Redux: Face/Off.

Redux #030: Face/Off.

Cast: 

John Travolta (Sean Archer), Nicolas Cage (Castor Troy), Joan Allen (Eve Archer), Alessandro Nivola (Pollux Troy), Gina Gershon (Sasha Hassler), Dominique Swain (Jamie Archer), Nick Cassavetes (Dietrich Hassler), Harve Presnell (Victor Lazarro), Colm Feore (Dr. Malcolm Walsh), John Carroll Lynch (Prison Guard Walton), CCH Pounder (Hollis Miller), Robert Wisdom (Tito Biondi), Margaret Cho (Wanda Chang), Thomas Jane (Burke Hicks), James Denton (Buzz), and Tommy Flanagan (Leo) Directed by John Woo.

Review: 

On June 27, 1997, Face/Off was released into theaters by Paramount Pictures. It was the third feature film directed by John Woo since his move to America from Hong Kong in 1993. You might remember that Woo had been offered several scripts when he decided to make his first with Hard Target (1993), with one of those being Face/Off. The script was a spec script done by Mike Werb and Michael Colleary, who were graduates of UCLA Film School. The script was written in 1990, with a concurrence of events inspiring them that ranged from seeing White Heat (1949) to hearing about a friend that had to have their face reconstructed from a hand-gliding accident to wanting to have an action movie where the bad guy was just as interesting as the good guy. The script was bought by Warner Brothers, but perceived similarities to another film in their schedule with Demolition Man (1993) hindered them. However, when the option by the studio expired, Paramount Pictures did acquire it and get the ball rolling to make a movie, which started production in October of 1996. Several drafts and several directors (such as Rob Cohen) went hand in hand with several cast members (it was written with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone in mind) all considered. One key change was the shift from it being set in the future to being set in the present day (which got Woo on board), although the writer's insistence on keeping the original ending (involving an orphan) would eventually win out in test screenings.

Sometimes you need a cat-and-mouse with tremendous talent presences behind it. I must admit that I was wondering just how much the movie would change in my perceptions since I first saw it when I was a kid in the many movies that is strange to admit when you consider the portion that happened to have an R-rating. And yet, over ten years later, I enjoyed this movie more for what it does in spectacle (air, sea, or land) with resourceful invention and timing that also has two fun actors wholly in their own element in basically getting to play two personalities each. It shows Woo at his best in terms of control of being allowed to make what he wanted to show in kinetic action with his distinct touches that make for a roaring 133-minute feature. Debating the logistics of the premise (the first facial transplant occurred in 2005, although it required the same blood type) is missing the point when it comes to how it manages to be executed with the overall result as an achievement of the suspension of disbelief for a movie that sees the key swap after a half-hour has passed by. Travolta basically has had multiple career phases that have seen him excel (and other roles that didn't quite make him look great) in multiple genres since the 1970s, but one generally sees a trying effort from him no matter what the material requires of him to do. He already had appeared in a Woo production with Broken Arrow (1996), but he excels better here with this role in part because he bubbles chaos with grand confidence that pierces through the suburban setting he is cast into for most of his time (since the lead two only share four scenes together). Having to play a narcissist thrown into the life of staid non-hedonism is quite the challenge, but he makes it worth with the right sense of timing, probably best signified by a scene where he casually straddles into a bomb situation and later throws a cheesy line about intercepting the bomb. With Cage, he could not be any hotter in terms of presence and general engagement than the 1990s, so it obviously makes sense that he excels just as well with the different approach he has with this film, one that requires him to play both a man of chaos and a man absorbed in knowing how said chaos came from one mind. In other words: it is like watching a mouse try to go through a maze without touching the corners, and Cage weaves his way through with capable charm that matches Travolta without either chewing the scenery to hinder the other. Allen is the solid soothing presence in the middle of such offbeat charm, which also occurs with Gershon despite having slightly less time to show the withered patience that comes when matched with Cage. Nivola, in only his second feature role, was reportedly inspired for the voice of his character by a documentary that he was obsessed with at the time in Crumb (1995). The supporting presences also do pretty well in setting the balance for parts with our main leads, like Pounder in trying to make this premise seem believable for one second or a heel in Lynch. This works out pretty well in a daring sort of sense for a conniving agent of chaos. 

As a whole, I enjoyed the action sequences in what Woo has managed to accomplish in its arrangement that plays like gun ballet, one that has taken the lessons learned from Hard Target and Broken Arrow with their hero-villain pairings and refined it to the best possible setup and execution. The climax that goes from a church to a boat chase to a fight on the sand is especially a key highlight in well-done cutting and setup, Woo fan or not. One is simply swept away in the enjoyment factor rather than dare to wash it off as something mindless or goofy, and perhaps that is the reason the movie has endured so well after 25 years of release. At least in my mind, anyway, since it certainly ranks as a nice highlight in both its director and its key stars, who each have had plenty of highlights to treasure in the action genre. With heightened senses from cast and crew, Face/Off faces the danger of its premise with ease and precision that has made it an enduring experience of a thrill-ride.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Fanatic.

Review #1719: The Fanatic.

Cast: 

John Travolta (Moose), Devon Sawa (Hunter Dunbar), Ana Golja (Leah), Jacob Grodnik (Todd), James Paxton (Slim), and Denny Méndez (Amanda) Directed by Fred Durst.

Review: 

I'm sure you are familiar with the director in Fred Durst in that this is his third feature film since he decided to venture a path beyond just singing nu metal for Limp Bizkit, which he helped form in 1994 as the front-man and lyricist. Sure, The Education of Charlie Banks (2007) and The Longshots (2008) weren't wildly seen by audiences, but they-Nah, never mind. You aren't here to hear a description about Durst, a guy that I hadn't heard of before this film. It is probably a dubious achievement that the first time I heard of his band was in this film, since he includes a portion of his own band's song in the movie, describing it as something "good" - no comment. Anyway, you aren't here to wonder why Redbox has decided to get involved in being one of the seemingly endless amounts of companies behind the film. No, no, no, you are here to see just where John Travolta goes with the material. At least, that is what I hope you are here for. Perhaps nobody has had as many highs and lows as Travolta, particularly since he has seemingly managed to be the best thing about each and every single one of those two types of film qualities, whether that means hits like Saturday Night Fever (1977) or stuff such as Battlefield Earth (2000). Of course, I am saying this as more of a blanket statement for when I eventually encounter some of Travolta's other works within this decade, which includes Gotti (2018) and a handful of forgettable stuff you might find on the video-on-demand circuit (or while rummaging through DVDs). 

It seems strange to think that it has been two years since the release of this film, one that certainly inspired more derision than actual sales, as if the aura of seeming like a bad cult movie was just too much to handle in terms of actual appeal. Think about it: an actor with plenty of experience in going the full mile in presence (whether over-the-top or not) paired with a singer for a director and a premise that seems ripped right out of a generic Lifetime movie? How could this not be an "extra primo" bad movie for the (laughing) family?  The problem with bad movies is that it will remind you of better movies that cover similar material. Of course, the truly bad movies will basically slam you over the head and make you truly cringe in what you should be watching. This is one of those times, and it is particularly curious because of the lead performance that comes for such a ridiculously dull waste of time. Imagine spending 89 minutes watching John Travolta wearing a silly hairpiece and perform in a certain manner (possibly) on the autism spectrum that has more energy than the rest of the small cast combined. How many movies could be linked by this film in being better than this one? The easiest one could be The King of Comedy (1982), one that involved a lead character that has obsessive fantasies about being friends with a celebrity and going for a big break by kidnapping a talk show host. With that in mind, that movie was done by the same director behind Taxi Driver, which has inspired quite a few arguments about their similarities (incidentally, the star for both movies in Robert De Niro ended up starring in another movie about obsessions with The Fan (1996), albeit about baseball). Sure, one could reference Rain Man (1988) when it comes to the acting challenge, but One Hour Photo (2002) is the true other movie to look at - that involved a lonely man obsessed with his work and with a perfect family. All of these movies have something that The Fanatic lacks - a three-dimensional character, complete with a supporting cast that also are meant to be full-fledged people. Sure, each movie has an interesting idea when it comes to celebrity worship or idealization of folks (along with performances by respectable actors), but The Fanatic manages to take the most generic routes possible while managing to say absolutely nothing at all, unless one thinks unintentional comedy is a statement. The very first line of the film pretty much sets it up, what with a character "needing to go poo." It just spirals down from there, really. It might as well rival The Vulture (1967) in terms of its absurd leaps of logic with character decisions or motivations, and I am saying this about a movie that saves its one surprise for the climax in an ending that is as limp as the rest of the movie. 

Again, one must re-iterate that Travolta is pretty effective here. Sure, the movie is incredibly cringe-worthy to actually sit through, but he never seems to ham it up for detriment. He sinks right into a fanatical role and makes it seem like something that could be interesting to view when it comes to the mind of someone who lets his curiosity go too far. The movie doesn't have a likable character, but the devoted desperation seen here by Travolta almost works in exceeding the lack of dimensions shown by the script (for which Durst wrote the story while co-writing the screenplay with Dave Bekerman) in the parts that don't involve him as much. Sawa is almost as interesting, in the sense that one can be just as irritated at the ongoing events as he would - of course, the movie has no inclination of actually doing anything interesting with him besides the bare minimum of "well, he's the one being stalked, so let's have him give out threats and that is it". For such a small cast, the others might as well be transparent in the ways they come and go (the shop owner that we see in the opening disappears halfway through, and the randomly placed security guard used to motivate the lead to "stand up for himself" also does the same). Golja plays a paparazzi that I suppose is meant to represent the third leg of a triangle about celebrity obsession or something...while also serving as the narrator (maybe she was the only one who could stomach such generic lines). She is mismatched here, easy to say. Besides, the actions the script has the character take serve as the first (or second, if one thinks about it) domino of lunacy to fall that just inspires numerous derisive questions. 

To spare one the details, the whole movie hinges on someone not getting an autograph. Scratch that, it hinges on the characters lacking logic; imagine seeing your friend (obsessed with certain things like horror and stars) get kicked out of a party that you helped him break into, and you decide to tell him about an app that tells him about where celebrities live. Gee, what could go wrong? The fact that the celebrity responds to this dude going to his house multiples times by threats and not just...calling the cops, is more baffling. Somehow, the accidental death of a housekeeper (by falling on their head in a scuffle) is only noticed after at least a day of being in the yard dead (Moose thinks its a nosebleed while deciding to go in the house, so I don't think he went so far as to move the body. Nah, he has time to go in the house and play with antlers). Of course, the climax is both the best and dumbest thing about the whole film: imagine the irony that the best part is a character deciding to respond to being tied up and breaking away by shooting the attacker's hand off, shooting near his ears, and then stabbing him in the eye. Again, since there are no characters to really emphasize with, it makes for great amusement in all the wrong ways, a vapid and illogical experience that doesn't say anything new about obsession nor does anything interesting as a thriller beyond a plethora of clichés. If you find yourself compelled to see every Travolta movie or perhaps want to see a dull cringe time, this might be for you. Others will either be bored by what they see because of its bland execution or will just roll their eyes and find something better to do. In that sense, The Fanatic might live on as a grand curiosity for people who like to see abject failure with dignity. It doesn't come close to being one of the worst, but a 3 seems aptly appropriate.

Well, we have done it. Anniversary in August has reached its 16th and last review for this month. Oh sure, we had a busy time in August last year, but August is a month that generally follows busier times, as evidenced by the fact that the busiest months in Movie Night history are July, June, and December. Hmm. I hope you folks enjoyed these reviews, which ranged from interesting curiosities to...other stuff. Consistency is a goal I hope for with Movie Night, which has had ten reviews in each month since April 2019. Onward we go. Technically, other months should get their own months with how quiet it usually is, such as September or February. Well, there is one idea...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Saturday Night Fever.

Review #1456: Saturday Night Fever.

Cast: 
John Travolta (Anthony "Tony" Manero), Karen Lynn Gorney (Stephanie Mangano), Barry Miller (Bobby C.), Joseph Cali (Joey), Paul Pape (Double J.), Donna Pescow (Annette), Bruce Ornstein (Gus), Val Bisoglio (Frank Manero, Sr.), Julie Bovasso (Flo Manero), and Martin Shakar (Frank Manero, Jr.) Directed by John Badham (#086 - Short Circuit and #1293 - Dracula)

Review: 
"My mother was an acting teacher. She taught more of the existentialist style, which was that acting is believing that you're in the moment with the other actor, and I like that. I'm more comfortable portraying what I'm feeling at the moment and not knowing what I'm going to do next."
Some films are just made to endure for their era, for better or worse. The film was inspired by a story in New York magazine called "Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night", written by Nik Kohn as a supposed detailing of the disco scene of the time (it was revealed two decades later to be a lie by Kohn, with the lead focus being inspired by a person in the mod culture that he knew in the 1960s). It should only figure that this was the film that helped John Travolta become a major star. The son of a tire salesman and an actress/teacher, he had dropped out of high school at 17 to do work in the stage (such as starring in a small role with a touring production of Grease). In 1975 (at the age of 21), he caught a break with a role in Welcome Back, Kotter, which he appeared on for four seasons. The film was produced by Robert Stigwood, a music entrepreneur along with film producer behind managing groups such as the Bee Gees along with film productions like Grease (1978) and Gallipoli (1981).
Another person who was helped by the success of this film was John Badham, who had done plenty of television work earlier in the decade and one previous theatrical film (The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings) that found his way into the film after John G. Avildsen was fired due to creative differences before shooting.

It's funny, for a film so popular like this one, I am surprised that there were actually two versions of this film that were put into theaters. With such a vibrant soundtrack and diverting dance sequences, it could almost be easy to forget the grimy realism that permeates throughout this 119 minute film. In response to the youth response to the soundtrack, Paramount Pictures released a PG-rated edit of the film two years later, which de-emphasized/cut out sequences involving profanity (some involving racial epithets said by some of the characters involving Puerto Ricans) along with references to drugs and a car scene near the end of the film (which involved the rape of one character along with the attempt of another character), with the end result being a 109 minute film. The version I watched was the director's cut, which re-incorporated two deleted scenes into the original film. If one looked at the film without the disco elements, what you see is a film wrapped with the question of what it means to try and live a life beyond the dance floor. One can't dance in a night club or hang out near a bridge talking the same jokes or things forever - in other words, we have to grow up sometime and do some sort of thing with our life beyond the little things we think is all to living. In this sense, Travolta does a tremendous job with making a fascinating lead to follow, a riveting and generally charming performance when on screen - whether on the dance floor or when dealing with the long and winding road of trying to grow up beyond Brooklyn. The others match up fine with making the moments in and out of the dance floor feel real enough, with Gorney and Miller leading the pack with fairly compelling turns when paired with Travolta wherever it wants to go. Although it is a film very much of its era (with fashion and disco, which had a decline in popularity just two years after release), it is a film with a basic foundation that can still apply today with a catchy beat, impactful moments of realism and a tremendous star turn for Travolta that makes it a worthy film to seek out then and now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Michael (1996).

Review #1312: Michael.

Cast: 
John Travolta (Michael), Andie MacDowell (Dorothy Winters), William Hurt (Frank Quinlan), Bob Hoskins (Vartan Malt), Robert Pastorelli (Huey Driscoll), Jean Stapleton (Pansy Milbank), Teri Garr (Judge Esther Newberg), Wallace Langham (Bruce Craddock), and Joey Lauren Adams (Anita) Directed by Nora Ephron (#554 - Sleepless in Seattle and #1020 - You've Got Mail)

Review: 

It may have already been said before, but it bears repeating: some movies are just easier to write about than others. Some are involving pieces that can deliver on laughs while others can do that and a bit of romance. This is not quite one of those films, as it seems I have stumbled onto yet another mediocre Nora Ephron effort, although at least it isn't one with some sort of following (sidenote: this was a fair hit with audiences upon release). It is fundamentally a mediocre movie, wracked by middling humor that seems to be the work of too many cooks at writer (there are four credits for screenplay, one of them being the director) while also being too hokey when trying to inspire any sense of passion. Its one highlight is a lead performance from Travolta, an angel with a devil-may-care attitude that occasionally imparts wisdom.  He is eccentric enough to almost push this forward, but we're dealing with a road movie with otherwise empty others. That sure is a shame, because Hurt and MacDowell are capable actors, but it takes too much time to really build hints for a romance and it leads to a mild payoff that can't satisfy anyone. So they're both too cynical to open their hearts to love at first, big deal. The antics of its lead character almost seems enough for its own film without any attempts at comedy-drama, or even just a silly television movie. On the road with a fellow like its lead should be more interesting than what plays out here, aside from its one barfight scene and trips to random landmarks. The supporting cast is fine, but they aren't too special, mostly serving as one-hit wonders (such as a brash Hoskins) that carry the film with a mild relish (although the dog is cute, I guess). My expectations for this film were fairly middling, where I didn't think it would be a silly time or a particularly moving film - 105 minutes seems okay when it comes to mediocrity, I suppose. Once one gets behind the idea of Travolta playing a rascal from above (complete with wings), the possibilities could be endless (for hilarity or ridicule, you be the judge). It just seems a road movie isn't exactly what one has in mind (especially with how obvious its story beats are). Even a scene of a dog being run over doesnt have a pull, because one knows it's going to be reversed a few moments later anyway. If a film is about the journey and how it gets there, this is one where the journey seems to have a few too many dead ends. It needs more laughs and shocks to really pull something to the skies and above. At least this is the kind of film you could watch a few minutes on television without trouble -before either switching to find a better Travolta lead to view or going to sleep.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Carrie (1976).

Review #1230: Carrie.

Cast: 
Sissy Spacek (Carrie White), Piper Laurie (Margaret White), Amy Irving (Sue Snell), William Katt (Tommy Ross), Betty Buckley (Miss Collins), Nancy Allen (Chris Hargensen), John Travolta (Billy Nolan), P. J. Soles (Norma Watson), Sydney Lassick (Mr. Fromm), Stefan Gierasch (Principal Morton), Priscilla Pointer (Eleanor Snell), and Edie McClurg (Helen Shyres) Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible)

Review: 
When it comes to making films from novels, Stephen King books sure do make for interesting material to cull from. Prior to the publication of his first novel, he had been a English teacher at Hampden Academy in Maine; he had contributed and written numerous short stories for years while trying to work on ideas for novels. Early in the writing process for the novel that would become Carrie, King threw out the first few pages of the work he had typed out (involving the shower scene), which his wife Tabitha saved. She encouraged him to finish the story, As he later described after the book's success: "I persisted because I was dry and had no better ideas… my considered opinion was that I had written the world's all-time loser." As it turned out, Carrie (released in 1974) became a hit, with King soon selling off the film rights to the book (for $2,500) - director Brian De Palma, a reader of the book soon got interested in doing the film, with Lawrence D. Cohen being brought in as screenwriter. The budget for the film would prove to be $1.8 million, which was pretty small compared to other horror films of its time, but in any case the film managed to turn out pretty well for itself, raking in over $30 million upon release. It isn't hard to see why its success inspired others to try and make further adaptations, including a 1988 Broadway musical, a 1999 sequel, and remakes in 2002 and 2013. The film itself is a fine piece of horror entertainment, being fairly engaging with terror and tension that manages to endure well after its release four decades ago. It works best with key moments such as its opening or its prom climax, where its tragic elements play well within a high school setting like this, and a fairly game cast makes that click in most of the right places. It does fine with a pace of 98 minutes, building its reversion of the Cinderella tale to life with a few good direction and camera tricks from De Palma and cinematographer Mario Tosi.

Spacek plays the role with vulnerability and angst that slowly morphs itself into some readiness to make for a rounded out performance fitting for a film like this. Laurie chews a bit of scenery with a brimstone touch, but it all feels worth it in part because she doesn't lose your attention whenever she shows up on screen. Irving and Katt turn out okay for their parts, both having a bit of plain charm to them. Buckley plays her part (named Desjardin in the novel) just fine, probably being the easiest person to follow along with besides Carrie at times. Allen, Travolta, and Soles (all in the early parts of their respective film careers), make for a capable group of bullies, the kind of people that could fit right in with the right crowds for the time without having to reveal themselves too much. In any case, it is the prom sequence where the film gets itself into final gear, where it builds up the tension for its memorable moment slowly but surely until it hits like a bucket of blood. The split-screen usage here is a bit interesting here for its time, at least, and the lighting sure can make for a tense watch. It lets loose with terror for a good bit and makes a fine climax upon return back home. There is a scene after that (different from the novel), but it's probably best to let a first-time viewer watch the whole thing without getting too spoiled - but it sure makes for a good punch to leave the viewers home with a bit of a chill. On the whole, this is a well-done tragic horror film that pulls some punches close to home with a good reflexive sense behind it and some memorable terror to along with it to make this a fine film to recommend for the horror circuit.

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.

Movie Night: Battlefield Earth.

Review #704: Battlefield Earth.

Cast
John Travolta (Terl), Barry Pepper (Jonnie Goodboy Tyler), Forest Whitaker (Ker), Kim Coates (Carlo), Sabine Karsenti (Chrissy), Richard Tyson (Robert the Fox), and Kelly Preston (Chirk) Directed by Roger Christian.

Review
I tempted fate. All I had to say was 'dutch angle', and this is the result. A whole movie with dutch angles. You might be wondering why I mention this after reviewing a movie I liked with dutch angles. Because this one is just terrible. Apparently the angles were put in the movie to give it more of a comic book feel...but the angles seem more pretentiously put there to make the movie seem less terrible, but it only makes it worse. What was I talking about? Oh yeah, this movie. It's awful. Tremendously. Exceptionally. Dutifully. I can't decide what is worse: John Travolta's performance or the inane script. Actually, I think both are equally drivel. So I am to understand that this is supposed to be like Star Wars? Because it seems more like The Phantom Menace's immature cousin instead. I do wonder how the human race in this movie managed to lose the invasion in a matter of minutes to such silly aliens such as these. I realize why Terl decided to educate Pepper's character (to be the foreman for the mine), but that doesn't mean I can't make fun of the fact that he basically signed his death notice by doing that. I have no idea how Whitaker got signed onto this movie, though at least he won an Oscar years after this train wreck, so he has that going for him. At least the movie did one thing right. It won Golden Raspberry Awards. Seven of them, in fact. The movie couldn't even make its budget back, but it at least won a bunch of awards, which I'm sure Travolta is proud of. Actually, this is one of those movie everyone would like to forget. I can't decide whether to give it a 0/10 stars...or a negative rating. But then I realized that it would be an insult to the three zero star movies (Birdemic, The Garbage Pail Kids Movie & The Magic Voyage), and I need to keep my reputation.

I end this review with a line that I'm sure was meant to be taken seriously.
"While you were still learning how to spell your name, I was being trained to conquer galaxies!"

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Be Cool.

Review #517: Be Cool.

Cast
John Travolta (Chili Palmer), Uma Thurman (Edie Athens), Vince Vaughn (Roger "Raji" Lowenthal), Cedric the Entertainer (Sin LaSalle), Harvey Keitel (Nick Carr), Christina Milian (Linda Moon), André Benjamin (Dabu), Dwayne Johnson (Elliot Wilhelm), Robert Pastorelli (Joseph "Joe Loop" Lupino), Paul Adelstein (Hyman Gordon), and Arielle Kebbel (Robin) Directed by F. Gary Gray.

Review
I was in my living room, when a sudden urge came into me (No, it was not to eat more chicken), and it led me to pick Be Cool to review. So, like a fool, I decided to watch it. Hours later, I think I'll regret watching this film. It is not a bad film, it is a disappointing film that seems to either try way too hard (Multitudes and multitudes subplots) or try too little (Such as some of the acting), all springing into a lifeless "comedy" that seems to care about its cameos more then its actual actors. Travolta does okay, but his cast seems to not have any life in them, it seems the only one who cares enough to make an (positive) impression is Dwayne Johnson, who has some charm and likability even with a bad afro. The rest of the cast either range from okay (Cedric the Entertainer, who always seems to be fun to watch, but he's the only one in this film that is okay) to not really memorable (Milian, who is plagued by all the subplots) to just plain awful (Vince Vaughn, a baffling, yet lame choice), and they never click. It seems the comedy is overridden by the subplots and characters, which are endless and mostly annoying, in that order. Get Shorty was a fun flick that used the actor to their best talent. Be Cool uses their star power instead, and the film suffers because of it. Comparing these film would be impossible as this review would be 50 lines long, but I will close this review out by wondering if this film's true title was Sell Out.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Broken Arrow (1996).

Review #336: Broken Arrow.

Cast
John Travolta (Vic Deakins), Christian Slater (Riley Hale), Samantha Mathis (Terry Carmichael), Delroy Lindo (Max Wilkins), Bob Gunton (Pritchett), Casey Biggs (Novacek), Frank Whaley (Giles Prentice), Shaun Toub (Max), Howie Long (Kelly), Vondie Curtis-Hall (Sam Rhodes), and Kurtwood Smith (Secretary of Defense) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off)

Review
It's almost amazing how an action film can feel so familiar, feeling like other films without even trying. There's something about this film that dooms it (for me) from the start. Our two leads. Maybe its just me, but Travolta is actually more interesting to go for. With Slater I just have this mild feel for, even with the leading actress. The acting is mediocre, not too bad, but not exactly anything either. I do like Delroy Lindo though, though it may be due to missing him and his performance in Get Shorty. Oh, and Kurtwood Smith. The film's action is okay, with the usual explosions of stuff one might expect. But honestly, I have absolutely no investment in the two main plot devices (Nuclear weapons) of the film. The timecodes get switched consistantly, giving not much time to care. While Woo does a fine job directing, it's obvious that his next film after this would be better (That would be Face/Off), and while it can have some fun by Travolta, it's not one of his best. If you have zero expectations of great quality that actions films wish they could do, you might get some enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Get Shorty.

Review #005: Get Shorty.

Cast
John Travolta (Chili Palmer), Gene Hackman (Harry Zimm), Rene Russo (Karen Flores), Danny DeVito (Martin Weir), Dennis Farina (Ray "Bones" Barbone), Bette Midler (Doris Saffrin), Delroy Lindo (Bo Catlett), and James Gandolfini (Bear) Directed by Barry Sonnenfeld.

Review
This film is smart, engaging, interesting, useful, and more. The characters are interesting, with Travolta and DeVito being the best standouts, as the film also has a comedic touch to it, making it feel excellent in many ways. It feels like one of those classics from the old classic times that make you feel right at home, with each scene do a great job in style. Believe or not, there was a sequel to this, but I have not watched it. It took 512 reviews and over three years, but I finally got to the sequel.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.