Braddock: Missing in Action III.

Review #2535: Braddock: Missing in Action III.

Cast: 

Chuck Norris (Colonel James Thomas Braddock), Aki Aleong (General Quoc), Roland Harrah III (Van Tan Cang), Yehuda Efroni (Reverend Polanski), Floyd Levine (General Duncan), Miki Kim (Lin Tan Cang), Ron Barker ("Mik" Mikalchek), Jack Rader (CIA Agent Littlejohn), and Keith David (Embassy Gate Captain) Directed by Aaron Norris.

Review: 

We've done this song and dance before. I try to have a bit of historical context with what Norris was doing being in a film like this, I try to wonder if I will find a Norris performance that actually evokes something besides doing a few kicks/shooting bullets and not really much else. You might think, isn't that a bit too derisive? No, because I've had plenty of fun with movies involving Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone, and in the same year that Braddock: Missing in Action III was released, audiences believed there was a rising action star with Steven Seagal in Above the Law. Where was I? Oh, Braddock. Around this era, at one point in time, Norris was apparently was on top of the video market for action stars. It was the 15th feature film with Norris as the leading star and the first of his two films released that year, with Hero and the Terror coming out seven months later in August that were both distributed by Cannon Pictures; Norris wrote the film with James Bruner. You might wonder what "Amerasians" are that the film is about. Well, it is a term (with its type of double-edged sword along with other terms such as "war babies" and "G.I. babies") that refers to people born in Eastern parts of Asia that had a U.S. military father that happened to be around in the regions of say, Okinawa, South Korea, Vietnam, or the Philippines (the latter country once had over 20 U.S. bases for most of the 20th century). Coincidentally, 1988 was the same year that Congress passed the Amerasian Homecoming Act that allowed Amerasians born between 1962-1976 to apply for immigrant visas for the next four years (children and now their parent, could emigrate). The film was filmed in the Philippines (the irony); during production, four officers (military and police) were killed in a helicopter accident. At the time of its release, Norris believed that this was the best work he had done up until that point (I chuckle at hearing that as someone who hasn't seen Code of Silence [1985] or The Delta Force [1985]). The movie was not a major success with audiences, with Norris accusing Cannon of not doing proper marketing for the movie. Norris was not particularly happy with Cannon, but he kept being around them up until the latter went down the tubes by the time of Hellbound (1994).

You might remember that the second film had him deal with Braddock being thought to be dead by his wife in the second film. Now he is shown to have a wife in 1975 around the fall of Saigon. This happened to be the first feature film directed by Aaron Norris, who had gone from stuntman in the 1970s to associate producer in the next decade, and I'm sure he got to direct the film without any consideration from his older brother (they then worked together on five further theatrical films).* Well, actually he was the one who brought up the whole Amerasian thing to his brother and he was chosen when Joseph Zito* and Jack Smight each fell through. You could make the concession that "oh golly gee, what do you expect from an 80s action movie?" But this movie is just the same lame mediocrity that was present in the last two movies; well, less so with the first film, which at least had time for James Hong and M. Emmet Walsh to show up (the second had Steven Williams*). All you get here is a goofy Australian for all of five minutes and...not much else to offer (okay if you pay attention, you can see a young Keith David). Norris can say lines such as "I don't step on toes, I step on necks" all he wants, but he either can't or won't make scenes involving emotional investment actually matter beyond being a hack's vision of what they think a Clint Eastwood action movie is. Maybe it would make a weird double-header with the other 1988 rescue mission movie Rambo III.

It may interest you to know that Aleong (born in Trinidad and Tobago but moved to Brooklyn when he was 15) was a character actor for over 100 movies before he died in 2025. That is as nice as I can be for a movie that does him no favors besides a middling torture scene (at a certain point, this just seems like someone trying to do horror with the whole "lose balance and they die") and him just going "Braddock!". The one amusing sequence is a part where Braddock is told by a reverend that his wife is alive only to immediately be told by a CIA guy to not trust that guy's info...which just makes Braddock believe the reverend even harder. You get the usual type of dreary moments in the jungle and the inevitable rush to stand on one's feet rather than bend the knee (whether that involves driving the kids and the reverend to tough it out in the jungle or, well, finding a pervert groping a child and deciding to stab and then fire a grenade in said man). I especially love that the climax features everyone just watching as father and son come together in the only way possible: aiming the gun to shoot the perfect shot to kill the helicopter pilot (and also the general). As a whole, Braddock: Missing in Action III is mediocre stuff that does nobody any type of favors even with inklings of an interesting story and the occasional flourish of energy to cap out a middling trilogy.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Actually, he directed just one film without his brother as the star: Platoon Leader in 1988 that had Michael Dudikoff as the star. With a name like that, maybe I should do a Dudikoff Week just for the hell of it.

*What, no love for X? 

You might remember the former as the guy who didn't think Whoopi Goldberg was good enough for Invasion U.S.A. of all things

Barbershop.

Review #2351: Barbershop.

Cast: 

Ice Cube (Calvin Palmer Jr.), Anthony Anderson (J.D.), Cedric the Entertainer (Eddie Walker), Keith David (Lester Wallace), Michael Ealy (Ricky Nash), Sean Patrick Thomas (Jimmy James), Eve (Terri Jones), Troy Garity (Isaac Rosenberg), Leonard Earl Howze (Dinka), Jazsmin Lewis (Jennifer Palmer), Lahmard Tate (Billy), Tom Wright (Detective Williams), Sonya Eddy (Janelle), Jason Winston George (Kevin), and DeRay Davis (Ray Ray) Directed by Tim Story (#011 - Fantastic Four and #013 - Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer)

Review: 

Barbershop was the first prominent movie directed by Tim Story. A Los Angeles native who made home movies from a young age, he graduated from the USC School of Cinematic Arts before turning his attention to filmmaking, which debuted with One of Us Tripped (1997), a $30,000 movie that he made when he read a story about how Clerks (1994) was made on its modest budget; his second film failed enough for him to have to music videos before Barbershop came along. Over the course of his career, Story has directed fifteen movies of varying quality, ranging from the Fantastic Four films (2005, 2007), to the Think Like a Man features (2012, 2014) to a few Kevin Hart concert films and The Blackening (2022). Mark Brown (previously a writer on Two Can Play That Game and How To Be a Player) wrote the story for the movie and co-wrote the screenplay with Don D. Scott and Marshall Todd. Producers George Tillman Jr and Robert Teitel (who had previously worked together on Soul Food [1997]) spearheaded the production and brought in Story, who impressed them with his prepardness. Incidentally, the dialogue expressed by the character played by Cedric the Entertainer about Civil Rights leaders apparently stoked a bit of controversy because it is apparently true that Jesse Jackson cannot take a joke at his own expense (the bit about Rosa Parks is a bit funny for those who are truthers about Claudette Colvin); predictably, calling for a boycott of a movie (cough cough Al Sharpton) did little to hurt the film. As it turned out, this was the first of four films in what you might call a franchise, with two direct sequels (and a spinoff) coming out between 2004 and 2016; some of the cast reprised their roles for those films, although each had a different director behind it.

You've got your movies or shows about bars or the neighborhood, but it does help to see one come around about the odds and ends of a barbershop. For me, I don't know a lick about barbershops, but I'm sure you get the gist of a workplace with plenty to look and listen about. For the most part, this works out to a casual work comedy, having a worthwhile ensemble for 102 minutes of generally interesting stuff. It comes and goes in amusement that has a familiar haircut (Car Wash comes to mind), which is generally helpful for those who like their movies to have a little bit of insight sprinkled with gags and subplots. Cube has the commitment required to sell the movie as one to look within oneself and realize again what community means besides the money (don't get it twisted, the money matters, particularly for its latter half, but, well, there's more to life than daydreams and schemes). He maneuvers the movie with general commitment that plays it straight enough, at least when compared to Cedric, who manages to sell the wayward "elder statesman" part with good timing. The rest of the ensemble (Ealy, Thomas, Eve, Gairty, Howze) are also pretty game in being pretty distinct in that certain kind of worker group that one can see in all the facets that matter (opinionated, argumentative, useful, what have you). Anderson and Tate play the long reaching subplot of the film (an ATM that can't quite find a place to be opened in peace) for a bit of physical jokes that are serviceable. David makes for quite the craven figure to pop in and out of the background, that much is for sure. The movie coasts along with a laid-back style of entertainment that manages to not override its welcome because of a game cast that have at least some part of it that will remind someone of a memory long ago or to just have a neat chuckle for the hell of it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Nope.

Review #1865: Nope.

Cast: 

Daniel Kaluuya (OJ Haywood), Keke Palmer (Emerald Haywood), Steven Yeun (Ricky "Jupe" Park), Brandon Perea (Angel Torres), Michael Wincott (Antlers Holst), Wrenn Schmidt (Amber Park), Keith David (Otis Haywood Sr), and Donna Mills (Bonnie Clayton) Written, Directed, and Produced by Jordan Peele (#909 - Get Out and #1203 - Us)

Review: 

"I wrote it in a time when we were a little bit worried about the future of cinema. So the first thing I knew is I wanted to create a spectacle. I wanted to create something that the audience would have to come see."

Admittedly, Jordan Peele has made an argument for being the modern example of an auteur director, one with a distinct approach to his material that he has written, directed, and produced for three feature films in the span of five years, with each falling along the lines of horror (debatably, Nope is more of a genre-crosser than the other two, but more on that later). For the most part, these films have worked on their ambition to tell a story that would probably make Rod Serling give a compliment to (I say this knowing Peele was behind a reboot of Serling's The Twilight Zone, (2019-20) although I never saw it). For me, Get Out (2017) was the clear distinct captivator in staging and social critique (so in non-pretentious terms, a movie for the age that doesn't forget to be scary without forcing it). This time around, Peele aspired to make a movie involving spectacle that touches upon human nature in the art of alien encounter: trying to take an image of it in flight. Oh sure, there are other things that happen too involving strange clouds and animals running amuck, but the nature of spectacle isn't too far from one's attention. A good chunk of people seem to have a habit to take photos of something that looks interesting every day (for better or worse) that has come ever since the chronophotography days of the 18th century, as referred to in the opening with the showing of Eadweard Muybridge's The Horse in Motion (1878), which were a series of cabinet cards that (as mentioned in the film) feature a black jockey on a horse. There are a handful of inspirations that Peele has listed such as King Kong (1933), Jurassic Park (1993), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Signs (2002), and The Wizard of Oz (1939), although one could also make a case for seeing seeds of Jaws (1975) in there as well. This is more of a compliment than anything, not saying the movie is a shameless patische, since it does play with the expectations lended out by Peele to useful effect.

I think it works out decently for the goals laid out by Peele to do spectacle that generally rewards the viewer's patience for 131 minutes with a semi-solid outline and a decent ensemble to carry things around in the pursuit for whatever is out there for sensationalism without just being a movie making easy targets. Was it anything special? It is a good movie, but I believe it to be firmly in the middle between his previous works (probably a bit above Us for execution), and it says something worthwhile about the director when his first three films are each pretty good in unsettling its viewer with the foibles of modern times that makes a quality sci-fi horror movie with a look upon the age we live in the art of filming things where the line between being the viewer and being the one viewed can be blurred where one can be tested with filth and possible contempt. Truthfully though, I think I appreciated the movie best in the scope of images one can see and hear rather than the dialogue itself, which is fine. Kaluuya makes a quality lead performance in understatement, a strong-and-silent type who might've fit for a Western (such as say, Buck and the Preacher), which means he is the ideal straight-edge presence in the face of a chase. Palmer has a bit of charm in energy that makes for a quality sibling-pair in terms of the occasional bit in horror or humor. Strangely enough, Yuen makes more of an impression than Perea despite not being the key support of the ensemble, probably because his huckster attitude to what has happened around him, indicative of being a participant of spectacle in numerous ways. This isn't to say Perea is the weak link, it just means that his moments aren't exactly as captivating in spectacle relief, particularly when Wincott is the understated dry gem used sparingly as a look upon the filmmaker from a filmmaker (meta, if you want to say that). 

For me, the movie takes a while to really get going in staging attempts, and it can be said that your highlight scene is probably different from my highlight, which involves a chimpanzee that may or may not relate to the story. But maybe it relates to the bigger picture of what one might expect (or don't) for a film in spectacle, horror or not. The aerial sight depicted in the film is an interesting one, since it lurks around with only eyes on its target much like a viewer that has eyes only on what could pop up next on screen that has no time for dialogue (that, or the Medusa legend). Sometimes it isn't all about blood and guts, although you will find it worthwhile in unsettling nature with a scene spent trying to make a show out of UFO bait with horses being particularly well-done in timing. The climax is handled pretty well, in the general pursuit of how you would hope it goes in carefully planned staging that leaves a worthy final shot. As a whole, the patience required for what Peele wants to say about spectacle and the people who look to show it makes for a fine payoff, one that unsettles its viewer in ambition and a quality staging to make a solid movie that will reward some spectacle viewers better than others.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Redux: The Thing (1982)

Review Revised #712: The Thing (1982).

Cast: 

Kurt Russell (MacReady), Keith David (Childs), Wilford Brimley (Blair), Donald Moffat (Garry), T. K. Carter (Nauls), Richard Masur (Clark), David Clennon (Palmer), Charles Hallahan (Norris), Richard Dysart (Copper), Peter Maloney (Bennings), Joel Polis (Fuchs), and Thomas G. Waites (Windows) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween and #634 - Escape from New York)

Review: 

The original review was 276 words. Seven years later, I decided to reconsider and make a revised review in light of the 40th anniversary of the release of this film.

The Thing from Another World (1951), if you remember, was a loose adaptation of the novella Who Goes There?, which had been written by John W. Campbell in 1938 (it was only discovered in 2018 that Campbell had actually wrote an entire novel before cutting it down to the novella published in 1938; the manuscript, called "Frozen Hell", was published in 2019). Howard Hawks had supervised the production while Christian Nyby served as director (while Hawks denied that he served as director, his uncredited contribution to writing alongside the fact that Nyby never directed anything as good as this movie ever again makes for an interesting argument). Producers David Foster and Lawrence Turman had wanted to do a remake more faithful to the original novella, as opposed to the plant-like creature of the 1951 movie. Several directors and writers came and went in consideration from Universal Pictures in the late 1970s and 1980s before John Carpenter was hired to direct and Bill Lancaster (writer of The Bad News Bears (1976)) was hired to write; this was the sixth feature film directed by Carpenter, who had just finished Escape from New York (1981); it happened to be the last screenplay written by Lancaster, who died of a heart attack at the age of 49 in 1997. Rob Bottin (who had worked with Carpenter on The Fog in 1980) was hired to help provide effects for the creature (with one exception in a dog cage, which was done by Stan Winston to help an ailing Bottin), which his team helped do out of chemicals, food, rubber, and mechanical parts that made the budget go to $15 million; while Bottin's effects received mixed attention at the time, he would continue to hone his craft and wound up with two Academy Awards for his contributions to visual effects. Released on June 25, in a month and year that saw movies come out such as Blade Runner (same day as this movie) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (released two weeks prior), The Thing would not be a major success nor a failure. Coming off the heels of movies like Alien (1979) probably did not help either, although this movie tries to go with a creature that isn't a man in a suit (as guided by Carpenter). Of course, the reactions that the movie received would make you think that they killed a dog on film, where even Nyby talked about the film negatively, saying "If you want blood, go to the slaughterhouse ... All in all, it's a terrific commercial for J&B Scotch" (now you see why I mentioned Nyby earlier when I relate the irony of a guy famous for "directing" one good movie trying to trash a movie that is way better than his). Years after the film was described as a cult classic, a 2011 version of The Thing was released that apparently serves as a prequel to this movie, and I cannot imagine how anybody really gave a crap about seeing what happens before you see Kurt Russell in a movie.

I haven't seen the 1951 movie in a number of years, but my recollections of seeing it as a straightforward tense movie probably seems right. The 1951 and 1982 movies are set in completely opposite locations and have tones that reflect the age they were made in when it relates to dealing with a threat from within, but the latter movie is especially more striking in its nihilistic execution. Carpenter has said that it is his favorite film from his line of work, even though the results of the film did not help his career the way he thought it would. I said the movie "flat out rules" a long time ago, but now I am even more appreciative of what was accomplished by Carpenter and company that has proven to be one of his most enduring works. The title creature is a ruthless being that pervades whatever it imitates without hesitation, and it makes for one hell of a spectacle and threat to watch on screen. To me, thinking effects are disgusting is like a compliment rather than a criticism, as if the only way to make a tense horror movie is to do it without a hint of cynicism. The best sequence might be the one where a desperate scramble to save a person by pressing on their chest that results in the ripping off of arms. Yes, the movie is a triumph of special effects, but it also is a triumph of paranoia with an ensemble cast that completely sells what is needed. Generally, it is easy to say that Russell does well with the material, because we have seen him do well in other productions before. But he has an effortless charm to him that makes him the kind of actor to just seep into a role without hesitation in everyman sensibilities, which happens in a movie where sanity hangs in the balance. The other members of the cast help in lending fear and irrationalities that doesn't drag the 109-minute run-time any further than it needs to. It seems fitting that two actors making early appearances in film before they became more known excel best: David (in his credited film debut) serves well in the tense glares to not get lost among the group while Brimley (who had a few film and TV credits) makes a stodgy and fierce presence in the face of futility and gruesome gore. The others contribute to the cold tension that bubbles slowly to the surface beneath the early little character quirks in a movie where danger can lurk by what is hidden just as much as what you see.

The music by Ennio Morricone is used selectively by Carpenter to great effect, present in terror without overwhelming you. The movie builds up to the handling of its chameleon-like monster with great planning that doesn't fall privy to the worst type of cliches seen in the lone location type of horror movies (namely dumb characters). The climax lends a welcome deal of futility and ambiguity that fits for a certain audience sensibility that doesn't turn out to be a cheat when you have tired characters that sit there and look at each other while a fire burns in the background. In other words, the movie sets itself up well for how it has to end without straining for it (so yes, ambiguity isn't everyone's thing, but at least it is a contrived ambiguity). In the end, there are a handful of Carpenter movies that could be argued to be his best work in the countless movies he made, and The Thing has certainly had its case strengthened in the four decades since its release with its handling of effects with tension and a great ensemble cast. Now more than ever, one should really check it out for those who are interested in science fiction and horror as it is a triumph of filmmaking from John Carpenter, a director who certainly deserves the credit for making classics of American cinema.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Bird.

Review #1638: Bird.

Cast: 

Forest Whitaker (Charlie "Bird" Parker), Diane Venora (Chan Parker), Michael Zelniker (Red Rodney), Samuel E. Wright (Dizzy Gillespie), Keith David (Buster Franklin), Diane Salinger (Baroness Nica de Koenigswarter), Michael McGuire (Brewster), James Handy (Esteves), Anna Thomson (Audrey), Damon Whitaker (Young Bird Parker), Arlen Dean Snyder (Dr. Heath), Sam Robards (Moscowitz), and Bill Cobbs (Dr. Caulfield) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, and #1550 - Gran Torino)

Review: 

"I'd love to go back in time. To Bourbon Street in the 20's, to 12th Street in Kansas City in the 30's, to 52nd Street in the late 40's."

It was once said by Miles Davis (a legend in his own right in music) that one could tell the history of jazz in four words: "Louis Armstrong. Charlie Parker." Jazz, one of the great music genres of the times, certainly had plenty of historical figures leading the way, and the key to understanding one of its styles rests with Charlie "Yardbird" Parker. The Kansas City native used his time on this Earth for a variety of impactful compositions that clearly touched upon numerous listeners with his alto saxophone of fast tempos and improvisation before his death in 1954. One of those folks was Clint Eastwood, who heard the musician play in Oakland when he was just 15. The film was made on a budget of $9-14 million and came around years after its script was developed by Joel Oliansky in 1980 (shaped by recollections from colleague Teddy Edwards), and it was originally intended to be a project for Richard Pryor. There would be participation from a variety of people close to Parker, such as his common law widow Chan Parker, provided recordings to Eastwood that she had in a vault. It was the first Eastwood film that he had directed where he did not appear in any form (Breezy (1973) had a cameo of him). This was the first of a group of jazz-related programs that Eastwood would be behind in some form (mostly producing), with 1988 also seeing the release of a documentary of the life of Thelonious Monk. It is the sound that matters most when it comes to this film (particularly with music coordinator and former alto sax at Birdland Lennie Niehaus, tasked with writing for the instruments to play where the original piano music was playing), since the recordings of Parker had to be digitally and electronically isolated from the solos, with modern backing tracks recorded over.

While it was not a success with audiences at the time of its release, it certainly has an appeal for those interested in jazz or for those who yearn to see someone at the top of their craft, struggles and all. The beauty of the film is the rhythm it carries with its tribute to a jazz legend with a biography that depicts selections from his life without rote routine or a judging eye. In a way, it moves like a beat you might hear in a jazz composition with all of the thoughtful moodiness required to make a worthwhile time. All interesting biopics have a performance to carry it and no one should be surprised by Whitaker and his effectiveness in bringing Bird to the screen. This was the first starring lead role for Whitaker, who had entered films and television with supporting roles in 1982 such as Tag: The Assassination Game (1982) and Platoon (1986) after a back injury had him shift focus away from football, although he did do some study in music before doing drama. He is the guiding force that makes the film work as smoothly as it does, one that can justify spending plenty of time with in all the soulful aspects that makes for a fascinating experience. He manages to carry talent alongside pain that we can see play a note alongside play his burden without just finding it easy to take judgement or easy pity for as a man. In other words, we see the genius that comes from the notes in the fragments that come out alongside his highs and lows that came with a struggle with addiction to heroin. Venora plays a worthy settling piece to the times away from the road, one with warmth and reason that come around with various scenes that jump from end to end (whether involving interludes at home or near the ends of the timeline spent). Zelniker does fine in those moments on the road, balancing talent with wracked nerve that obviously strikes a chord with what is needed with Whitaker, whether that means an albino act or struggles with oneself (incidentally, the real Rodney participated in the production and is even mentioned in the credits). Wright does well with following along with the beat required from Whitaker without being stepped on (as one would see coming from another figure of bebop jazz, who was touring at the time of production). David and his time spent are quite fleeting, but he sure does well with setting up one particular scene quite well involving cymbals despite playing a composite. Salinger plays the fateful part needed from someone who invites curiosity (incidentally, the real life Baroness was also featured in the documentary about the life of Monk, which aired the month before her death). I suppose any biography is going to have twiddling with the facts, and there are a few things one might quibble with, which is interesting for a film of 155 minutes. Maybe it depends on how much one knows on the subject to begin with, since one might not know about Parker's other marriages (which I probably should have guessed with the whole common thing I described earlier) or lack of mention to associations Parker had with musicians like Miles Davis. In the end, it just comes down to how much one finds themselves enjoying the experience to be had with an elegy for a legend that captures what it means to move to the tune of one's own beat as a film for all of the musicians.

Next Time: Legends in the fields of laughter come together for a most unusual film with a one-time director. Night time comes for Harlem Nights.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

They Live.

Review #1298: They Live.

Cast: 
Roddy Piper (John Nada), Keith David (Frank Armitage), Meg Foster (Holly Thompson), Raymond St. Jacques (Street Preacher), George Buck Flower (Drifter/Collaborator), Peter Jason (Gilbert), Sy Richardson (Black Revolutionary), Susan Blanchard (Ingenue), and Norman Alden (Construction Foremanst) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing, #732 - Escape from L.A., and #1221 - Dark Star)

Review: 
It should only make sense that the only way to see aliens of the subliminal kind are a pair of sunglasses. The idea for the film came from the 1963 short story "Eight O'Clock in the Morning" by Ray Nelson, which he subsequently adapted with artist Bill Wray into a graphic comic named "Nada" in 1986. As such, the screenplay credit went to Frank Armitage, a pseudonym for Carpenter (who naturally also co-wrote the music score with Alan Howarth). In any case, it really is a variation on Invasion of the Body Snatchers (why else would you have the aliens shown in black-and-white for most of the film), only if the aliens were already here and ready to help people sell out and obey in the vein of an sci-fi action thriller. In that sense, it works out pretty well in the film's favor, one that is packed with plenty of entertainment that is derived from clever subversive material and a mold of action and humor to go alongside it that never seems dull or too convenient. The film holds itself on the every-man in Piper, who signed onto the film after Carpenter met with him in the middle of his run as a professional wrestler. He can play the parts of the action hero like one could see in a b-movie (with that noted bubble-gum line seeming right out of his one-liner notebook) that comes in handy when needed that surely paved the way for other wrestler-turned-actors, but he plays himself with careful simplicity that seems just right for a guy like him. David does a fine job with a quasi-sidekick kind of role, where he can join alongside the action against sellout aliens or even the fight just to believe there even is one needed, which leads to the key highlight for both actors: a five minute fight scene between the two where they just take it to the other. It really does prove astounding how one can make such a scene that is so memorable (imagine having to rehearse that for three weeks) while not leaving the film off balance during the other parts of its 94 minute run-time. Foster is fair and subtle, and the other castmates pull their momentary plays on screen with interest in making a small environment like this seem like one to look at for a while and think about. The effects involving the aliens (resembling ghouls) looks pretty neat for the intent that the film wants to do. The action is also pretty well-done with blending with the rest of the film without suffocating it, and the climax is a nice touch. Of course a film that is meant to be subversive has its shares of political devotees, which are either people who understand the film or partisan ghouls for a certain supremacist side (I only include this sentence lest someone actually think this film is about anything but yuppies and unrestrained capitalism) or nearly as annoying Marxist hacks. In any case, one can enjoy the film for either its action content or its attempts at saying something about the nature of our society when it comes to commercialism through the lens of science fiction that delivers plenty of thrills and thought to go around.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Review #1256: Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (John Smith), Angelina Jolie (Jane Smith), Vince Vaughn (Eddie), Adam Brody (Benjamin "The Tank" Danz), Kerry Washington (Jasmine), Keith David (Father), Chris Weitz (Martin Coleman), Rachael Huntley (Suzy Coleman), and Michelle Monaghan (Gwen) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper)

Review: 
What can you really expect from a summer blockbuster like this one? Perhaps it is good that I didn't have many expectations for one aimed to deliver action and laughs, as it makes the disappointment over the final result less awful to bear. If I actually felt something of interest over these characters when it comes to the action scenarios or the sitcom-level atmosphere besides it, this could actually fit just fine as a neat gem to eat popcorn with. As is, it i's just a mediocre product that feels like it should be much better, headlined by a cast that seems like it wants more to do. Sure, you could say that Pitt and Jolie make for a decent team, but they just seem stuck in something more pale than Lethal Weapon 4 - at least that film's highlight wasn't a dance between its main two characters. Chemistry is one thing, but how about a script with something more substantial to go with it? This is especially apparent when it comes to the scenes beside the action sequences, where there isn't really anything too funny or charming, where the lines feel like they want to be yukked out on a sitcom than an actual film. Even the therapy scenes seem bereft of something interesting to write something about. The action sequences are alright, but nothing too special to really write home about. I never really feel that either of them are in any actual danger, especially for its climax. Obviously they aren't going to hunt each other down, so why would I think a bunch of spies are going to finish the job for them? It just seems ridiculous to begin with that they could actually hide this sort of info from each other for years - actually, what exactly is the film's endgame if their agencies went to go take them down but failed the first time? An episode of Get Smart probably has more personality with their agency than this film, honestly. Vaughn gives off a few laughs in the brief time he shows up; Brody is essentially an afterthought until he has to deliver a key plotpoint before the climax. Washington and David aren't too particularly involved with things too much to make highlights of. On the whole, the film likes to talk a big game with trying to mix action and comedy, but it sure comes up flabby in the final result - it fits more for background noise than something really put on for involvement. I would say that this should be expected from someone who gave us Jumper (which can also be said for its writer, Simon Kinberg), but this actually was the film done by Liman three years prior. Imagine going from this to Jumper. If you have to make a mediocre product that will make a bunch of money and being just okay, this is probably a decent example of that scenario.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

Review #1217: Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

Cast: 
Ming-Na Wen (Doctor Aki Ross), Alec Baldwin (Captain Gray Edwards), Ving Rhames (Ryan), Steve Buscemi (Neil), Peri Gilpin (Jane), Donald Sutherland (Dr. Sid), James Woods (General Hein), Keith David (Council Member #1), Jean Simmons (Council Member #2), and Matt McKenzie (Major Elliot) Directed by Hironobu Sakaguchi and Motonori Sakakibara.

Review: 
Perhaps this movie is like the tale of Icarus. However, instead of daring to fly near the sun on illustrious wings of feathers, this is a film that dares to soar as the first photo-realistic computer-animated feature film, made over the course of four years with a budget of $137 million (with at least half the budget being spent on marketing from Columbia Pictures and construction in Hawaii of a studio for Square Pictures, whose demise rose from the eventual failure of the film at the box office). Final Fantasy (created by Hironobu Sakaguchi) is a series of fantasy role playing video games, with each installment being stand-alone tales that have recurring elements in terms of game mechanics, with fifteen main titles being released since 1987. Undeniably, it is easy to give praise to the ambition that the makers of this film had towards delivering something that would inspire curiosity and interest, although it seems more for the animation than the actual story in any case. It just can't help itself being a visual spectacle even after two decades of age (although it may take a bit of time to get used to its type of flair), at least. The spirit aspect feels a bit too hokey to really make for a compelling story, with the twist involving their true nature (with a name like Phantoms, take one guess) not making as much an impact. It feels too clumsy with trying to handle its characters, particularly with its main character, who never comes into focus as someone to really follow along with.

That's not to say I didn't like the performances of the cast, who each do their parts just fine. Wen does okay with what she is given, even if her chemistry with Baldwin (probably the most practical performer here) reads more like an audio-book than something befitting a movie, especially a science-fiction one. Rhames, Buscemi and Gilpin all do okay, providing little moments of amusement until they aren't needed by the plot. Sutherland fills the wise old shoes of his character without much trouble (ponder on the whole Gaia theory stuff as you wish, however), and Woods is finely tuned to play with a good deal of ham to his performance, which work out okay, even if his motivations feel a bit too underplayed to really resonate. The writing can't quite make them feel like people to gel with, as if I am watching one long cut-scene with no way to break free. The story was done by Sakaguchi, while having a screenplay from Al Reinert (writer of films such as For All Mankind and Apollo 13) and Jeff Vintar (co-writer of I, Robot). The parts involving the Gaia only serve to make the film seem more deeply rooted than it really is, with a climax that feels too patched up to have an impact. It isn't so much a junk food type of sci-fi movie as it is just an off-brand piece of candy that looks nice but is a bit stale in all the wrong places to really sit right. With a run-time of 106 minutes, it will prove fine for the eyes to sit with while resonating less with its aims that at drag a cobbled assortment of sci-fi gobbledygook across the line without being a complete success. I didn't feel that it was a waste of my time, but I did feel disappointed that it wasn't worth it just enough. I do find science fiction movies to be a fun thing to sit through, but I couldn't find this one to be just as fitting of praise as others that dared to show a different kind of reality or look.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Platoon.

Review #1090: Platoon.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Hollywood Homicide.

Review #1075: Hollywood Homicide.

Cast: 
Harrison Ford (Detective-Sergeant Joseph "Joe" Gavilan), Josh Hartnett (Detective K. C. Calden), Lena Olin (Ruby), Bruce Greenwood (Lieutenant Bernard "Bennie" Macko), Isaiah Washington (Antoine Sartain), Lolita Davidovich (Cleo Ricard), Keith David (Leon), Master P (Julius Armas), Gladys Knight (Olivia Robidoux), and Martin Landau (Jerry Duran) Directed by Ron Shelton (#381 - Cobb)

Review: 
If you have a film with two actors who seem to want to make the best of their time on screen and elicit some sort of chemistry with each other, you'll likely have a good time. It's a shame that is not the case with this movie, however. Ford and Hartnett manage to star in a film where they don't seem to share any kind of chemistry with each other, not eliciting many particularly amusing moments nor anything that seems remotely connecting. Ford does a decent job performance wise, but he doesn't seem to be the best type for this role, seeming a bit out of place that might've been better suited for someone like John Travolta (who originally was meant to star in the role), particularly with the real estate "dealmaking" parts. Hartnett doesn't fair much better, somehow looking too young to play this detective role while also seeming to be the wrong fit to go along with Ford, seeming a bit too relaxed for this part - and the parts with him playing a would-be actor also not hitting the notes correctly either. In any case, they don't make for a particularly inspiring duo. Washington doesn't particularly inspire much as the villain, mostly because the plot-line doesn't give him much room to actually seem compelling (especially with the climax), whereas Greenwood sells his adversarial role and scenes with Ford. Olin does a kooky but serviceable job, with her parts with Ford being nothing too special. The other members of the cast are all okay at best. It might interest you to note this was written by Shelton and Robert Souza, a former homicide detective in the LAPD Hollywood Division who also happened to moonlight as a real estate broker in his latter years. I'll give the film credit for having some sort of semblance of reality, but I didn't find the end product to be too particularly effective. The numerous subplots and how things seem to just connect out of thin air makes for a convenient but somewhat tiresome pace, complete with a somewhat long but somewhat effective climatic chase sequence. There isn't too much to the action, but it will likely be pleasing enough. The film never seems to get itself into high gear, seemingly stuck in a loop of a mediocre story and a buddy duo that doesn't live up to carrying the movie. The end product is something that can be mildly enjoyable as a late night flick watch, but it won't be anything regarded as anything too good in its action or comedy. Take this misfire for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Always (1989).

Review #958: Always.

Cast: 
Richard Dreyfuss (Pete Sandich), Holly Hunter (Dorinda Durston), John Goodman (Al Yackey), Brad Johnson (Ted Baker), Audrey Hepburn (Hap), Roberts Blossom (Dave), Keith David (Powerhouse), Ed Van Nuys (Nails), and Marg Helgenberger (Rachel) 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, and #642 - Jurassic Park)

Review: 
It has been said that this is one of Steven Spielberg's weakest films, but it is easy to admit that with regards to his resume prior to (and after) this film's release; it is also easy to see his love for the 1943 film A Guy Named Joe and the passion that he must've had to make a remake of it. Is this a flawed movie? Yes, but it is the kind of movie that can qualify as a guilty pleasure, for better or worse. The main cast is fairly enjoyable together, having good chemistry with each other (particularly in the first half); I liked Hunter the best in part because her hard but consistently believable tone works best against Dreyfuss and his flippish nature, though Goodman is a welcome comic relief. Johnson is fairly decent in his first co-starring role in a major film, though his chemistry with Hunter isn't as entertaining as the case with Dreyfuss. Hepburn (appearing in two scenes) is graceful as ever in her final film appearance. When it comes to showing the action with the planes (through aerial photography, rear projection and models) or when the movie wants to have some laughs, that is when the film is at its best; when it comes down to saying some of the dialogue about love and death, that is when the film nearly drowns itself in sappiness and sentimentality. At 123 minutes, it does feel a bit long with all of those awkward (but not manipulative) kind of lines, but I found the film made up for some of it with its fiery climax, with Dreyfuss and Hunter handling themselves quite convincingly. It's not a bad movie, but it is obviously not on the top of any totem pole of quality for Spielberg. The best things about the movie is what it isn't, needless to say. It's a nice harmless movie that works best for some, but likely not for others.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Volcano (1997).

Review #202: Volcano.

Cast
Tommy Lee Jones (Mike Roark), Anne Heche (Dr. Amy Barnes), Gaby Hoffmann (Kelly Roark), Don Cheadle (Emmit Reese), Jacqueline Kim (Dr. Jaye Calder), Keith David (Lieutenant Ed Fox), John Corbett (Norman Calder), Michael Rispoli (Gator Harris), and John Carroll Lynch (Stan Olber) Directed by Mick Jackson.

Review
The film is easy to describe in a few words: "Volcano pops up in Los Angeles, cheesiness ensues." Tommy Lee Jones at least does a good job, given what he is in (he sure has been in a lot of situations from a FBI marshal to Ty Cobb) The characters are introduced in a snap but aren't much in terms of memorable territory. The cheesiness factor ranges from scene to scene, but my "favorite" is when the lava is destroying a house (man, that's weird to type), and the dog is trapped there. He looks around...and barks at the lava before going out the doggy door. That alone is laughable. The effects are decent, they look believable enough, but the last thing I'll mention (probably most important) is the relatively changing science in the film. Characters get close to lava without feeling much and when toughing the lava are dead with the touch (you might as well use TV Tropes to help you understand volcanoes) At points, the lava isn't much threatening, as it moves slower then a snail at points. I might as well mention this film is 15 years old (it doesn't feel that way though)...But the last question is: Is it better then Dante's Peak? Probably, but it doesn't matter given that both are slightly forgotten, and that is probably for the best.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Coraline.

Review #189: Coraline.

Cast
Dakota Fanning (Coraline Jones), Teri Hatcher (Mel Jones/Other Mother), Jennifer Saunders (April Spink), Dawn French (Miriam Forcible), John Hodgman (Charlie Jones/Other Father), Robert Bailey, Jr (Wybie Lovat), Ian McShane (Mr. Bobinsky), and Keith David (The Cat) Directed by Henry Selick.

Review
This film was based off the book by Neil Gaiman, which I have not heard of (Though he did write Doctor Who: The Doctor's Wife). Anyway, this film is beautiful in its stop motion animation, as the story is intriguing, keeping you interested as the story unravels. The voice acting is excellent, especially from Fanning and Hatcher. The film is imaginative and engaging with good characterizations in this excellent film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.