested funders, with Evolution Entertainment being the one that Wan and Whannell went with because of the freedom granted to do the film their way (with a shooting budget of roughly $700,000 for eighteen days of shooting). 

Sure, it is gruesome, but it has a few fair merits to consider beyond just classifying it as the starting point for so called "torture porn." Pffft, I say, as this term seems to exist just for "higher-minded critics" to degrade horror films that just happen to make folks uncomfortable while being different from the usual fare (in other words, some folks are squeamish for stuff that seems tame to others). Besides, it would be the sequels that would up the ante in gore (which even got the 3D treatment with the seventh film), while this film is actually more reminiscent of Seven (1995), what with the exploration of a hunt for a killer that dabbles in sins. Undeniably, that film is superior in pretty much every way when it comes to its psychological aspects and main detective pair, but at least Saw manages to accomplish a portion of the terror that can come from the simple act of having two folks in a room with tension over trying to stay alive in a macabre mystery-thriller. Honestly, I thought it was a fine movie, all things considered. For 103 minutes, it balances itself out with a few elaborate traps and a few semblances of plot (in flashbacks, complete with red herrings) that hold up the interesting premise long enough to stick the ultimate landing, which likely will provide curiosity to those who prefer to sit through their films time and time again; its quality may vary from person to person like a puzzle game, where if one likes the process they'll go back to it and look to scramble it all over. Undeniably, the acting isn't the strong suit of the film, but I was fond enough of the presences captured anyway (although this is more because of the familiar faces more than anything, which can boomerang the other way around if in a lesser film); sure, Elwes may overact a bit with the material, but he makes the most of it with reasoned interest, since he has the overall story to work with (as opposed to Whannell, although expecting him to have great acting isn't exactly feasible). Glover and Leung do okay in the procedural aspect, albeit in the sense that it goes about as well with the film as it would on a buried script of a TV procedural. Bell is mostly utilized for his voice more so than physical presence for most of the film, but he gives it his effort for a role that could have veered into one-note (puppets don't count). The final turn of the screw for the closing is on the money, at least when it comes to not insulting its audience completely while being quite definitive in its lasting note on a killer that tests the will of survival of his would-be victims with traps that makes for a stone cold time. As a gritty feature with sparse features (such as in its shots and design), I would say it is a worthy accomplishment for what Wan and Whannell wanted to do in filmmaking, one that accomplished its ride of curiosity without stumbling over the clichés. It might not be a great piece in horror filmmaking, but it sure made its mark count with its interesting premise and execution that opened the door for further grips into terror in puzzle traps, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Halloween II (2009).

The Color Purple.

Review #1478: The Color Purple.

Cast:
Danny Glover (Albert "Mister" Johnson), Whoopi Goldberg (Celie), Oprah Winfrey (Sofia), Margaret Avery (Shug Avery, Táta Vega as singing voice), Akosua Busia (Nettie Harris), Adolph Caesar (Old Mister Johnson), Willard E. Pugh (Harpo Johnson), Rae Dawn Chong (Squeak), Laurence Fishburne (Swain), and Carl Anderson (Reverend Samuel) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, and #1305 - Catch Me If You Can)

Review:
"Storytelling is the most important aspect of anything I've ever done. It's how the story is told. That's all I've focused on. If something doesn't tell a story or if it's confusing, I either don't shoot it or I cut it out."
"The way I played Celie was to stand back from her. There's a theory that an actor should identify with the character. Well, I loved her, but I didn't identify with her. Celie is so far away from me, it was easy to allow her pain to be there, because her life has so little to do with mine.”

Who better to do a tender and touching in humanity than Steven Spielberg? He grew into a filmmaker through shorts as a teenager with an 8mm camera. His first film that he made released to any sort of cinema was Firelight (1964), a $500 film released in his local cinema made at the age of 17 (made with the help of his family and high school students). His short subject Amblin' (1968) impressed numerous people and led to a deal at Universal in their television department, with the most notable contribution being the second segment of the 1969 Night Gallery pilot "Eyes", and he spent four years doing direction in television, with his theatrical debut being a expanded version of his TV film Duel (1971). Over the course of the next couple of years, Spielberg would generate success in captivating entertainment such as Jaws (1975, often cited as the first blockbuster), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977, his first sci-fi feature that he also wrote), and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981, likely one of the greatest adventure films). The two people who helped bring the film to attention and convince Spielberg to do the film was Kathleen Kennedy (who brought the book to his attention) and composer legend Quincy Jones, who helped produced the film with Spielberg, Kennedy, and Frank Marshall while also doing the music composition (however, a dispute came about with certain music aspects that led to eleven musicians being listed as score contributors when it came to a nomination for its score at the Academy Awards). The film was adapted to the screen by Menno Meyjes from the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel of the same name that had been written by Alice Walker in 1982 (I remember Walker from her short story "Everyday Use", which I read in college).

It is a film of resilience and humanity through and through a story that spans several years that features numerous distinct characters that we find quite a bit to resonate with, even with how tragic it might get, a film involving discussion upon race, gender, and class that eventually leads to hope. It makes the most of its 153 minutes in capturing a tale of adversity with a worthy cast. The one who deserves the most credit for making the film come alive on screen is Goldberg, making her second film appearance after having been noticed by Spielberg because of her one-woman Broadway show (1984-85), and she had written a letter to Walker upon reading the novel about appearing in a film version. It is evident from the very first scene she appears on screen that she is going to deliver a touching performance. There is something about her that strikes at our soul with how true the performance seems in running the gamut of developing inner strength with a fully-fledged performance of conviction. Glover, a city administrator-turned-actor in an early prominent role before appearing in further celebrated films, proves just as tremendous on the other side of the coin, one with stark presence of oppression and fear that manages to not escalate into full caricature. News anchor-turned talk show host Winfrey proves just as worthy in striking power, which also applies to the free-spirited and clever Avery in generating riveting moments. Others to appreciate include the distinct Caesar and an interesting Pugh.

It was a film that attracted controversy because of percieved stereotypes against African Americans (which can come from people who either can't or won't face reality when it comes to perceived slights without reading the film further). There were others who thought that the relationship between Shug and Celie was not given enough emphasis, to which the easiest statement to make to that is this: It was 1985, and one can only do so much in a PG-13 film, and it isn't like the two don't kiss or anything (heaven forbid someone try to do subtlely without needing to go explicit). We are talking about a film (and book) that involves pedophilia, incest, and spousal violence, for God's sake - we may not wish to ever have to deal with these problems, but they exist for all races that we as a society have to still confront, with film being an interesting medium to show these problems in a meaningful way. In that sense, I believe the film does fine with making an interesting story about race and gender without falling prey to too much sentimentalism or heavy-handedness. It never feels too long for its own good, instead moving with poetic pace that earns its many moments, with the climatic reunion being especially well done in emotion.

Walker, when asked about the film, generally has stated that while it may not follow her vision, it does have "its own gift", while noting the differences in translation from novel to book, such as the reduced elements of the lesbian relationship of Celie and Shug or with its tinkering of certain elements of its ending. Spielberg himself noted the fact that he was "shy" about depicting some of the aspects of the Shug-Celie relationship without alienating audiences, saying that he may have been the wrong director to do their encounters. I suppose one could also note that the novel was also turned into a musical two decades later, having two runs on Broadway. For what it is worth, while it is not a perfect film, it generally reaches the heights it sets out to do with a stark tale of hope within a period drama that has a captivating cast alongside music and directing that make the grandest of ventures worth seeking out as a fascinating drama that holds its heart strong in what matters most: hope of the human spirit.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Witness (1985).

Review #1185: Witness.

Cast: 
Harrison Ford (Det. John Book), Kelly McGillis (Rachel Lapp), Josef Sommer (Chief Paul Schaeffer), Lukas Haas (Samuel Lapp), Jan Rubeš (Eli Lapp), Alexander Godunov (Daniel Hochleitner), Danny Glover (Lt. James McFee), Brent Jennings (Sgt. Elton Carter), Patti LuPone (Elaine), Angus MacInnes (Fergie), Frederick Rolf (Stoltzfus), Viggo Mortensen (Moses Hochleitner), and Timothy Carhart (Zenovich) Directed by Peter Weir (#960 - The Year of Living Dangerously)

Review: 
Witness is an interesting crime thriller, standing out for its well-done structure and story (which won an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay) with plenty of entertainment value and a game cast. The story was written by Pamela Wallace, Earl W. Wallace and William Kelley, with the latter two doing the screenplay. Kelley had contributed to scripts for Gunsmoke in the 1970s while Wallace served as executive story consultant, and it was the development of an outline for the show that resulted in a film script, originally named Called Home. The script (consisting of 182 pages originally) languished for years, with 20th Century Fox rejecting it due to the fact that they didn't make rural movies. A re-write of the screenplay resulted in Ford expressing interest in doing the movie, and eventually the film found its studio in Paramount Pictures. Weir was hired to do the film after funding for The Mosquito Coast (which was made the following year with Ford) fell through, and this was his first film made in America after several features made in his native Australia.

In any case, it is interesting to see a movie set within the community of the Amish, particularly with the differences shown between the kind of life lived by Ford's character as opposed to the Amish characters and how he adapts to spending some time there. It comes off as more than a crime thriller at times, having moments of passion and romance between Ford and McGillis that helps give the film plenty of energy to go around. Ford is superb, playing his role as if he was in a modern Western drama (and not in a usual action kind of film), resourceful in his pursuit for justice while also taking note of the people around him and how he stands out quite clearly from them. This is particularly notable in one scene near the climax, where he stands up for one of his fellow Amish when they are harassed by town-folk who seem to view them as a curiosity or something to pick at, particularly when mocking their committal to nonviolence in war. McGillis shines as well, being a warm graceful presence with a degree of curiosity, whether when interacting with Ford or with Haas, who does fine for his scenes. The other members of the cast have their moments to shine, such as Sommer and his quiet but lurking presence or Rubeš and his wise and thoughtful presence. It is interesting to see Glover playing against type, although he doesn't have too much on screen. The film never feels flat at 112 minutes, having a fine balance between drama and action that never feels overwrought or disrespectful. You never get the sense of boredom at any real point, with each scene having a real sense of purpose and a well-made look from cinematographer John Seale. The movie has its fun moments, such as the barn-raising sequence or when Ford is trying to get the kid to identify the suspect through a ride-along. The climax is certainly effective enough with a quiet ending that wraps things up just fine. On the whole, this is a gripping tale that has its elements of thriller and romance wrapped within a community story that makes it stick out from other films in an captivating and entertaining way that is a solid pick worth recommending.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Silverado.

Review #1102: Silverado.

Cast: 
Kevin Kline (Paden), Scott Glenn (Emmett), Kevin Costner (Jake), Danny Glover (Mal Johnson), Brian Dennehy (Sheriff Cobb), Rosanna Arquette (Hannah), John Cleese (Sheriff John Langston), Jeff Goldblum (Calvin "Slick" Stanhope), Linda Hunt (Stella), Joe Seneca (Ezra Johnson), Ray Baker (Ethan McKendrick), Thomas Wilson Brown (Augie Hollis), Jeff Fahey (Tyree), and Lynn Whitfield (Rae Johnson) Directed by Lawrence Kasdan (#1059 - The Big Chill)

Review: 
It is not hard to admit that Silverado is a fine Western, completely successful as an adventure (written by Lawrence and Mark Kasdan) that showcases a finely-tuned cast and capable action that shines fairly enough with its plot structuring to make a fair winner. It isn't anything that proves to be great entertainment, but it serves as good quality fun, with a spirit that makes it worth watching. With its 133 minute run-time, it certainly likes to take its time to build its characters and situations complete with everything you'd expect in a film involving cowboys, shootouts, and a variety of other things, but it does so without lingering in cliches, being something well accomplished for the tradition that you would expect for entertainment. The main four of Kline-Glenn-Costner-Glover manage to click fairly well, having a sort of watch-ability to them that makes for good adventure, and they each have their own interesting moments, whether with each other or others. Kline comes out the best in the sense that he exudes a certain energy and care that makes him interesting to view when engaged with the plot, whether with humor or charm. Glenn does just fine with his role, playing this reserved role without hesitation or any sense of dullness, playing this pretty handily. Costner (in only his tenth film appearance) plays this goofy if not immensely entertaining character pretty capably, never verging on becoming too silly for the film's taste while also proving to be a capable hero in his own right. Glover does a fine job with making this an interesting role to follow with and care for, being as sure and confident as one might expect from him. Dennehy plays his part with a fair degree of balance between his stated role and what ultimately comes on screen without becoming unsubtle or too obvious, having a quality that makes for an interesting performance. Arquette is okay, but she doesn't have too much to do within the story, particularly within the second half, where the adventure outweighs any sort of semblance of romance (whether that hurts the film at all is up to you). Cleese, Goldblum and Hunt fit their roles just fine with the narrative, each sticking well within the spirit of the film's intent in their own ways that have useful moments without seeming like sore thumbs sticking out. The action sequences are well done and capably executed, and the music by Bruce Broughton makes it all the more entertaining to sit through. The climax is fairly riveting, making up for a film that occasionally likes to build itself up with twisting its story to try and be mildly complex (for better or worse), complete with each of the main four getting their chance to shine. It won't stick out as adding anything particularly new to the genre in terms of its story quality, but what turns out on screen is something that is at the very least a finely tuned machine worth checking out once.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Lethal Weapon 4.

Review #734: Lethal Weapon 4.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Jet Li (Wah Sing Ku), Rene Russo (Lorna Cole), Joe Pesci (Leo Getz), Chris Rock (Detective Lee Butters), Kim Chan (Uncle Benny Chan), Steve Kahan (Captain Ed Murphy), Calvin Jung (Detective Ng), Jack Kehler (U.S. State Department Official), and Eddy Ko (Hong) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, and #731 - Lethal Weapon 3)

Review
It's hard to say how I feel about finally finishing this series of films. On the one hand, the first two movies are really, really excellent buddy cop movies. On the other hand, the last two don't exactly cut it. It really is hard to stay fresh when you've already done three films. Remember how I said the last movie had a lack of punch? This film essentially is a sucker punch when it comes to action, though the effectiveness of it all depends on the audience. It does have a good deal of night-time action, and even Riggs and Murtaugh get bloodied up, which I guess is some sort of variety (seriously, they have more than just bruises - one's on crutches!), and shows that...yeah, they really too old for this-you get the idea. But was this film really necessary? I suppose if you like fours, sure. The cast is fine, and Gibson-Glover is about enjoyable as they have been earlier. Russo is given barely any time, but she does fine. Li doesn't speak too much, though at least he knows how to beat the snot out of people. Is he a good villain? Not really, but at least he puts up a fight. Pesci and Rock are (mostly) endearing, being relevant to the plot just enough. The underlying problem with the movie is that it isn't as funny (or fun) to watch. Remember the toiler bomb scene in the 2nd movie? It was funny, in a movie that really set the bar for action-comedy. In this? Murtaugh's house gets burned down, and unless being saved by a kid is funny, that whole sequence to me just sums the relative lack of fun emitted in this one. Sure, there is a scene with laughing gas that is fun (unless you've already seen people laughing and laughing over and over *cough* Fresh Prince of Bel-Air), but the action and tone pretty much suffocate the movie. The opening sequence is entertaining, and even the ending is poignant enough, but the movie isn't so lucky. Don't get me wrong: This is not a bad movie. It is entertaining, though not so much as before. At least it is a good way to end the series, no matter any attempts Hollywood will try in remaking the magic.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Lethal Weapon 3.

Review #731: Lethal Weapon 3.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Rene Russo (Lorna Cole), Stuart Wilson (Jack Travis), Joe Pesci (Leo Getz), Steve Kahan (Captain Murphy), Darlene Love (Trish Murtaugh), Ebonie Smith (Carrie Murtaugh), and Nick Chinlund (Hatchett) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, and #619 - Maverick)

Review
Compared to the two previous Lethal Weapon movies, Lethal Weapon 3 isn't as good. But that's not saying it's not a good movie. It doesn't have the same punch as the first two movies, but the banter between Gibson and Glover combined with good entertaining action push the movie to respectability. If you liked the first two films, you'll like this one too, though admittedly not as much. It's not as if there's any terrible characters, in fact I love Russo's character, mainly because it's nice to see another person kick some people to the ground. Or maybe because I prefer her over Pesci's character. This time around, he's not as helpful but at least he's in the movie in limited quantities. In fact, Pesci's character wasn't in the original script, but added in later, which explains the "pop ins" he does. At least he doesn't grate on your nerves too much. The villain this time around isn't half-bad, though I won't probably remember too much of him. I do like his introduction in which he deals with an employee...with cement. It's always nice to see Gibson and Glover together because they make a good pair and have some fun that rolls with the audience. Take this for what it's worth, which is pretty good.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Angels in the Outfield (1994).

Review #566: Angels in the Outfield (1994).

Cast
Danny Glover (George Knox), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Roger Bomman), Christopher Lloyd (Al "The Boss" Angel), Tony Danza (Mel Clark), Ben Johnson (Hank Murphy), Brenda Fricker (Maggie Nelson), Jay O. Sanders (Ranch Wilder), Milton Davis Jr. (J.P.), Taylor Negron (David Montagne), Tony Longo (Triscuitt Messmer), Neal McDonough (Whitt Bass), Stoney Jackson (Ray Mitchell), Adrien Brody (Danny Hemmerling), Tim Conlon (Wally), and Matthew McConaughey (Ben Williams) Directed by William Dear.

Review
In honor of Opening Day, I decided to review this movie because...it was easy to find. Of all the teams that deserve to win a pennant, the Angels (Known as the California Angels in this movie, then the Anaheim Angels, now the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. And they say sports is always logical) were probably not high up on the list (Do the word Chicago Cubs come to mind?) to win one. This is a remake of the 1951 classic, and the first big change is the focus on the kids rather then the manager of the hapless team, which I guess makes it not just a copy of the original. The movie focuses more on...depressing "child drama", which I guess makes it more 90's. But it makes it less about baseball, and more of a boring drama that probably felt sappy in the 90's, which makes you want to yell "Get on with it!", over and over. At least you get some nice shots of Angels Stadium, with the Big A sign and all.

I find it funny that this was released in 1994, the year with the infamous baseball strike (Vive Le' Expos!), and canceled the playoffs. Talking about this movie is sort of boring when baseball is in the air, real baseball (though having an Opening Series, then an Opening Night before Opening Day is sort of annoying), with real meaning. The cast are sometimes entertaining (I wish Glover would get more screen time), Levitt is effective in portraying...a kid, I suppose. It's not too hard to do that (Unless you're Jake Lloyd), and Davis Jr pairs off well with Levitt. Lloyd isn't bad, but if you blink long enough, you'll forget he's there. The baseball action isn't bad (the effects are fine for the time, as I barely noticed this was made only 20 years ago), but this is a mediocre movie that is only notable because of all the rising stars in this movie (McConaughey, Levitt, and Brody), and for being a remake. I hope you have a fun Opening Day, no matter how the team(s) you root for do tonight.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Predator 2.

Review #548: Predator 2.

Cast
Danny Glover (Mike Harrigan), Kevin Peter Hall (The Predator), Gary Busey (Peter Keyes), Ruben Blades (Danny Archuleta), María Conchita Alonso (Leona Cantrell), Bill Paxton (Jerry Lambert), and Robert Davi (Phil Heinemann) Directed by Stephen Hopkins.

Review
The first Predator was a fun action packed thriller that had a good setting, fun atmosphere that soon changes, and good action sequences. Then came the sequel. No Arnold Schwarzenegger, no jungle setting, the only thing linking the two is Kevin Peter Hall as the Predator. But at least Danny Glover tries his best, he certainly is an entertaining person to watch in a movie as mediocre as this. It's hard to define the biggest problem of the movie. Is it the okay action? The non memorable characters? The idea to move the Predator to the city? It's probably all three, given that while the movie doesn't do anything too awful, it also doesn't do anything good either. At least Hall does a good performance in the suit, though Busey is probably more entertaining with his interactions with Glover. The rest of the cast isn't bad, Paxton is mildly entertaining. While the movie could've been much worse, it isn't that bad, and if you want to skip it over for Predators, you're not missing too much, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lethal Weapon 2.

Review #356: Lethal Weapon 2.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Joe Pesci (Leo Getz), Joss Ackland (Arjen Rudd), Derrick O'Connor (Pieter Vorstedt), Patsy Kensit (Rika Van Den Haas), Darlene Love (Trish Murtaugh), Traci Wolfe (Rianne Murtaugh), Steve Kahan (Captain Murphy), Mark Rolston (Hans), and Jenette Goldstein (Meagan Shapiro) Directed by Richard Donner.

Review
Lethal Weapon 2 is a film that in the end manages to hold up to the first one in many ways, with twists of its own. To begin with, Gibson and Glover do well, but the twist to this is the addition of Joe Pesci (part of the "Sequel-Character" Rule, where a film's sequel has added a new character to affect or help out in the story.), who..does a fine job. Maybe it's because I can handle his aspects of acting in the film better than Chris Tucker in Rush Hour. Come to think of it, this is more entertaining than the Rush Hour films, with a better to story to boot. This story is allright, weaving the good parts of the first with unusually more comedy aspects that make this an entertaining flick that keeps the magic of the first film alive.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lethal Weapon.

Review #355: Lethal Weapon.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Gary Busey (Mr. Joshua), Mitchell Ryan (Peter McAllister), Tom Atkins (Michael Hunsaker), Darlene Love (Trish Murtaugh), Jackie Swanson (Amanda Hunsaker), Traci Wolfe (Rianne Murtaugh), Damon Hines (Nick Murtaugh), and Ebonie Smith (Carrie Murtaugh) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged)

Review
This has a lot going for it, especially with the two main characters and the villain. Gibson and Glover work especially well, as a duo for some laughs and as a double team, which is magnified by the action. Oddly enough, Gary Busey does a fine job as...a villain. Last I reviewed him he was Buddy Holly, so its a bit of a change. But it works. The rest of the cast is good as well, keeping the pace going. The film manages to have some gags that do manage to not get in the way of the action. It's a strange, but good feeling. The story is fine, and the directing is effective. After all these years and some sequels, this hangs well, managing to live on and on. I'm not getting too old for this stuff...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Dreamgirls.

Review #339: Dreamgirls.

Cast

Jamie Foxx (Curtis Taylor, Jr), Beyoncé Knowles (Deena Jones), Eddie Murphy (James Early), Jennifer Hudson (Effie White), Danny Glover (Marty Madison), Anika Noni Rose (Lorrell Robinson), Keith Robinson (C.C. White), Sharon Leal (Michelle Morris), and Hinton Battle (Wayne) Directed by Bill Condon.

Review

It's been a while since I've reviewed a musical, so I decided to watch this for hopefully some good entertainment. So how is it? It's fine. I'd mention that this was apparently based off a musical based on real events, but trying to review a film with that history never ends well for me, but oh well. Knowles does a fine job, bringing some good depth. Hudson does an excellent job, working very well, especially when paired with others in the cast. But strangely the two I seem to like for this film are Eddie Murphy and Danny Glover, as they seem to bring a lot of depth and a lot of excellence. That or the fact it's a good job by Murphy, which seems to be a bit rare in the 2000's. And then there is Jamie Foxx as our (spoiler alert) villain. I get it, he is one of the main contributors to the group's success...even though yea, he's the villain. He does a good job, but somehow I feel he is a bit off. There's something about having a villain in a musical that could work...most of the time. The songs are good, having some soul, though I find it to be a bit awkward to have the cast sing some of their lines when their is no people to listen to. While it does have some small flaws, this is not a bad film. It works well and it does have some use for the most part.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.