Next of Kin.

Review #2553: Next of Kin.

Cast: 

Patrick Swayze (Detective Truman Gates), Liam Neeson (Briar Gates), Adam Baldwin (Joey Rosselini), Helen Hunt (Jessie Gates), Andreas Katsulas (Johnny "Papa John" Isabella), Bill Paxton (Gerald Gates), Ben Stiller (Lawrence Isabella), Michael J. Pollard (Harold), Ted Levine (Willy Simpson), Del Close (Frank), Valentino Cimo (Rhino), Paul Greco (Leo), Vincent Guastaferro (Paulie), and Paul Herman (Lieutenant Tony Antonelli) Directed by John Irvin (#1591 - Hamburger Hill)

Review: 

Sure, you probably saw this on a DVD pack sometime or maybe your dad had the film on the shelf (this is a case where both applies, because it lurks on both the bottom of the film shelf and also on an "action multi-pack" with stuff such as The Last Boy Scout). You might say this is a case of a movie being so mediocre that I have to strain to find words to talk about it. This was the seventh film of John Irvin, who had moved over from his native England (where he did documentaries, TV adaptations such as Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) to do feature films, with a few of his first being a mix of British and American productions, such as The Dogs of War (1980) and Raw Deal (1986), respectively. The years after this film saw him do a varied amount of films and TV work afterwards, mostly outside the States. The movie was written by Michael Jenning in his only film credit (the only other credit is writing for a TV movie called "Spot Marks the X"). Made on a budget of roughly $12 million and released a few months after audiences could see Swayze in, say, Road House, the movie was not a major success with audiences.

Admittedly, I wanted to like the movie. You've got young promising talent with Neeson, Hunt and Stiller (one of these people won an Academy Award, and somehow it wasn't Neeson) to go along with ideas of interest with Baldwin and Katsulas and a semi-game Swayze for a movie...that never really goes that far. It lumbers for 108 minutes with what can only be described as "the bare minimum" in generic nature that will work for some and make others shrug when it ends and leaves the memory bank just as quickly. It's a revenge tale that has an idea in mind: a tale serving revenge "country style" (no, I will not use the word "hillbilly") that you would imagine would sound like someone trying to drunkenly combine Deliverance and The Godfather. But no, it basically just meanders around Chicago with Swayze trying to corral Neeson from blazing a path fierier than Sherman's March to the Sea*, complete with one stunt about jumping onto a train. It is an aimless movie that only really commits to having a battle between country style folks and gangsters for the ending, which naturally has to be at night, with arrows being involved (somehow, there's a scene of preparing lunch for the travelling country boys that amuses me in its placement). There are flashes of lunacy from Baldwin to be compelling, but it mostly feels like moving the chairs on the deck waiting to see if something really comes into play beyond neutral gear. Swayze basically has the movie stolen from him by Neeson, who just has the offbeat energy to be more compelling in a misguided quest (and accent, because if you have the shot to cast a Northern Irishman to play a man from Kentucky, you take it) than whatever is supposed to be the case with an ordinary family dynamic between Swayze and Hunt. Obviously one character has to go at minimum to advance the plot, but it sure is a shame to see Paxton go so early, but it almost seems necessary to do so with Stiller in a nepo baby role that basically screams "move along". It all is just a long-winded revenge tale where you find yourself entranced at the stuff you've seen before in these type of movies or just check your watch. At least the climax tries to present something different in resolving the wounds of a blood feud, corny as it can be. As a whole, Next of Kin might as well be the Ink blot test of action movies: you see what you see and go from there in either liking the experience or forgetting it just as quickly as you saw it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Stretching a reference, sure. But fuck the Confederacy.

Cast Away.

Review #1527: Cast Away.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Chuck Noland), Helen Hunt (Kelly Frears), Nick Searcy (Stan), Chris Noth (Jerry Lovett), Lari White (Bettina Peterson), Vince Martin (Pilot Al), Michael Forest (Pilot Jack), and Jay Acovone (Pilot Peter) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, #747 - Back to the Future Part II, and #748 - Back to the Future Part III)

Review: 
"I had a passionate interest in the technique of filmmaking. I think, because of how I was raised, I always assumed that I would be some sort of technician. I just love the process and I thought, "Maybe there's a way I can be a camera man or something."

Innovation is always welcome in cinema, particularly when it comes to the work of Robert Zemeckis. Interestingly, he got his interest in film in a blue-collar upbringing that did not encourage much particular interest in the arts besides television, which he felt was the one thing that was inspirational to him when it came to seeing something different from his Chicago life. He was interested in film through an 8 mm film camera that his family had for themselves, which he would use to gradually hone skills in narrative (using stop-motion work, for example). The film that inspired him the most in terms of its power was Bonnie and Clyde (1967), which made him want to go to film school, to the disappointment of his parents. He did some studies at Northern Illinois University along with film cutting at NBC News and commercial editing before deciding to apply for transfer to the University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts. He sent an essay to them alongside a short film he made that was in his words "an illustration of a Beatles song" (essentially an early example of a music video) - while he did receive confirmation to the school, he did not initially receive one from USC itself, until he pleaded with an official to improve his grades. He proved quite well with studies, and one of his short films (A Field of Honor) wound up winning a Student Film Award (which are presented to student filmmakers by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences) in 1975. He moved into features with I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978) but only reached success after Romancing the Stone (1984), which was soon followed by classics like Back to the Future (1985), Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), and Forrest Gump (1994). He is known as an innovator in visual effects along with versatility in various genres in his body of work, which involve both comedies and dramas.

The genesis for this film came in parts of three: Hanks had an idea inspired by an article he saw about Boeing 747s carrying FedEx packages over the Pacific every day involving what would happen if went down. William Broyles Jr was enlisted to develop a story from that idea (with a stay on a deserted beach being the impetus for Wilson the volleyball), and Hanks had approached Zemeckis about it a short while after making Forrest Gump. It would take a few years to both develop the right script alongside with filming, since the latter part depended on Hanks gaining and then losing 50 pounds (with the time spent during that break leading to Zemeckis making a film about another story he was interested in - What Lies Beneath, which share film crews and was released the same year as this). I must admit that this was a film long on my radar to do. The concept is an interesting one, even if it has the task of holding together for over two hours with mostly just one actor present (or perhaps not if one is familiar with Robinson Crusoe, although I was reminded of the subsequent film All is Lost). Being stuck on an island, with a few convenient things around him that changes a guy carried by time into one with all the time in the world to himself. I think we can all relate to the plight of someone that is all alone to themselves, apart from others for significant time with only a few devices (or perhaps none at all) as comfort. The film requires an actor who can exude great everyman charm that can be alone with himself and then share a conversation with a volleyball. In this sense, Hanks seems just right for the part. He carries this film for most of its 143-minute runtime with care for having us keep our eye on his evolution of solitude and desperation. We sense his anguish and heart through moments such as trying to make his first fire or searching through the packages at what was and what never will be. Undeniably though, I do enjoy the film a bit better when Wilson joins the fray as someone for Hanks to bounce off, and it is up to the viewer in what they really feel for when it comes to the beginning and closing scenes, since I do kind of wish that the film just ended without having actually meeting the others again (in other words, end on one specific shot), just to shake things up further. That isn't to say Hunt and the others are bad, only that they only serve a very basic purpose that is casual and okay to follow through. Maybe it just depends on how much one knows about the film before seeing it, though this is a 20-year-old film now, so make your own path. It isn't exactly the kind of film I rank very highly with most of his other work, but Zemeckis managed to pull off a careful curiosity, nonetheless. On the whole, it is an involving movie, one that will surely resonate well with those who like the art of seeing someone fend for their lives with instinct while watching the waves go by.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

As Good as It Gets.

Review #1516: As Good as It Gets.

Cast: 
Jack Nicholson (Melvin Udall), Helen Hunt (Carol Connelly), Greg Kinnear (Simon Bishop), Cuba Gooding Jr. (Frank Sachs), Skeet Ulrich (Vincent), Shirley Knight (Beverly Connelly), Yeardley Smith (Jackie), Lupe Ontiveros (Nora), and Jill the Dog (Verdell) Produced and Directed by James L. Brooks (#1470 - Terms of Endearment and #1485 - Broadcast News)

Review: 
"Just let the wardrobe be the character. You play yourself. That's the way you approach it."

It's easy to do a romantic comedy-drama when you have two of a kind playing against each other. Jack Nicholson was already an icon in doing a variety of outsider/anti-hero roles through a long and varied career that toiled for years in low-budget fare and writing before rising to prominence with Easy Rider (1969) and Five Easy Pieces (1970). As for Helen Hunt, she came from a family of photographers and directors and worked as a child actress from a young age. She eventually took on film with films like Trancers (1984) before reaching some success with the sitcom Mad About You in 1992. As for director Brooks, this was his fourth film venture (the first after the flop I'll Do Anything three years prior). It came about because of a script he found named Old Friends, written by Mark Andrus (who went from graduating in business from UC Riverside to creative writing, and he had his first script credit with Late for Dinner (1991) at the age of 36). Its story of a vile man and his gay neighbor had toiled around for years in limbo with various actors like Kevin Kline expressing interest. A year was spent in doing reworking of the script in changing its emphasis, but Brooks would spend considerable time experimenting when filming along with tinkering with the editing and its ending (which apparently changed five times).

As a love story of aggravation and change, it certainly has quite a strange appeal. Over the gradual pace of 139 minutes, it creaks and moves towards romance with a reluctant foot forward and a good cast to make a moderately funny piece of entertainment. It all starts with Nicholson, who is quite enjoyable in acidic misanthropy, one that is hard to resist in viewing because of how Nicholson makes the role across in compulsions and obsessions with conviction that never is sold out for cheap tricks. He can throw a dog in a chute and yet we still find ourself going along with his curious nature in what makes one the way they are and aren't. Hunt matches him with a mix of weariness and her own rediscovering of herself that makes a well-rounded performance of charm that goes quite hand-in-hand for some interesting chemistry like fire and ice when with Nicholson that doesn't seem too out of the blue for where they need to go. Kinnear accompanies the proceedings as the other piece of a trio of human frailty and wit that comes from it with a snappy Gooding Jr or brief moments of charm from Knight alongside smaller moments from folks like Harold Ramis that lend the film some breath of a capably human world trying to deal with very real miseries and quibbles that come from all facets of life, whether that means work or other stuff. The first half definitely works better than the second in setting up moments of back-and-forth between Nicholson and Hunt (along with pretty much anybody else his orbit, such as a quip about how he writes about romance), while the second half travels on the road with our trio and sticks itself in a bit of sentiment that gels adequately to try and arrange what you could (or could not) expect from its setup of exacting change in the patterns of people - if you remotely believe that our main duo can stick as a couple, then it will work out with wonders. For me, it sticks okay, but it definitely seems a bit tinkered one too many times to really separate it as a great experience, particularly with a length of 139 minutes. On the whole, the film gradually builds a human story towards romance with most of it in the right place with an absolute winning pair in Nicholson and Hunt to go along with a few good humorous moments to make something worth going for both the heart and the throat in charm.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Twister.

Review #812: Twister.

Cast
Bill Paxton (Bill Harding), Helen Hunt (Dr. Jo Harding), Jami Gertz (Dr. Melissa Reeves), Cary Elwes (Dr. Jonas Miller), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Dusty Davis), Alan Ruck (Robert Nurick), Jeremy Davies (Brian Laurence), Joey Slotnick (Joey), and Sean Whalen (Alan Sanders) Directed by Jan de Bont.

Review

Truth be told...This made Independence Day (#193, which also happened to be released 20 years ago) seem like less of a chore compared to this. Simply put, Twister is a popcorn movie, solely entertaining for the destruction set forth by the tornadoes. If you go into it looking for some sort of enjoyment from these characters or plot, you won't really get much from it, save for Hoffman, who certainly has enough quirky energy to stand out in a movie designed to just be a spectacle. Paxton is fine, but him and Hunt never really seem to have much chemistry that stands out among the tornadoes. Elwes is the "bad guy" of the movie (unless you count the tornado), complete with an accent that while not laughable is mildly entertaining. Let's put it this way: Giving the movie criticism for being what it aspired to be is tough, because it aimed for that goal and not much else. But for me, it was only mildly entertaining, because there comes to be a point when you get tired of tornadoes ripping stuff to shreds over and over again. The characters exist to give the movie a plot, barely registering as cliches. I guess something must be wrong (with either me or the movie) when only one major character dies in the whole movie, and it's the "corporate bad guy". If I don't care about the characters trying to get a research device into the vortex of a tornado (because they're bound to get at least one out of four), then why even bother with the movie? Because...the effects? I suppose so. It really is the ultimate take it or leave it movie. For me, it was just an average movie that wasn't as exciting as other movies designed to just do one certain thing, being just a movie that came and went as average as a weather report.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.