Assassins (1995).

Review #2546: Assassins (1995).

Cast:

Sylvester Stallone (Robert Rath / Joseph Rath), Antonio Banderas (Miguel Bain), Julianne Moore (Electra / Anna), Anatoly Davydov (Nicolai Tashlinkov), Muse Watson (Ketcham), Steve Kahan (Alan Branch), Kai Wulff (Remy), Mark Coates (Jereme Kyle), Kelly Rowan (Jennifer), and Reed Diamond (Bob) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, #734 - Lethal Weapon 4, #1452 - The Omen, and #1542 - 16 Blocks, #1700 - The Goonies)

Review: 

"Assassins, I thought Stallone did one of the best jobs he’s ever done. He totally underplayed, he was quiet, he found the character and he went with it. I thought Antonio Banderas was wonderful. The picture came out, and it did not do very well at all. Sure, it hurts and you know why you wish it would do better? The studio gave you a lot of money and you want them to make their money back so that other people can make movies...And I thought we did a good job and they thought we did a good job, but the audiences and critics didn’t like it. Did I feel bad? Sure. Did it get me down? Nope, nope, nope — too lucky to be in this business to be down in the dumps."

Admittedly, I picked this movie because I felt it was time to look at another Richard Donner movie. So why not go with this one, a movie released near the tail-end (16th of 20*) of a fairly interesting career? You might think the film credit for the writing is interesting because it lists the Wachowskis for the story and a co-credit with Brian Helgeland (who at the point had worked on the scripts for the fourth A Nightmare on Elm Street film, 976-EVIL, and Highway to Hell) for the screenplay. When Donner got the script from Joel Silver (who had bought the spec script along with The Matrix), he had re-writes done to it (which namely involved toning down the violence along with emphasizing the Rath-Electra storyline while not having a certain character included for the climax), which the Wachowskis did not like to the point where they tried to get their name removed from it, but the Writers Guild of America refused. Interestingly, both screenplays are available for viewing (the Wachowskis one is seen here, while the modified shooting script is seen here). Made on a reported budget for $50 million, the movie was not a huge success with audiences or critics at the time. Probably the only thing the movie ended up being noted for was a reaction shot by Banderas that became a "meme" on the Internet.

 

In some ways, it feels like a movie that is desperate to be liked. With such a limited cast of basically three (with one further person being shoehorned in for the start and end), you might be forgiven for wondering if there was a tiny bit of a Western yearning to come out (an old gunfighter wanting to retire, only to encounter one more gunfight could be seen in say, The Shootist [1976]). And there are moments that are fascinating in Stallone trying to play an understated hero to go along with a colorful Banderas. Of course, the sinking feeling of watching the film unravel around the backstretch of setting up the final  act combines with a middling Moore and an unwieldy runtime of 133 minutes for a sad disappointment that I cannot really defend beyond saying "I like the people* in it but not the vehicle they are driving." Banderas basically steals the show in the theatrics that come in "trying to be No. 1" for basic one-upmanship that desperately needs a funnier or tighter movie to really let him do his thing besides a listless one that seems to accidentally stumble into anything. He's fun, if only because it is Banderas, not so much the script or direction. Stallone could do things other than action movies, the righteous ones know that from Oscar (1991), but I do get why "subdued" isn't exactly an easy sell. Some of the time feels like doddering to try and make him sound more interesting than he needs to be, because really it could've just been a hard-lined silent type and that would work better than trying to play type with Moore, who just seems adrift in "hacker" cliches and little humor to really make for a connection beyond one you might see when stuck at the self-checkout lane at the supermarket. You would think a movie where a guy is chasing someone around in the craven pursuit of being "number one", complete with various "conversations" spent on the computer (as one does as a hired guy, talking with a supervisor) would be more interesting, but no, it's just generic stuff. For a movie with an alleged polish, it just seems all too sluggish to actually get anywhere in staging the action, particularly with a climax that relies on the adversary having to sweat out waiting to shoot a dude leaving a bank (see, because that guy did the same years ago, so it is...tasteful imitation) only to get frustrated to go the bank to confront said guy (which in turn leads to sneaking around the creaky hideout), because, yeah, okay. The twist for the end is just lazy and leads to an even lamer resolution because, screw it, we forgot to have a body count worth updating regardless of how silly it looks. As a whole, Assassins is just a bit too lazy to excel as anything other than a mediocre effort from people who can't override the feeling of watching an undercooked movie that never rises all the way above the bare minimum. It just doesn't have the milage to do better than picking any other action film of its ilk, which is a shame. It's an autopilot movie that you may or may not see some interest in if you really, really, really need to see a certain director or star all the way through. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*21 if you want to include Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006)

*What can I say, Sylvester Stallone is a fascinating person to see in movies? Sure, I doubt I would agree  with him on say, a certain political topic, but really, how can I turn away from seeing whatever ridiculous stuff he starred/directed? And Moore, well, I love women.

Safe (1995).

Review #2340: Safe.

Cast: 

Julianne Moore (Carol White), Peter Friedman (Peter Dunning), Xander Berkeley (Greg White), James LeGros (Chris), Martha Velez (Fulvia), Susan Norman (Linda), Kate McGregor-Stewart (Claire), Mary Carver (Nell), Steven Gilborn (Dr. Hubbard), and Peter Crombie (Dr. Reynolds) Written and Directed by Todd Haynes.

Review: 

"There’s a history of inexplicable illnesses, that established medicine can’t confirm as absolutely physiological, that have affected women. I think they are diseases of identity that force you to see that identity is a fragile and basically an imaginary construct that we pretend to carry around. The more unexamined it is, the more vulnerable you are."

Admittedly, it took a few years to get to a director who actually started his career with a movie involving Barbie dolls. Born in Los Angeles, Todd Haynes studied art and semiotics at Brown University and yet had been influenced by his high school teacher, who taught him a lesson about reality "can't be a criterion of judging the success or failure of a film or its effect on you". Haynes made his first short film in 1978 but it was his work on a short in 1987 while studying at Bard College that garnered considerable attention in more ways than one: Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (1987) was a chronicle (43 minutes) of the life of the pop singer but with Barbie dolls as actors (with, well, one being chipped away gradually to reflect anorexia) to make for an "experimental film" to go along with archive and stop motion footage that had music from The Carpenters...which generated controversy from Richard Carpenter because the music was not licensed for the film. The result is that one can only see the film in bootleg form. Haynes' feature debut with the sci-fi drama horror movie Poison (1991) had its own brand of scrutiny, because its partial funding by the National Endowment of the Arts stoked controversy because of certain moments in the film ("explicit porno" is an actual phrase used by the babies who complained at the time). Haynes wrote the script for Safe fairly quickly after Poison but it took time to raise money ($1 million) for the film, which among other inspirations, found interest in "environmental illness". In over three decades, Haynes has directed eleven films (and one TV miniseries), which has included such movies as Far from Heaven (2002), Carol (2015), and his most recent movie, May December (2023).

It is interesting to hear "The Yellow Wallpaper" mentioned. As one might know from say, high school reading, that short story was written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman in 1892. That's the short story where a husband imposes a "rest cure" to his wife because she is afflicted with something after giving birth (okay, the disease in that story is basically what people know now as postpartum depression but stay with me), with Gilman being influenced by her own experiences of having been in a "rest cure" Think how that woman is gradually revealed to, well, have various descriptions of the wallpaper of the room that basically imprisons her. Now think about a movie that took inspiration from Louise Hay's self-help books that once had a quote saying that "almost anything can be healed" if one is willing to do the mental work for a narrative (set in 1987, at the height of a certain disease that obviously led to plenty of questions about therapy and recovery treatments, gay person or not) that involves a married woman with a family that finds something has afflicted her. The film starts in a place where one really sees the bare minimum of nature and manages to burrow further in that basically serves as facsimile of the conventional movie. It strikes to the core with a lead character that Haynes once described as having "the most vulnerable part of identity, the most uncertain and fragile part of myself." Time has seemingly made the movie seem even more prescient when it comes to that weird thing that arises in modern society when it comes to what "safe" really is in a land of hollow people that repress themselves (this especially leans politically, where I am reminded of how many people seem to believe things were just better in the old pictures/movies they seem to revere as gospel). Whether it involves psychotherapy, or New-Age mumbo jumbo, people just use something to strike at being "alone". Moore pretty much plays the role with a weightless type of quality in voice and approach that basically dominates the movie in a way that is beautifully horrific, as if she was a ripped wallpaper trying to get back to some sort of wall. Her vulnerability at the uncertain grasp that comes with identity and community is one that leaves you at a curious distance that has us examine ourselves for what we think about when it comes to the cycle of illness and what we think about in "recovery" through the lens of burden or strength. We see the sick, but do we actually hear them? Whether by circumstances of their own control or through the cruel nature of the unknown, the world we live in makes for a very strange process to see people and communities. It's interesting to see the contrast between her interactions with Berkeley (totally staid for the hollow-men, as one sees from the sex scene from above) as compared to Friedman and his ideal persona of feel-goodness. It is a slow burn of unsettling strangeness that leaves one at the very least unsettled at what has been sprung on them for its climax in terms of defining love in the eyes of oneself. In the end, we all yearn to be "safe" from something, where we wrap ourselves in a bubble and just believe in that decision in the face of all things. Whether taken as melodrama or horror, what we have here is a well-done film in the art of isolation and the delusions that come with misplaced beliefs and burdens that all come to roost at some point in our very lives.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Sunday night: be ready and Go Bills.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

Review #1843: The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

Cast: 

Jeff Goldblum (Dr. Ian Malcolm), Julianne Moore (Dr. Sarah Harding), Pete Postlethwaite (Roland Tembo), Arliss Howard (Peter Ludlow), Richard Attenborough (Dr. John Hammond), Vince Vaughn (Nick Van Owen), Vanessa Lee Chester (Kelly Curtis), Peter Stormare (Dieter Stark), Harvey Jason (Ajay Sidhu), Richard Schiff (Eddie Carr), and Thomas F. Duffy (Dr. Robert Burke) 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, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence, #1560 - The Adventures of Tintin)

Review: 

"I beat myself up... growing more and more impatient with myself... It made me wistful about doing a talking picture, because sometimes I got the feeling I was just making this big silent-roar movie... I found myself saying, 'Is that all there is? It's not enough for me."

If one remembers correctly, Jurassic Park as both novel and film was major success. The book, published in 1990, was the seventeenth novel written by Michael Crichton, who also tried his hand at directing and writing films from time to time (most notably with Westworld (1973). He had developed the novel for a number of years from a graduate student recreating a dinosaur to wildlife park of extinct animals because of the expense of genetic research. Crichton, who had first met Spielberg when the latter was tasked to show him around the lot of Universal Studios in the late 1970s, would be the director for the film adaptation (at the time, it was the seventh adaptation of a Crichton novel), as Crichton told Spielberg about the novel a year before its publication. When it came time for the film adaptation, Crichton slimmed down the large contents of the novel to about a fraction for the script that he wrote for the film (with later writing by David Koepp). The book was such a success that fans asked Crichton to develop a sequel, which only ramped up with the success of the film. The Lost World (named after the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel of the same name) was released one year later by Crichton, and development for a film adaptation started not long after by Spielberg (Crichton did not have involvement with this or any other Jurassic Park movies). The plot between the book and film differs in some ways, as a cursory view of the summary states that the book features the character of Ian Malcolm going a rescue mission to retrieve a paleontologist in "Site B" with five others (that includes two stowaway children as research assistants), as opposed to being a reluctant participant to retrieve his significant other already on the island there to "document the dinosaurs" (the film Hammond is considerably different from the book anyway). It was the only sequel book that Crichton ever wrote, although it did not stop the eventual development of a third Jurassic Park film, which was released in 2001 with ideas and characters from the first novel incorporated into it. 

Technology is a curious thing, with Crichton once describing it as a "manifestation of how we think." Dennis Muren, Stan Winston, Phil Tippett and Michael Lantieri had won Academy Awards for their work in visual effects for the first film, and all but Tippett returned to provide effects. Koepp would also write the screenplay for this film, which he did by himself. Adventures are really, really tough to do again and again. Hell, one should have seen this coming because of how it went for Spielberg the first time he did a sequel to one of his films: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984). Think about it: both movies are darker than the original film while also having different cast members with the exception of one (no, Attenborough being there doesn't count since he basically cameos for two scenes). Spielberg himself felt that the reason sequels like the one he made here weren't as good was because of his overconfidence (where one feels since the original did so well, this would be a slam dunk), for which he decided to take his hands off ever doing another Jurassic Park film; at the last minute, he decided to change the ending to include a dinosaur rampage on San Diego, which he planned to save for a third film before realizing he would probably not do a third film. Of course, we are dealing with a movie that has characters that know they are going to an island of dinosaurs, so that also changes the tone a bit for a film long at 129 minutes that features "hunters and gatherers". Technically, it does excel well as a monster movie, since it rolls along with the cliches and execution of a horror movie, complete with characters that have the intelligence size of some random guy you see on the street trying to juggle blindfolded while crossing the street; in other words, it has the thought process of a B-movie that should know a bit better. At least one knows what they are getting into early, since the first scene features a little girl stumbling onto chicken-sized dinosaurs that like the taste of meat that attack her (off-screen). I didn't hate the movie, because I certainly tolerated the long and winding road (read: a road one inch thick) in trying to make adventure that at least gets to a fraction of The Lost World (1925), which it does after dawdling for a time. It's a nice-looking movie with a jagged edge of humor for setting up terror at times, but being an average Spielberg movie is probably more disappointing to view than just watching an average B-movie. 

The strangest thing is that the most interesting actor in the film is one who doesn't even show up for the beginning or its climax: Postlethwaite is the most convincing of the group because one really does believe he is just a guy who wants to be on an island with dinosaurs for the ultimate hunt, one with the most dignity and conviction without becoming a complete caricature in long-winded speeches, which means one kind of would have rather had him as a focus or at least stay a bit into the climax rather than shuttling off (hey, a movie about people trying to get their kicks by hunting dinosaurs can't be that silly). Don't get me wrong, Goldblum is an adequate lead, one who retains his cynicism from before that is interesting before he gets pegged into less chaotic fare with Moore and Chester that makes him not exactly as compelling to view from before, if only because he seems more seeped into the labeling crowd; in other words, he has become a bit ordinary. Moore can only go as far as the script goes with a character that seems scribbled together with minimal things to really do besides making one wonder why the "gatherer" characters seem less suitable than the "hunter" characters to root for. Vaughn is okay here, but the fact that the film helped gain him a bit more exposure on a path to more interesting projects is at least somewhat comforting. Honestly, it is surprising that Chester is the one "kid character" here, because the two kids from the original (Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards) appear in a cameo that seems to remind me that their adolescent story worked far better than sequences with Chester and Goldblum trying to play (family) house, which seems corny more than anything. Howard homes in the arrogance expected of the role with decent edge, but the only real selling point is obvious: seeing someone get their just desserts, because heaven knows he might be the only prominent cast member to face true danger. It might be a darker movie than the first film, but it doesn't quite capture much of the same magic that came before it, with its monster mash chase sequences only pushing the film barely over the finish line beyond just being a really expensive B-movie that has to fill some obligations. I did like what I saw from the San Diego scene at the end, even if it was more inevitable in execution more than anything. As a whole, if one wants a few nice effects and an okay story, this would be just fine in the cornucopia of movies that only reach its grasp 70% of the time, which is still better than reaching it only 60% of the time. As a movie that is now 25 years old, perhaps it will age gracefully for the curious who seek it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Big Lebowski.

Review #1517: The Big Lebowski.

Cast: 
Jeff Bridges (Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski), John Goodman (Walter Sobchak), Julianne Moore (Maude Lebowski), Steve Buscemi (Theodore Donald "Donny" Kerabatsos), David Huddleston (Jeffrey "The Big" Lebowski), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Brandt), Tara Reid (Bunny Lebowski), Philip Moon (Woo), Mark Pellegrino (Blond Treehorn thug), with Peter Stormare (Uti Kunkel/Karl Hungus), Torsten Voges (Franz), Flea (Kieffer), Jack Kehler (Marty), John Turturro (Jesus Quintana), David Thewlis (Knox Harrington), Sam Elliott (The Stranger), and Ben Gazzara (Jackie Treehorn) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, and #1063 - Blood Simple)

Review: 
"What's interesting to us are the people you know that are very good at what they do but aren't necessarily successful."
"The movie people let us play in the corner of the sandbox and leave us alone. We're happy here."

Brothers can make for great things together, and it is the work of film that Joel and Ethan Coen are best known for. They had an interest in film from a young age by what they viewed on television living in Minnesota and doing their own remakes on a Super 8 camera. Joel spent his studies in college in film programs such as New York University while Ethan studied in philosophy at Princeton University. They made their first feature together with Blood Simple (1984), which they had enticed backers with through a trailer they did together that led to a funding over the course of a year - the resulting film was a hit, and other films followed (with fair degrees of attention from critics and audiences). Over the course of over three decades, the Coens have made a total of eighteen films together, for which they have written, directed, produced and also edited together.

If there truly was a cult movie that stoked so much fervent interest in the years that followed being (at best) a modest hit with audiences, I would say that this is exactly the right film to qualify as "cult classic". With countless examples of lines that people can repeat to each other endlessly and an actual festival dedicated to a screening of the film alongside bowling and wearing costumes of certain characters. When it gets to that kind of blandishment before watching a film, either you'll be hooked in or you won't care that much about it, and others have certainly described it as their favorite film of the Coen brothers (when asked about the film years after release, J. Coen noted the "enduring fascination for other people than it does for us"). Attention can be everything, but I know in my mind that this is a pretty good film. It certainly does not reach greatness, nor does it teeters towards mediocrity, it just serves as a nice little experience worth a fair curiosity if one is in the mindset for it. One can abide it with no problem, whether in its attitudes of eccentric presences and a story that the Coens aimed to seem like a "modern Raymond Chandler story" that goes where it wants in twists before unraveling in relaxation. It's a silly movie at times, such as with its dream sequences, but it never wavers in cheapness or becomes anything too outlandish.

In a role generally referred to as iconic (along with one of his favorites), Bridges certainly grabs onto such a terminally relaxed role (with one inspiration being producer Jeff Dowd) with ease that strides from scene to scene with absolute feeling in out-of-shapeness that is obviously suitable for what is needed in casual charm (Eagles slander notwithstanding). Goodman (based in some part on friend John Milius) rolls with bombast and blazing timing in speaking his mind with no restraint needed. The others prove fine to follow along with besides our undeniable curiosity over the main duo, to a point. Buscemi says a few lines in second gear to Bridges and Goodman (with one distinct retort to tell him to shut up a few times), which I suppose makes sense in the fringes of chuckling along. Turturro shows up for moments at a time, to which I check my watch, chuckle in theory and move on to someone else (preferably a character that isn't a pederast, so not only is Turturro playing a useless character, he's playing a useless pedo). Huddleston moves things along past slack with a little edge to him, while Hoffman follows with care. Moore livens in quirks for those small moments one thinks it is needed, while Elliott provides a well-suited narrator.

Really, if the plot was tightened just a little bit more or some a trimming of all these characters may have meant a better movie (again though, one tries to not express a desire for what they wanted out of a film and just talks about what is in it instead). If one ranges entertainment through how much they enjoyed the characters they saw moreso than a deep plot, all power to you. Plenty of good movies can do that and also become icons in their own right. To me, it is good enough to overcome a decent (if not quite as interesting as it should be) setup because it generally results in fascination for where it could go next with interest. It has a nice look (credit to Roger Deakins along with the Coens' desire for a retro pop film in contemporary times) and certainly will provide those who desire to see what all the fuss is about something to remember for nearly two hours. Whether it serves enough to repeat lines from it or even go to church over it (Dudeism, because of course that is a thing) is up to you to sit on the couch and decide for oneself.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Review #994: Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Cast: 
Colin Firth (Harry Hart / Galahad), Julianne Moore (Poppy Adams), Taron Egerton (Gary "Eggs)" Unwin / Galahad), Mark Strong (Merlin), Halle Berry (Ginger), Elton John (Himself), Channing Tatum (Tequila), Jeff Bridges (Champagne), Pedro Pascal (Whiskey), Edward Holcroft (Charles "Charlie" Hesketh), Hanna Alström (Crown Princess Tilde of Sweden), Poppy Delevingne (Clara Von Gluckfberg), and Bruce Greenwood (The President) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class and #993 - Kingsman: The Secret Service)

Review: 
Sequels always seem like they have to try and live up to the original film, whether by having high stakes or anteing up the action/effects. In the case of this film, there is definitely an attempt at making a bigger piece of extravagant action and violence (complete with an extended Elton John cameo), for better or for worse. It is hard to not compare this film to the first one, and in that comparison this is the weaker installment, not seeming to have much in terms of cleverness, though it does retain most of the charm and style. It doesn't play for any kind of safe territory that other spy films might pull, and it certainly is daring to see the risks that the movie takes, even if it sometimes feels a bit much. Some might term the film's tactics as "overkill", but it definitely has an appeal for someone looking for a movie that will go off the rails and yet still have enough pull from its action sequences and humor to work. If there is any kind of film that this one might remind me of, it would likely be Men in Black II (#212), or even Die Another Day (#174) - take that for what you will.

Firth and Egerton are still a fine duo, even if they don't have that same kind of chemistry as before. Moore proves to be fairly entertaining, and her plan is definitely an interesting one, but I felt that her plot thread nearly went off the rails by the time the climax ended. The Statesman crew are fairly interesting, although they do not have too much screen-time (with Tatum's role feeling like a cameo) as compared to the main Kingsman, with Pascal being the key standout, mostly because he certainly comes off as the most interesting. The rest of the cast is fairly decent, with Strong being a fine highlight. Whether one is a big Elton John fan or not (I have two songs of his in my one of my playlists), he certainly has an interesting presence over the time(s) that he appears in the movie - which can either be charming or tiresome - I found him to be fairly entertaining on the whole. The run-time may be an easy issue for some (141 minutes, as opposed to the original's 129 minute run-time), in part because it may just seem too long for a movie that seems to want to pack in every sort of action and effect it can, which can come off as a bit tedious. The film strives to entertain, and it does on some level succeed in its goal, but whether it comes at the price of competency is up to the viewer to decide. I fall around the middle, it that I know the movie is somewhat inferior to the first film, but I also know that I had a fine time watching it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Kids Are All Right.

Review #551: The Kids Are All Right.

Cast
Annette Bening (Nicole Allgood), Julianne Moore (Jules Allgood), Mark Ruffalo (Paul Hatfield), Mia Wasikowska (Joni Allgood), Josh Hutcherson (Laser Allgood), and Yaya DaCosta (Tanya) Directed by Lisa Cholodenko.

Review
In honor of International Women's Day today, I decided this a movie that sounded like a conventional family flick that turned into a non conventional film (If that makes sense), and the movie makes it work really well. The movie might seem like a drama first, comedy second, but the movie still blends the two seamlessly, not letting one get overboard, and managing to be an entertaining, heartfelt movie that manages to use the great chemistry everyone has with each other and make the movie even better. The characters undergo changes (especially Ruffalo's character) throughout the movie, and it's nice to see transition, to see good character development. This is a movie that has a good range of emotions, it can be tense, it can be fun, and it can be engaging, and when the movie's over, you miss watching it, but you do feel whole, and it's a movie that contains itself, and it seals itself up nicely.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Fugitive (1993).

Review #176: The Fugitive.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Dr. Richard Kimble), Tommy Lee Jones (Deputy U.S. Marshal Samuel Gerard), Sela Ward (Helen Kimble), Joe Pantoliano (Deputy U.S. Marshal Cosmo Renfro), Andreas Katsulas (Fredrick Sykes), Jeroen Krabbé (Dr. Charles Nichols), Daniel Roebuck (Deputy U.S. Marshal Robert Biggs), Tom Wood (Deputy U.S. Marshal Noah Newman), L. Scott Caldwell (Deputy U.S. Marshal Erin Poole), and Julianne Moore (Dr. Anne Eastman) Directed by Andrew Davis

Cast
This movie was based off the classic 1960s TV show of the same name. Ford and Jones are excellent, playing off each other great. Jones does the best job, conveying a sense of ell, doing his job as a US Marshall. As the movie continues on, the doubt against Kimble unravels which you see from Gerard's point of view. One thing I notice is that it turns from escape film to conspiracy as the film gets to the end which feels a bit odd. But nevertheless, this film is heart pounding with good amounts of action in an excellent film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.