Canadian Bacon.

Review #2171: Canadian Bacon.

Cast: 

Alan Alda (The President of the United States), John Candy (Bud B. Boomer), Bill Nunn (Kabral Jabar), Kevin J. O'Connor (Roy Boy), Rhea Perlman (Honey), Kevin Pollak (Stuart Smiley), G. D. Spradlin (R.J. Hacker), Rip Torn (General Dick Panzer), and Steven Wright (Niagara Mountie) Written and Directed by Michael Moore.

Review: 

"I made a film for people like me. People who live in Flint, Michigan or Hamilton, Ontario or Sarnia ... another critic said this is the first left-wing film for the mall crowd ... I consider that a compliment. I wanted to present this hybrid of satire and farce with a mix of politics to get people thinking about a particular issue, in this case, why are Americans led like lemmings to war?"

Michael Moore probably doesn't need much introduction, but maybe my reasoning to select this film does. Simply put, this is a film that became an oddity in his career of over thirty years: a feature film with a narrative. Moore was born in Davison, Michigan, a suburb of Flint in 1954. Not many people can say they went from being elected to the school board as an 18-year-old to becoming a director. Granted, the road to being a director had stops along the way, as he had run his own alternative newspaper for several years before a stint at the magazine Mother Jones, which saw him fired as editor. That loss of his job saw him move back to Flint, where seeing the decline of the city because of layoffs from General Motors (as run by Roger Smith at the time) made him want to film a documentary. After years of funding and production, Roger & Me was release in 1989 that was quite the sensation. A choice vote (i.e. no vote) at the Sundance Film Festival in 1991 in regard to the beginning of Operation Desert Storm gave Moore an idea to fester on. The next film Moore did was a short, called Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint in 1992, which, well, raising pets as snake food. He also did television around this time with TV Nation, a satirical news magazine show that was broadcast for two seasons. Anyway, back to the feature film. As mentioned, the idea of a President gaining public support for war against an enemy such as, well Canada, got Moore onto production with Propaganda Films (irony?) in 1993, which was shot on both sides of the USA-Canada border (such as Buffalo, Hamilton, and Toronto). Right before reshoots were to be done, John Candy, who supported Moore every step of the way, died on March 4, 1994. Moore and Propaganda did not get along well for the reshoots (where because of Candy's death meant a handful of scenes were then shot to focus on others), and perhaps his personality does not rub well with certain folks. Haskell Wexler, who shot the film, described Moore as one with "the aw-shucks homespun character that Moore portrays is a complete falsification." The resulting film, released in 1995 on a budget of $11 million, was seen by very few audiences. Moore moved on, doing a book tour and further documentaries (nine as of 2024) across the social, political, and economic topics that interest him, to varying levels of interest.

Honestly, all of that curiosity kind of goes out the window with the result played here. By god, it is so close to being good. It was probably never going to escape that inevitable comparison of Dr. Strangelove, although it at least predates certain films that touch some of the ideas presented here, such as Wag the Dog, another film about a President using the idea of invasion to attract public attention (of course, that was loosely based on a 1993 satirical conspiracy novel). But all that comes through in a sparse 90-minute movie is the thought that this just doesn't click for great laughs. My god! You have Torn and Spradlin (the former is one of Movie Night's favorite people to see on screen) as supporting players for a mediocre lead in Alda and a middling diversion in the quartet of Candy, Perlman, O'Connor and Nunn. You want to like them, and you want to have something to laugh at in those broad jokes (get it? saying beer sucks makes Canadians fight? eh?), but you just get sitcom stuff. Like, heh, sometimes it is funny, but never to a big level for that first hour. The irony of having a handful of recognizable faces is that this is the first film I've seen with Alda (known mostly for M*A*S*H, but I recognize him from The Blacklist [!]) as a lead. He may be playing a "Clintonite". but man is it really not that funny. It begs for something broad, I almost wish Torn was playing the role, because he sweeps the rug right from both Alda and Pollak (mildly funny) in craven fun. Most of the people just don't seem to have that much fun here, where even cameos by Dan Aykroyd and Jim Belushi just make me wonder what brought them on to do listless cameos (eh? get it? public apologies and having people write Canadian slander in English and French?). One really does wonder just what would have been if Candy had been there for the whole production cycle (he died during production of Wagons East (1994), which apparently was worse). The film just can't strike hard for those looking for broad laughs and it can't really gel well as any grand satire because it just doesn't have the chops to really stick a definitive landing, particularly with its third act. It just feels like a collection of sketches run amok. The jokes are just mild and not very entertaining for a whole film, particularly since the ending doesn't even find anything riotous to say about warmongering or in amusement that hadn't been done in better things. Political firebrand or not, Moore just made a movie that wasn't even worth tearing to shreds or defending to death. A six-star rating out of 10 is sadly appropriate here.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Byron Haskin and H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (1953).

L.A. Story

Review #1630: L.A. Story.

Cast: 

Steve Martin (Harris K. Telemacher), Victoria Tennant (Sara McDowel), Richard E. Grant (Roland Mackey), Marilu Henner (Trudi), Sarah Jessica Parker (SanDeE*), Susan Forristal (Ariel), Kevin Pollak (Frank Swan), Sam McMurray (Morris Frost), Patrick Stewart (Maitre d' at L'Idiot), Andrew Amador (Bob), and Gail Grate (Gail) Directed by Mick Jackson (#202 - Volcano)

Review: 

"My mature film career started with All of Me and ends with L.A. Story."

There are plenty of films that involve a depiction or shall we say "love letter" to a city, whether that involves symphonies like Berlin: Symphony of a Metropolis (1927), films involving history with a city like San Francisco (1936), or films with a city in mind for a theme like New York Stories (1989), or even films that just happen to have a city in the title like The Houston Story (1956). But what about Los Angeles? One could offer up La La Land (2016), sure, but there exists a more clear option, one with a dreamy touch. Here is one for the "City of Angels", written and starring Steve Martin, who was raised near the area (in Inglewood and Garden Grove), which even included study at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). This was his sixth writing effort, which he wrote on and off over the course of seven years (while working on other films, of course). Elements of William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream come out in in the film (alongside modified quotations from the author recited in voiceover), although Martin noted that The Bothy Band's "The Maid of Coolmore" affected his writing for the film as well. This was the second directorial effort of Mick Jackson, a British director who went to Hollywood after directing numerous television films.

This is certainly a nice little film for what is a romantic comedy that drips satire every which way it can that takes amusement of everyday life in a city as eccentric as Los Angeles with clever interest that hits most of its marks when it comes to amusement made over its pokes that range from architecture to gags involving art (complete with a rolling scene at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art). In addition to that, there are various cameo appearances throughout the film that range from Woody Harrelson to Chevy Chase to Rick Moranis, which result in a few giggles as well. If one lets their mind go, the body (and enjoyment) will follow, you might say - it happens with a film that involves a mix of sight gags and other moments within the sunny superficial city (whether that means gun etiquette on the highway or a scene at lunch for example). In this sense, Martin is obviously in his element here, wry but always on the move when dealing with modern struggles that come with neurotic success. He skates, he (loosely) quotes Shakespeare, and he even gets to have an interesting time to spend in chemistry with Tennant (the two were married at the time of production, coincidentally). Tennant is up to following along with the offbeat times spent as the outsider bemused at what passes for L.A. culture without seeming distant or too wry for bemusement. Grant may not have as much to do, but he sure is nice to see here, offbeat but useful for what is needed in this love rectangle. Parker (best known for work on Broadway as a youth alongside films like Girls Just Want to Have Fun) does well here, playing a Valley Girl type with energy and enthusiasm that counters Martin (and the evident age difference, obviously) without being just being used for cheap gags and nothing else. Others have their moments, such as an accompanying Henner and Forristal in go-getter status and friendly eccentric, respectively. Pollak and others like Stewart (utilized in one fun sequence involving restaurant negotiation) fill in the edges of a L.A. that will feel right at home for those who live there without seeming too lofty for anyone else to enjoy for themselves. At 98 minutes, it sure will make for a fine way to spend one's time for enjoyment, having a touch of the bizarre without any sort of false note or any love lost when it comes to optimism and carefree time spent in a city that still finds way to resonate after three decades like the lights on a freeway sign - it's a labor of love that one could only hope to have for their own city, you might say.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Wayne's World 2.

Review #1608: Wayne's World 2.

Cast: 

Mike Myers (Wayne Campbell), Dana Carvey (Garth Algar), Tia Carrere (Cassandra Wong), Christopher Walken (Robert G. "Bobby" Cahn), Kevin Pollak (Jerry Segel), Ralph Brown (Del Preston), James Hong (Jeff Wong), Kim Basinger (Honey Hornée), Chris Farley (Milton), Michael A. Nickles (Jim Morrison), Larry Sellers (The Weird Naked Indian), with Ed O'Neill (Glen), Gavin Grazer (Scott), and Aerosmith. Directed by Stephen Surjik.

Review: 

It did not take long for folks to realize that Wayne's World was a success. To recap, Wayne's World began twofold: Mike Myers came up with the idea of Wayne that appeared in sketches for Citytv's City Limits and CBC Television's It's Only Rock & Roll in the mid 1980s before Myers joined Saturday Night Live in 1989 and starred in segments for the show with Dana Carvey that were featured from time to time for the next five years. The 1992 film of the same name, doubted by Paramount Pictures to be much of a hit, made nine times its $20 million budget, ranking as the most popular film based on a SNL sketch (which it still holds today). The sequel retains the main duo alongside a selection of cast members from the original alongside a sprinkling of cameo appearances (both musical and not), with Myers writing the film again with Bonnie and Terry Turner. However, the road to making a script for a sequel proved quite tough, in that the original idea by Myers wouldn't end up being used, which involved inspiration taken directly from Passport to Pimlico (1949), where the main duo would end up making their own country. Weeks before production was to start, this inspiration was pointed out by studio executives (who did not have enough time to negotiate the rights to the script and were thus incensed, with one threatening Myers personally) and they made Myers write an entirely new script. Conflicts between Myers and Penelope Spheeris over editing in the first film led to consideration of a new director in Stephen Surjik, who was known for his direction of segments for The Kids in the Hall (1990-1993). 

The film was not quite a hit like the original, but it was a marginal hit with audiences as the last hurrah for these characters. When it comes to comedies, it is a mediocre follow-up that will nevertheless please those who seek another ride of goofy charm with hit-and-miss pace. Those who weren't really fans of the original won't exactly be swayed here, because sometimes it really does feel like a bit of a rehash from before - truly, it is the take-or-leave-it film for the comedy season. Myers and Carvey prove up to the task of creating some amusing moments, whether spent with themselves or playing against others; in the case of Myers, it namely involves a vision of Jim Morrison as some sort of spiritual journey (inspired by Myers and his own journey that he took upon the death of his father) that leads to a few interesting moments to those who don't see the Morrison bits as just a bit. Actually, the "fight" (involving dubbing) between Myers and Hong is kind of funny, too. For Carvey, the moments spent with Basinger playing a femme fatale prove quite involving (along with seeming tacked there to give him something to do besides linger with the look-alike played by Olivia d'Abo). The segment showing Myers and Carvey talk about "The Leprechaun" is a decent highlight to look at for a minute, in the sense that it is probably better done than the actual film made fun of. It is nice to see Carrere, even if her part seems like a re-hash from before (in other words, trying to do music in the face of slimy producers), but the highlight is the re-creation of a particular sequence from The Graduate (1967) near the ending. Walken does well with straight-laced slime that nevertheless can grab a chuckle (or be used for better work involving straight-laced humor). Pollak is used for a bit involving eyes that goes over fine, but it is Brown that takes up the supporting reins in pairing with Myers/Carvey, which he does in a take off the eccentric character he played in Withnail and I (1987). There are various cameo appearances throughout the film, ranging from Rip Taylor to Aerosmith to Charlton Heston, with some proving better than others (Charlton Heston over Jay Leno? Shock, shock, shock. Actually, I take it back, TV sentimental favorite Ed O'Neill's brief moment as the oddball Glen is the better one). In other words, 95 minutes is just enough to handle a few decent moments and a mostly-original run-through for a follow-up film that will fit just fine for what one desires to see in entertainment without being too disappointed. In other words, one can party on just fine with this film without hurling too much back at the screen.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Usual Suspects.

Review #1508: The Usual Suspects.

Cast: 
Stephen Baldwin (Michael McManus), Gabriel Byrne (Dean Keaton), Benicio del Toro (Fred Fenster), Kevin Pollak (Todd Hockney), Kevin Spacey (Roger "Verbal" Kint), Chazz Palminteri (Dave Kujan), Pete Postlethwaite (Kobayashi), Suzy Amis (Edie Finneran), Giancarlo Esposito (Jack Baer), and Dan Hedaya (Sergeant Jeff Rabin) Produced and Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men, #010 - X2, #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past, and #1077 - Superman Returns)

Review: 
"I believe that as a writer and a director, you're only providing the skeleton of a character, and you're hiring actors to fill it out."

It's easy to make a film people remember when you have assembled a script worth thinking about. Christopher McQuarrie spent his first few years out of high school (spent with classmate Singer) doing some traveling and work in a boarding school and a detective agency. His first foray into film came with Public Access (which he co-wrote with Singer) in 1993, which he co-wrote with Singer and Michael Feit Dougan. The film did win some attention from critics (such as with the Sundance Film Festival), but it ultimately did not find much of an audience to play to. The thing that sparked interest in writing the film came about from seeing a title of a Spy magazine column that was "The Usual Suspects" (which also happens to be a classic line from Casablanca), and a casual conversation about doing a film with that title led later on to Singer asking if he could write a film for him with that in mind (since there was interest by investors interested in their last work for a $3 million project). McQuarrie, working at a law firm at the time, found inspiration in a small white room that looked like one used for interrogation, with this springing to mind a character who talks too much; names for some of the characters would come from stuff revolving around McQuarrie in his workplace, such as the interrogator (named for a office manager at the firm) and even Keyser Söze (although the last name was changed from real life).

The most interesting parts of the film involve those little moments of interaction between the core cast that we follow along with in its story, more so in the first half than the second. It is Byrne who we gravitate to in terms of interest, one who just grabs at you with a flickering intensity that certain inspires a certain kind of imagination as to what he really is, since he is the figure we see in the midst of events that had started the film anyway. Baldwin follows along with useful pacing that is quick on the trigger in high-temperedness. Del Toro does fine with a share of eccentricity that lends curiosity for what really seems to be a plain character on paper. Pollak proves worthy of a few cheeky smiles in short fused-temperament, while Palminteri proves a worthy one to contrast against the core group of seediness with coarse charm. Spacey is the key to plenty in the film, since he is the one we are listening to and viewing within the background of the perspective, and he does a fairly decent job in unassuming nature, useful to the film is what it shows without seeming like an extra presence, verbalizing himself with effective weaving.

You know those movies that people say they would like for you to see in how it plays out? There are some films that people can really, really get into, ones that can lend plenty of discussion for how something "just works", something far more than what one could assume from a noir mystery and so on and so on. Honestly, the one sticking point for me when it comes to this film is that I wish it was better than I expected. What was there to expect? The climax at the end isn't exactly spoiler-free from pop culture, but it generally does help to not read too much into an ending for a film before you watch it anyway (look, either Keyser Söze will be revealed to us in the end as either someone already established or he won't be at all, it isn't exactly more than a binary choice). The film relies on this twist because of its perspective that it wants to tell within its confines of a story that perhaps works for numerous viewings, one might say (it has been described as Double Indemnity meets Rashomon). Well, that doesn't really work if you don't find its shaggy dog kind of storytelling that particularly highly to begin with, a big trick to play on the audiences. The cast ultimately plays into part of how this film falls into what I like to call the "five stages of movie classic disappointment" (in which one does when they are faced with a movie people like but you don't, which obviously differs from the inverse of normal movie disappointment, namely in paragraphs). In this never-tested method, they would represent denial, in that I am believing that because they do pretty well, I cling to the idea that this really will be a great film. Anger (or in this case, frustration, because who really gets mad at being tricked by a film?) presumably kicks in right around when the story starts to teeter a bit too long in making me keep caring to the inevitable stop. Bargaining comes around in the whiny voice of consciousness that argues that wants me to compromise (in other words, not just immediately say this film isn't quite right without a little bit of digging) and think of it as "good, but not quite perfect" because maybe the climax really will prove itself. This leads to that fourth stage of depression (disappointment), where I just sit through the motions of how it really chooses to go the way it goes and sighing all the way, with that fifth stage standing right there practically mocking me when I finish that last train of thought.

This isn't to say I hated the film, because I actually did find it okay in making a fair piece of curiosity with a few highlights within conventional folks made fair through the actors (such as the scene where they all have to say a line in a police lineup), but in my view its magic trick leaves me feeling indifferent rather than astonishment. Pull that tablecloth from under the table all you want, but that doesn't make it a cool trick if I can see the way you "did it" coming.  Conventional can seem old hat and tired, but you know what was better in its portrayal of details and chase in the same year that this came out? Coincidence or not, that film is Seven (1995), which also happened to feature Spacey in a key role. Why stop there? Why not just chuck along a better film in dealing with stringed-together storytelling in Reservoir Dogs (1992)? Look, sometimes a film just doesn't have the reaching power it thinks it does, and that just falls to the perspective of the person who just saw it, and I just thought it was okay. I can understand the accolades and praise it received from certain audiences (which included an Academy Award for its screenplay, beating films of that year such as Braveheart and Toy Story) while also reaching the final stage of movie-classic-disappointment-grief: Acceptance that it just isn't completely what I think of when I think of a classic, and I move on to the next one.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Grumpy Old Men.

Review #1505: Grumpy Old Men.

Cast:
Jack Lemmon (John Gustafson Jr), Walter Matthau (Max Goldman), Ann-Margret (Ariel Truax), Burgess Meredith (John Gustafson Sr), Daryl Hannah (Melanie Gustafson), Kevin Pollak (Jacob Goldman), Ossie Davis (Chuck), Buck Henry (IRS Agent Elliott Snyder), and Christopher McDonald (Mike) Directed by Donald Petrie.

Review: 
"It was a very unusual relationship right off the bat, the very first day, because it clicked so totally and easily there was just nothing to it."
"Because it was about a couple of guys in the Midwest, snapping at each other, calling each other names, looking forward to that every day"

It just goes to show you could put almost any director with some name stars and it could work out nicely for itself. Oh sure, Donald Petrie isn't exactly a nameless one-time comedy director (thirteen films is a nice accomplishment for anyone, and this also served as the first screenplay for Mark Steven Johnson), but who are we are kidding here? This was the six of ten films involving actors (and friends) Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, which consisted of eleven overall films (nine where they starred together, one where they had no scenes together, and one where Lemmon directed Matthau). Both had lengthy careers of versatility that could spring into comedy or drama when needed, with highlights for each actor being films such as Mister Roberts (1955), The Fortune Cookie (1966), The Odd Couple (1968), and Save the Tiger (1973).

Look, sometimes one latches on to a film no matter how obvious it may or may not be about its intent. It has the appeal of an restaurant you return to after a couple of years removed from memories long since past, where you can still see the creaks and bumps that made it what it was, whether with yourself or with friends (good or bad, depending on loyalty) that we can't help but still care about in some sort of way. Whether or not it is like red meat for an older audience in terms of appeal, there is still some joy to be found within its established stars that one cannot help but like to see. I suppose anytime one wants to view actors banter with a mix of obscenities and nonsense could be interesting, but Lemmon and Matthau have the timing necessary to make it consistent in generating a chuckle without being stuck in bland sitcom-land material. Lemmon proves his ground in patience in the art of refined timing, careful in handling a thin story made to give him cheeky things to do, whether that involves a mad ride on a snowmobile or being out in the cold bantering with his fellow "putz". Matthau follows along with just as careful temperament in driving in a long feud together with snappy irascibility. Ann-Margret accompanies the proceedings with flourish and well-needed energy that drives along a few charming smiles. The true highlight among the supporting cast proves to be Meredith, who is quite amusing in small doses with rascally established charm. Hannah and Pollak prove fine in the careful confines of normal counterparts to parents having more fun in older life than they are. Davis does not really have much to do, but his scenes with Lemmon and Matthau are at least worth it. In any case, what we have here is a mostly-decent film that runs with a reliable 104 minute pace with likable characters and a few amusing moments that generally smooths over the creaky predictability and clichés with a decent heart to resonate in decency the whole family can generally get behind and smile just fine.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Willow.

Review #1085: Willow.

Cast: 
Warwick Davis (Willow Ufgood), Val Kilmer (Madmartigan), Joanne Whalley (Sorsha), Jean Marsh (Queen Bavmorda), Patricia Hayes (Fin Raziel), Billy Barty (The High Aldwin), Pat Roach (General Kael), Gavan O'Herlihy (Airk Thaughbaer), Maria Holvöe (Cherlindrea), with Kevin Pollak and Rick Overton (Rool and Franjean), and Kate & Ruth Greenfield and Rebecca Bearman (Elora Danan) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man)

Review: 
It is strange to see this film 30 years after it came out, a high fantasy movie that certainly has its fans and detractors after all this time. The story was done by George Lucas, notable for his work on the original Star Wars trilogy, with the screenplay being done by Bob Dolman, who had done work in television such as SCTV Network 90 (for which he won two Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Writing for a Variety Series). In any case, the idea for the movie was conceived by Lucas in the 1970s that had mythical qualities that was in some of the same vein as had been done with Star Wars, with Lucas once stating, "It was an idea that came to me in reading a lot of mythology and a lot of fairy tales and I realized that there hadn’t been very many feature films in that genre of just pure fantasy."

In any case, it is evident that there was a great deal of effort to really try to make something worthwhile as entertainment with this movie, but I don't think that it quite succeeds in its pursuit. By the time that this film came out, there had been numerous fantasy films that came and went in the decade, and I have covered a few of those in other reviews, such as Clash of the Titans, Conan the Barbarian, and Krull, but I think that the problem with this movie is that it isn't particularly on the level of either of those films in terms of adventure. There isn't much in its story elements that hasn't been done in other movies, such as its quest and prophecy elements, but I will admit that it isn't an excruciating adventure, just one that isn't as fun as it thinks it is. Davis does a fine job with this title role, giving it some passion and usefulness that helps keep the movie on some sort of track. Kilmer, in a role that likely reminds viewers of other films with rogues, does a decent job with what he's given, having a few moments of amusement and action that come off convincing enough times. Whalley leaves a faint impression, but nothing too particularly inspiring. Marsh does an okay job as the villain, but it isn't anything too particularly notable. The others are alright, although Pollak and Overton's characters prove to a bit grating at times. The film's best highlight might be its effects, done by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), with the most notable one being when Hayes' character is changed from being an animal to human, done by digital morphing. It's an interesting effect to see the gradual change to the end result (aided by computer programs) that has a fine payoff. The film certainly has a decent look and cinematography (as done by Adrian Biddle), but I find that there just isn't enough in what the movie is trying to push in its action or its story to really make big entertainment. It feels a bit slow at times, such as in its middle portion, punctuated by its 126-minute run-time and a story that feels a bit by the numbers at times. It isn't anything too unique, but it also isn't anything that merits much passion beyond a mild interest. I can understand its cult status and why some may find it enjoyable, but I can't particularly give it a ringing endorsement. Take it for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Whole Nine Yards.

Review #1074: The Whole Nine Yards.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (James "Jimmy The Tulip" Tudeski), Matthew Perry (Dr. Nicholas "Oz" Oseransky), Rosanna Arquette (Sophie Oseransky), Michael Clarke Duncan (Franklin "Frankie Figs" Figueroa), Natasha Henstridge (Cynthia Tudeski), Amanda Peet (Jill St. Claire), Kevin Pollak (Janni Gogolak), and Harland Williams (Special Agent Steve Hanson) Directed by Jonathan Lynn

Review: 
This is the kind of film that will linger on a movie shelf for years that you notice one day, and it inspires you to ponder on how it sat there - and the question pretty much remains prevalent even if you watch it. This is an easygoing kind of film, not having anything too particularly funny, but also nothing too particularly awful to it either, having a fine cast for a black comedy that will elicit some laughs.  At 98 minutes, it doesn't come off as a tiresome dredge, so there's that going for it. The story has its bits of turns, blurring the lines of cliche and clever at times in its execution. I did find it amusing that it's set in Montréal, though. Willis does a fine charming job with the slick role he is given, exuding a manner that is fairly amusing. Perry does a decent job, garnering a few laughs and making for a fairly watchable one to pair off Willis at times that doesn't get too grating. Arquette is fairly grating, as per the script, and the French accent does tend to border a bit on Inspector Clouseau at times - but I can't say I'm too surprised at that, so annoying or not, she is an okay adversary I suppose. Duncan does his enforcer well fairly well, complete with a bit of charm. Henstridge is fairly intriguing, having slight chemistry with Perry.  Peet delivers a fairly charming performance for the time she is on screen, managing to elict some laughs with a charm and style that makes her irresistible to watch. If you find the film something that engages you with its good intentions of dark-ish humor, you will find something worth watching; on the other hand, if you find the humor to be a bit like a sitcom without much bite, you might see the film as an afterthought. I didn't feel bored all too often, and I felt it was at least an okay crime comedy, so take that for what it's worth. It isn't a classic in any sense, but it will probably satisfy the curious tastes of most of the people picking it out. For me, it's just okay. It isn't a classic in any sense, but it is at least entertainment that succeeds - for the most part.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.