Soldier (1998).

Review #2569: Soldier (1998).

Cast: 

Kurt Russell (Sergeant Todd "3465"; Jesse Littlejohn as 8-year-old Todd; Wyatt Russell as 11-year-old Todd), Jason Scott Lee (Caine 607), Jason Isaacs (Colonel Mekum), Connie Nielsen (Sandra), Sean Pertwee (Mace), Jared & Taylor Thorne (Nathan), Mark Bringelson (Lieutenant Rubrick), Gary Busey (Captain Church), K. K. Dodds (Lieutenant Sloan), James R. Black (Riley), Kyle Sullivan (Tommy), Corbin Bleu (Johnny), with Sara Paxton (Angie), and Michael Chiklis (Jimmy Pig) Directed by Paul W. S. Anderson (#1670 - Mortal Kombat, #1688 - Alien vs. Predator, #2158 - Resident Evil)

Review:

Sure, let's have another movie to test my bias for select presences in movies and also movies that came out either before I was born/when I wasn't old enough to stumble onto it on a DVD shelf. It may interest you to know that the movie was written by David Peoples. He was the co-writer of Blade Runner (1982) and other films such as Unforgiven (1992) and 12 Monkeys (1995). Soldier, much like Unforgiven, had languished in development hell for years.  Evidently, at one time, Clint Eastwood was tapped to be involved with filming (you might remember that Eastwood had directed/starred in People's script Unforgiven [1992]) before it eventually fell down to Paul W. S. Anderson and Kurt Russell. While claims have been made that it was envisioned as being a side-sequel to that film, Peoples has denied this, stating that he wrote it in 1984 after having seen The Terminator and wanting to make a movie with a tough guy who actually is the hero, and yes, yes, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, 1991, but hey, Soldier came out in 1998 (at any rate, a movie that shows the combat history of someone at the "Shoulder of Orion" along with getting a "Plissken Patch" is probably just having fun with stuff). The regimen of workouts for Russell led to delays in starting production (which apparently led to Anderson using the time to do Event Horizon [1997]) that also led to planned locations being unused due to bad weather in favor of sets; reportedly, Anderson did a re-write of the film, with Peoples claiming to have not seen the film. Released in October 1998 (a month where the most noted movie released that month was Antz) on a budget of $60 million, the movie was a flop that made less than a fourth of its budget back (dollars aren't everything, of course, but consider the timescape). Anderson's next theatrical project came with Resident Evil (2002) while this happens to be the last script done by Peoples to have been made into a movie.

I'm sure you've heard of a movie with a battle of "obsolete" versus "new" before, and I'm sure you've heard of a Western or two involving a weapon finding a family beyond the bullets. Sure, the adversaries are the bare minimum, and sure the environments are pretty set-bound. You've got a training sequence (told with as little dialogue as possible) to show the trained soldiers from birth in 1996 to the future...of 2036. I guess it depends on how much you take the movie seriously in what it gives you: Is it familiar to those who've seen one too many Westerns like Shane [1953] (only instead of having that little kid whining about coming back, the soldier simply kicks ass and stays around)? Sure. Is it filled with a few too many cliches? Maybe. Do you know where it is going to go where one man seeks to take fellow soldiers to hell? Yea. Did I enjoy this? Yes, I did. So, there's Kurt Russell in a role with as little words to say as possible learning about actual society and defending it by killing as many faceless dudes as it takes to keep himself and others alive. Sore foot or no sore foot, he wasn't going to let it get in the way of a big paycheck and goddamnit, I like his moxie in a movie that is saved from outright mediocrity because he really is that damn good here. He may have been in his late forties here, but he still has the physicality and the presence to make this an interesting character to see grow from a broken weapon to a guy with the semblance of a soul that people want to be around. The adversaries are not exactly given much to do to combat that as tools of a new order of brutality, mainly because Lee doesn't get much to say (as one does from a super soldier that gets their eye gouged out early before getting back to action) and Isaacs is more of a pencil-necked blowhard, but I like their stuff anyway in confrontation with the inevitable. Nielsen and Pertwee lead the ordinary folks down on the desolate lands (which look pretty neat at times) with mixed results - "soldiers deserve soldiers" basically sums up that yea, there's some folks worth saving, but yeah, our eyes are focused on that one guy no matter what. It's a 99-minute adventure that can be fun depending on how many cliches is enough in an obvious action movie. As a whole, the action sequences (such as for the climax) mostly hold things together for a movie that either falls by the wayside for those who don't fall for its cliche charms or has just enough enjoyment to actually make you believe that the film is worth a check. As a clear fan of Russell and a person who likes their action movies of varying levels of ambition, this one is decent enough to say it might be worth your time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up - Kristofferson.

*I always try to find time to find a link to an interview or something for research or for fun, so enjoy a Peoples interview - Janet and David Webb Peoples at Cinequest I will say this one quote is kinda funny from Peoples: "Hollywood encourages violence". Well, yes! Isn't that the fun of moviemaking? What's next, wanting movies to have less sex?

Used Cars.

Review #2398: Used Cars.

Cast:

Kurt Russell (Rudy Russo), Jack Warden (Roy L. Fuchs / Luke Fuchs), Gerrit Graham (Jeff), Frank McRae (Jim), Deborah Harmon (Barbara Jane Fuchs), Joe Flaherty (Sam Slaton), David L. Lander (Freddie Paris), Michael McKean (Eddie Winslow), Michael Talbott (Mickey), Harry Northup (Carmine), Alfonso Arau (Manuel), Cheryl Rixon (Margaret), Al Lewis (Judge H. H. Harrison), Woodrow Parfrey (Mr. Chertner), and Dub Taylor (Tucker)

Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, #747 - Back to the Future Part II, #748 - Back to the Future Part III, #1527 - Cast Away, #2229 - I Wanna Hold Your Hand)

Review: 

 “This movie is structured on a classic Frank Capra movie except that everybody lies.”

Look, sometimes movies don't get the right type of luck in reaching audiences. Or they just don't get it, who the hell knows. You might remember that Robert Zemeckis had his directorial debut with I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978), that 1964 comedy involving teens and The Beatles that flopped on initial release. But Zemeckis continued on with Bob Gale on another production together two years later with Used Cars, which now had John Milius and Steven Spielberg serve as executive producers. Apparently, Milius was the one who came up with the idea of the movie with Spielberg that had thoughts of a Las Vegas used-cars salesman, which at one point had George Hamilton floated as a possible lead. Gale and Zemeckis did research at used car lots, as one does. The movie was shot around the Arizona area in the span of a month in 1979. On July 11, 1980, Used Cars was released in theaters and was a marginal success (it was made for substantially more money than Hand, for example). Apparently, the release was bumped up a month by Columbia Pictures (as led by a man that had sold cars at one point in his life) due to good test screenings, and yes, I said *good* screenings. As as a result, the movie came out just barely after the release of movies such as Airplane! (1980). The next movie directed by Zemeckis was Romancing the Stone (1984), which lit the match for his eventual breakthrough as a director. Incidentally, Used Cars (1980) was the only R-rated Zemeckis movie until Flight (2012).

I don't do car dealerships, but good god, I do love ensemble comedies. It is the kind of old-fashioned hokum that would've fit right at home in the days of Old Hollywood (as if it was an inverted A Wonderful Life), even if others might shudder at the thought of "crass" characters for a comedy. The thing is that they are *fun* and crass characters for a delightfully exploitative movie. What, have you never thought about a used car salesman going into politics? (as opposed to 70-year-olds running for president again and again) It wasn't like the previous decade was a normal one, what with people becoming president without the voters being involved. It is a barrage of crude brilliance that could only come from people who wanted to blaze a trail of humor at all costs and played it extremely cool in the process. Sometimes I wonder what makes Kurt Russell so good that he could've had his own fan club. I think it just is the fact that he seems to have the swagger to pull off nearly any performance with no sense of bullshitting you. He can do the action movie hero type (as one loves), he could do drama (I see Miracle [2004] every year), and most importantly, he can do comedy. Of course, this was his first film in five years, having moved away from Disney productions after The Strongest Man in the World (1975) that saw him do television and even play Elvis. With this movie, you need someone with a cocksure attitude, and you get that in spades with Russell, who is tremendously devious and tremendously funny for what clearly should've been the role to help see Russell as a legitimate talent*. He just rolls the hustle on his mind with no hesitation and the confidence that arrives in slippery likability, where one loves to watch what harebrained idea that he wants to peddle next. His time spent with Harmon is probably the only time he tries to really be honest (well, as much as one can when being around a dead person for a good chunk of the film), and even then it is still funny to see him squirm in chicanery. But the real focus is on folks you see around Russell like the superstitious (and funny) Graham or the slippery McRae or the lesser-shown McKean & Lander (who at that time were paired together on TV with Laverne & Shirley) in tech hijinks. But of course, Warden and his double role (for a time, one of them dies and is buried in an Edsel that is both touching and amusing) helps to seal the film as a real treat. He practically seems like the kid in a candy store in grousing humor that plays off the whole "one guy looks like this, the other guy acts like this" thing that makes me smile every time I see him on screen (one line in particular stands out about the "country going to the dogs" because when a politician was bought, they would stay bought). The cut-in sequences (where the boys decide the best way to raise awareness for their dealership is illegal cut-in commercials) are special standouts in ludicrous energy and audacity*, but the real show-stopper is the climax involving plenty of cars that might as well have been a cattle drive like Red River (1948) with such rousing spectacle and lunacy on display. In total, one doesn't see a cop out in a movie that looks at people and sees grifters all in line. As a whole, the screwy logic on display in salesmanship and outright lies to fill a hustle has managed to age spectacularly well for a movie that definitely deserved better in its time. But four decades (and a half) is still plenty of good milage for a director who got even better from here, so check it out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*He also tried to have a baseball career but suffered an injury. Is this the third film of the trinity of movies that people didn't get in the 1980s with The Thing and Big Trouble in Little China? Or would Tango & Cash make it a square? At least Escape from New York got him to righteous status.

*One scene has a naked lady in it, as one does when packed with an R-rating. Just be ready for breasts, as they say.

Tango & Cash.

Review #1876: Tango & Cash.

Cast: 

Sylvester Stallone (Lieutenant Raymond "Ray" Tango), Kurt Russell (Lieutenant Gabriel "Gabe" Cash), Jack Palance (Yves Perret), Teri Hatcher (Katherine "Kiki" Tango), Michael J. Pollard (Owen), Brion James (Requin), James Hong (Quan), Robert Z'Dar (Face), Marc Alaimo (Lopez), Roy Brocksmith (FBI Agent Davis), Phil Rubenstein (Matt Sokowski), Lewis Arquette (FBI Agent Wyler), Clint Howard (Slinky), Michael Jeter (Skinner), and Geoffrey Lewis (Captain Schroeder) Directed by Andrei Konchalovsky and Albert Magnoli (#885 - Purple Rain)

Review: 

"Andrei was a real gentleman and I thought his take on "Tango and Cash" was very good and would've been infinitely more realistic had he been allowed to continue. His replacement was more attuned to comic pop culture, so the film had a dramatic shift into a more lighthearted direction."

The combination of director, producer, and star(s) for an action film has probably never seemed so surprising with a film like this. Yes, Konchalovsky was an established director, so consider his resume: an adaptation of Uncle Vanya (1970), a historical epic with Siberiade (1979), his venture into American cinema with the drama Maria's Lovers (1984)...and the action thriller Runaway Train (1985), which used a script from Akira Kurosawa. Born in Moscow, he studied for a decade at the Moscow Conservatory with the intent to be a pianist but encountering Andrei Tarkovsky led to him to working with him on the script that became Andrei Rublev (1966). Konchalovsky began his career as director with The First Teacher (1964) and did a handful of films before moving to the United States in 1980, where he resided before returning to Russia in the 1990s, with this film being his last full American production (his next film, The Inner Circle (1991), was a co-production between America, Italy, and the Soviet Union). Now, if you were wondering how this movie came about, it was based on a script by Randy Feldman, who in turn was doing it on an idea that Jon Peters and Peter Guber had thought of, with the intention of Sylvester Stallone and Patrick Swayze as the stars. But Swayze decided to do Road House (1989) instead, which served as one of many weird things to come. Konchalovsky would spend three months in the director's chair before arguments with Peters came to a boiling point because of disagreements with tone (believe it or not, Stallone was on the director's side) and budget problems. Peter MacDonald (who had directed Rambo III ironically after taking over for a director that Stallone had fired) and Stallone filled in temporarily before Albert Magnoli was hired to shoot the chase and fight scenes in the ending. Jeffrey Boam was brought in to try and do re-writes to the script but hated the final result so much that he didn't want credit. Remember that this was a film that started to shoot in June and end shooting in August of 1989...which ended up needing re-shoots for two weeks in October before intending to be released in December. It barely met its goal, thanks to editing from three people, including Stuart Baird, who had edited countless movies such as Lethal Weapon and its sequel (incidentally, he would be brought in to fix further troubled movies such as The Last Boy Scout), with the film being released on December 22, serving alongside Always) as the last movies released in the 1980s.

Wait, people didn't care for this film in 1989? What exactly did they expect? It wasn't exactly a great commercial hit, but there is a tinge of appreciation for it after over 30 years. Honestly, I enjoyed it just fine, as it is a movie that does exactly what it wants to do in macho action flair. A sillier person could possibly make the argument that this is a play on the action genre, one that is as goofy and beefed up as possible with the most obvious lead stars to accomplish this goal. My god, it's a movie that starts with someone shooting a vehicle to reveal cocaine, continues with a guy using rats to demonstrate his complicated scheme, and ends with monster trucks and tank-like SUVs - who would resist? I understand the potential for a serious buddy cop type of movie, but sometimes going for broke really is the better option. For someone who is fascinated at seeing both Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell on screen like I am, this is basically the ideal bait. That doesn't mean that it is infallible in being good (because, trust me, Stallone has had made a few duds worth talking about), but it does mean that the curiosity factor went up far more than if it was just a strait-laced attempt at buddy cop stuff. Call me a junk connoisseur, but I do enjoy movies with a bit of bombast and confidence to just go on the beat of its own drum in action, winking eyes or not (my problems are more if someone tries to bullshit their movie into "up their own ass" territory"). Calling it a bastardized Lethal Weapon only serves to make the interest go up, not down, considering the impending mediocrity of movies that tried to hone in buddy cop cliches in obligation or bewildering confusion with 1990's Another 48 Hrs. or The Rookie.

Honestly, I understand where Stallone was coming from with the character, he tries to play here in this offbeat take on the action cop type with glasses (actual ones used by Stallone) and a banker attire...but Stallone is Stallone. Making a chuckle with "Rambo is a pussy" is cute, but one knows that the best way to contain the ever-growing ego of Stallone (when you created Rocky, you get slack) is to just let him be himself. He has the schlock factor of someone who would've been "man in a suit" for a certain type of older movies, but he does it with a certain charm that you go along with what he tries to pull here. Besides, Russell has always been a favorite with me, in that he can basically walk through a role with no trouble, which I would expect from someone who went from Disney child star to a guy who can pass for both comedy and drama. He passes through here with casual charm, one who knows what kind of movie he is in without thinking they are above it all, smirking his way through with the kind of stubborn tenacity I would expect to see play out when playing out this intense dunderhead chemistry shared with Stallone that plays in the vein of The Odd Couple at times. Of course, in the middle of this is James, whose went from having two scenes turned into more when they liked his "Cockney" accent (he was an American with plenty of experience playing bad guys). He overshadows Palance (who even manages to turn a role of watching things happen into a ham) to the benefit of the movie when it comes to casual derangement. Hatcher would obviously find better material to hone in her charms (besides TV anyway) while Pollard breezes through with light amusement. The climax is preposterous and exactly what one could expect without dull surprises. As a whole, it manages to rein enough out of 104 minutes for stupefying fun that I believe make it a worthy curiosity, one with the general action sought by audiences with corny liners and general engagement from two likable stars to carry it despite plenty of clear faults and excesses. If you've seen one, you've seen plenty, but the folks that enjoy what they like to enjoy will be right at home here.

Overall, I give it 7 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.

Big Trouble in Little China.

Review #1479: Big Trouble in Little China.

Cast:
Kurt Russell (Jack Burton), Kim Cattrall (Gracie Law), Dennis Dun (Wang Chi), James Hong (David Lo Pan), Victor Wong (Egg Shen), Kate Burton (Margo Litzenberger), Donald Li (Eddie Lee), Carter Wong (Thunder), Peter Kwong (Rain), James Pax (Lightning), Suzee Pai (Miao Yin), and Chao-Li Chi (Uncle Chu) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing (1982), #732 - Escape from L.A., #1221 - Dark Star, and #1298 - They Live)

Review: 
"I'm pretty happy with who I am. I like myself and what I'm doing. I don't need to be the world's greatest director or the most famous - or the richest. I don't need to make a whole lot of great films. I can do my job and I can do it pretty well. This is the realization I've come to, later in life. It's called growing up."
"I seem to have a knack for picking movies that go on to be cult favorites."

John Carpenter is a director that deserves further inspection, one that is far more than just his horror films. The 1980s are ertainly an interesting indicator of this diverting director, with eight of his eighteen directorial efforts being in that era (ranging from The Fog to They Live), comprised of success and flops that eventually alienated him away from Hollywood, but most of the features are generally well appreciated for their efforts in horror, science fiction and action, with some of those features also being composed or written by him as well. At the helm as star for some of those successes is Kurt Russell, who first rose to prominence as a child star in television and for Disney films before growing into further lines of work in the 1980s as an action hero (along with sentimental favorite in my view). The film had three different writers credited: Gary Goldman and David Z. Weinstein originally wrote it as a western that would combine Chinese fantasy elements one might find in a martial arts film within a western; subsequent attempts to turn it into something more filmable led to their firing and W. D. Richter (writer of films such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)) brought in to rehaul the screenplay into a contemporary tale that kept just basic elements like Lo Pan and Jack Burton, using Rosemary's Baby (yes, that one) as his template.

Ultimately, what we have here is a film that screams cult classic - it was a flop at the box office in the midst of a busy summer (to put it in perspective, the top films of that summer were Top Gun, The Karate Kid Part II and Aliens) and marketing that even Russell found not to his liking, with the studio not really understanding Burton's character (to the point where they had them do the opening scene about his heroism). It influenced Carpenter back to independent filmmaking as yet another painfully misspreciated film of his catalogue in the 1980s (with only his film The Thing (1982) being more unappreciated in its time, which also found a deserved following). For all of its obviousness, one can't help but enjoy its b-movie style - cheesy but with wonderful effects and a zippy charm to its cast that make a strange and stark delight to the action film. Russell proves quite enjoyable with brash brightness for a part that is part-hero and part-sidekick, lumbering through lines of screwball bravado, whether in engaging in some trucker lines on a truck, or showing confidence right before knocking himself out of a fight. Cattrall follows along the screwball aspects of the film at times with sharpness, making for a quirky time when paired with Russell. Dun proves well in keeping with the quick pace and timing required of our true hero with confidence that springs well with the action sequences. Hong (a prolific Chinese American actor of various mediums for six decades) proves a fair villain, inviting one with some creeping mystery (we are talking about a long-living sorcerer who wants a green-eyed bride/sacrifice, after all) that makes a satisfactory threat. Wong, Burton, and Li prove a decent supporting cast to a film that moves along for 99 minutes with an aim to make a snappy martial arts effects film and succeeding fairly well at it. With floating eyeballs, lightning effects, a underworld beneath Chinatown, and a big ugly monster, how could one resist such a film? To call it contrived or bumbling is missing out on the fun, particularly one with an interesting approach to the hero-sidekick dynamic. On the whole, it is a likable film with enough well-done staging in action and design to go with an amiable cast for a deserved cult classic and a fair piece in John Carpenter's line of work that is worth a watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Silkwood.

Review #1299: Silkwood.

Cast: 
Meryl Streep (Karen Silkwood), Kurt Russell (Drew Stephens), Cher (Dolly Pelliker), Craig T. Nelson (Winston), Fred Ward (Morgan), Diana Scarwid (Angela), Ron Silver (Paul Stone), Josef Sommer (Max Richter), Charles Hallahan (Earl Lapin), Tess Harper (Linda Dawson), Sudie Bond (Thelma Rice), Henderson Forsythe (Quincy Bissell), and Bruce McGill (Mace Hurley) Directed by Mike Nichols (#175 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, #550 - The Graduate, and #637 - The Birdcage, and #1157 - Wolf)

Review: 
On November 13, 1974, a chemical technician was killed in a car collision in Crescent, Oklahoma is what is believed to be an accident. Karen Silkwood, of course was more than just a blurb on the newspages, since she was an activist who was investigating wrongdoing into the plutonium plant that she worked in, for which she had been contaminated. Her death inspired a lawsuit against the plant she worked for, which had two trials before a final settlement in 1986, with the closure of the nuclear fuels plant having occurred the year after Silkwood's death. In any case, it does seem interesting to make a biopic drama based on her short life that attempts to stick to a group of the basic facts alongside movie-magic that conjure some ambiguity that goes off mostly without a hitch. Perhaps it proves a bit too long at 131 minutes, but one that can't really be denied is that the movie has a well-picked cast to ready its ship along when it is required to. The cast really does seem to seep right into these ordinary folks without trouble, really, where even knowing the fate of its focus doesn't make for much predictability, one who has a bit of tunnel vision for what she believes is the imperative thing to do. This is key with Streep, who pulls in a tremendous performance, filled with spark of persistence and warmth that make her story flow for its audience that makes her interesting enough to follow with. Russell, in a departure from the usual action genre roles, pulls off a rugged turn that seems just as down-to-earth as the lady he acts opposite with, and they do share some casual chemistry together whenever he is on screen. It shouldn't prove too surprising that Cher was suited for an understated yet fine performance here. In her second film since venturing back into acting (after starring in Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean on stage and screen the previous year), she seeps right into an unassuming role and does just fine with making the right impression with just being oneself. The rest of the cast does alright with filling out this world with no big troubles, where one doesn't need a clear villain or hero to really drive the facts along (McGill does play his role pretty adversarily, but not at the expense of realism). Is our focus a martyr or someone who got caught up in their own moral imperative? However one feels about the muddled circumstances of her ultimate fate, one cannot say that the film isn't still compelling through and through its real-life surroundings that will provoke at least some discussion when it comes to whistle-blowing and what proves to be the right thing to do, no matter what the risks could prove. In that sense, this proves to be a decent piece of entertainment headlined by Streep and her cast to go along with a well-run story from the headlines.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Review #1251: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Rick Dalton), Brad Pitt (Cliff Booth), Margot Robbie (Sharon Tate), Emile Hirsch (Jay Sebring), Margaret Qualley (Pussycat), Timothy Olyphant (James Stacy), Julia Butters (Trudi Fraser), Austin Butler (Charles "Tex" Watson), Dakota Fanning (Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme), Bruce Dern (George Spahn), Mike Moh (Bruce Lee), Luke Perry (Wayne Maunder), Damian Lewis (Steve McQueen), Al Pacino (Marvin Schwarz), Brenda Vaccaro (Mary Alice Schwarz), Kurt Russell (Randy), Zoë Bell (Janet), and Lorenza Izzo (Francesca Cappucci) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, and #1218 - Pulp Fiction)

Review: 
It is not a surprise to find myself watching a love letter to a time long since past in terms of movies, particularly since it is a Tarantino movie but also because of the intrigue of seeing such an interesting time like 1969 come to life. It attempts to talk a grand tale of fact and fiction with a cavalcade of actors and images that surely make for an ambitious piece of entertainment. The final result is something that will surely work wonders in terms of design and energy, although it holds itself together with a paste that may very well be described as frantic excess. Tarantino clearly wanted to make a great sprawling tale much in the same vein of other films of the 1960s that has its cake and eats plenty of it in a 161 minute run-time that his fans will probably clamor for (while wondering was left on the cutting floor) while others will probably wonder why it wanders for so long on certain aspects while leaving other parts less covered, with the ending being one of those moments ripe for discussion for quite a while, alongside other moments.

In a sea of actors spread out from substantial to one-scene wonder, DiCaprio and Pitt are game to lead the way in delivering plenty of enthusiasm and charm in respective ways that carry the film steady. DiCaprio in particular shines as a falling star pastiche, where one can see his fading attempts at what was and what could be in the changing of the time. Pitt joins that same kind of road with vigor that rolls right along when all is said and done. Robbie, the last of the main trio, doesn't have as much to say but does make a key impression of warmth and charm whenever we see her, such as when she sees herself in The Wrecking Crew in a theater while enjoying what she sees of her fictional comic relief lead. She plays her time for a part that doesn't fall under complete biopic structure - which can either prove fine or a bit disappointing. Others make their mark, some more than others. Qualley and Butters each make their mark count, conveying plenty of conviction in where they stand in the moment, the former being a marker of descent into the other side of 1969 Hollywood and the latter a young (but aspiring) talent firmly in the system in a changing time. Butler, Fanning and Dern also contribute for a scene with wiry impact, and it is sure is nice to see Russell make his mark from time to time. The actors with one-shot moments in the TV scenes (Olyphant and Perry) do fairly well with representing the time in helping making a show as forgotten as Lancer come to life again. Moh and Lewis are fine if not too particularly important in the grand scheme.

Once it garners itself to setting a conclusion (complete with narration that certainly feels a bit wry when coming from Russell), the film has already garnered enough enticement that you don't really want it to ever come crashing down (to say nothing of the request from Tarantino to avoid spoiling the film before release, which is a bit strange to say in a quasi fact/fiction film). It fights against the dawn of a different kind of Hollywood and the sign of the times itself that surely can resonate with those who seek the resonance that was a decade such as the 1960s without devolving too much into an old man argument. It aspires to have its cake and eat it too, doing plenty of both with no shame. It is a film that certainly will have fans who will find joy with its decisions (such as its visual and musical choices), but it isn't impossible to find aspects that test the grounds of patience if not in the mood for all the roads wanting to be covered by Tarantino. I enjoyed a good chunk of what I saw, and it could either teeter at the high or low end of his directorial efforts when all is said and done, which is a pretty good testament to his craft. After one views a tale like this, they will likely leave their theater with acceptance with what they saw - the times of big stars and big sights like drive-in theaters and the like may not resonate as much as they did before, but there sure is still something to enjoy then as in now when it comes to the movies and showmanship. It is a bittersweet tribute that succeeds more often than not with plenty of charm and entertainment value to go around that surely will endure just as much as the people that came from it did.
Any movie where a bunch of hippies are beaten to hell does tend to win praise from me, too.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tombstone.

Review #1177: Tombstone.

Cast: 
Kurt Russell (Wyatt Earp), Val Kilmer (Doc Holliday), Sam Elliott (Virgil Earp), Bill Paxton (Morgan Earp), Powers Boothe ("Curly Bill" Brocius), Michael Biehn (Johnny Ringo), Charlton Heston (Henry Hooker), Jason Priestley (Billy Breakenridge), Jon Tenney (Sheriff Johnny Behan), Stephen Lang (Ike Clanton), Thomas Haden Church (Billy Clanton), Dana Delany (Josephine Marcus), and Paula Malcomson (Allie Earp), with narration by Robert Mitchum. Directed by George P. Cosmatos (#818 - Rambo: First Blood Part II)

Review: 
On October 26, 1881, a shooutout occurred between lawmen and outlaws near the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona, resulting in three deaths. It later became known as one of the most famous shooutouts of the Wild West, in part due to Stuart Lake's biography Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, written in 1931 that told the tale of one of the participants. Although it is now known as largely fictional by researchers, it served the basis for films such as My Darling Clementine (1946) while helping to elevate Earp into a mythic icon. In any case, Kevin Jarre was slated to write and direct this film to tell the tale of the gunfight alongside the people involved in the shootout. However, a month into production he was fired from the directing chair due to falling behind in the shooting schedule. Cosmatos was hired to replace him, while scriptdoctor John Fasano helped in trimming the story to focus more on the Wyatt-Doc dynamic. It may interest you to know that six months after the release of the film came Wyatt Earp (1994), which starred Kevin Costner that wasn't as successful. The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it has plenty of entertainment value for a Western, having a good balance of action and story to make a solid experience. The ensemble cast is up to the task of making these characters come alive without feeling generic or getting lost in the shuffle. The music from Bruce Broughton (composer of a film previously covered in Silverado) also stands to the task of swift adventure. Russell shines fairly well, being quite capable at giving his role a fair sense of depth that makes him feel more than just a lawman, particularly when conversing with his on-screen brothers (Elliot and Paxton, who are efficient) or with Kilmer. I particularly like the sequence when he deals with an unruly gambler (played by Billy Bob Thornton) without even having to shoot a gun. Kilmer (complete with a Southern drawl) is quite excellent as well, being quite watchable with plenty of charm to go around. Boothe shines well as one of the adversaries the movie presents, but it is Biehn who also proves efficient in making a worthy opponent for the final showdown. The supporting cast is fine, although the movie's key strength relies more on Earp in action than when he is sharing time with either of the women in his life. The film works well before and after the Corral gunfight, keeping interest through its 130 minute runtime with minimal moments of tedium. The film seems to have plenty of craftsmanship and effort done to make something that doesn't feel like a manufactured tale made for a cheap thrill, having a finely told story with plenty of interesting things to go around. It isn't a great Western classic, but it is a well made and well done movie that can work for anyone looking for an old legend put to film.

Happy New Year folks. Hoping 2019 is just as productive as 2018 was.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Sky High (2005).

Review #1107: Sky High.

Cast: 
Michael Angarano (Will Stronghold), Kurt Russell (Steve Stronghold / The Commander), Kelly Preston (Josie DeMarco-Stronghold / Jetstream), Danielle Panabaker (Layla Williams), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Gwen Grayson / Royal Pain), Steven Strait (Warren Peace), Dee Jay Daniels (Ethan Bank), Kelly Vitz (Magenta Lewis), Nicholas Braun (Zachary "Zach" Braun / Zack Attack), with Malika Haqq and Khadijah Haqq (Penny Lent), Jake Sandvig and Will Harris (Lash and Speed), Lynda Carter (Principal Powers), Bruce Campbell (Tommy Boomowski / Sonic Boom), Kevin Heffernan (Ron Wilson, Bus Driver), Cloris Leachman (Nurse Spex), Jim Rash (Stitches), Dave Foley (Jonathan Boy / All-American Boy), and Kevin McDonald (Professor Medulla) Directed by Mike Mitchell (#209 - Shrek Forever After and #890 - Surviving Christmas)

Review: 
For a superhero flick that doubles as a family movie, Sky High proves to be average but acceptable fare as far as entertainment goes. It manages to present its premise and characters adequately with a share of laughs, while not being overly tongue-in-cheek, although it sometimes resembles fare you might see on television, which isn't too surprising given that Walt Disney Pictures was behind its production. Perhaps I should have expected more from a movie presenting the concept of a school attended by kids with superpowers, but on the whole the film does enough with showcasing numerous powered people while trying to juggle its story and its parts that you would expect from something relating to high school without becoming stale, with its action sequences being okay. Anyone looking for nuance in this film will be pretty dissapointed, but it will work out well for anybody willing to let things play out (no matter how silly it might seem). Although the occasional appearances by the adult actors can tend to stick out better than the child actors, the cast as a whole do well enough in making for engaging scenes that would've probably felt like TV movie fare with lesser actors. Angarano does a decent job, hitting his marks well enough to make the character useful to watch for the audience. Russell and Preston are both engaging to watch, playing the parent roles with the fair share of energy that you would expect from either of them. Panabaker and Winstead both do fine jobs, and the other members of the main kid core (Strait, Daniels, Vitz, Braun) all doing fair jobs. It is nice to see Campbell on screen for a few minutes, providing a fair deal of amusement alongside others such as Heffernan and Foley. At 100 minutes, this is a pretty breezy film to sit-through, and while it may be a bit routine in some of its choices, it will prove satisfactory for people (such as families) in the right mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Miracle (2004).

Review #1052: Miracle.

Cast: 
Kurt Russell (Herb Brooks), Patricia Clarkson (Patti Brooks), Noah Emmerich (Craig Patrick), Sean McCann (Walter Bush), Kenneth Welsh (Doc Nagobads), Eddie Cahill (Jim Craig), Patrick O'Brien Demsey (Mike Eruzione), Michael Mantenuto (Jack O'Callahan), Nathan West (Rob McClanahan), Kenneth Mitchell (Ralph Cox), Eric Peter-Kaiser (Mark Johnson), and Bobby Hanson (Dave Silk) Directed by Gavin O'Connor.

Review: 
Congratulations to the United States women's national ice hockey team, who won the Olympic Gold medal over Canada earlier yesterday, which also served as the 38th anniversary of the Miracle of Ice. In any case, I hope you enjoy this review.

What is there to say about the Miracle on Ice that hasn't already been said over the past 38 years? Particularly for the people that weren't alive to watch on February 22, 1980? Admittedly, there was a television movie based on the events that was released the following year (with starring Karl Malden in the main role), utilizing footage and original commentary from the game itself. The story of how the United States managed to beat the mighty power of the Soviet Union for the first time since winning gold in 1960 is an interesting one for people who dig into sports (which I do from time to time, particularly Of Miracles and Men (2015), which told about the Miracle on Ice through the eyes of the Soviet team members), but can it make for an entertaining film? The answer is yes, in part because of Russell, but also because the movie is honest enough to tell its tale without embellishing itself in too many cliches or anything too fancy. The film focuses itself on Russell and his moments in trying to portray a coach as honest and yet complex man who we find to be an interesting person to watch throughout. He just fits in so naturally, without any doubt to the way he plays it. Oddly enough, the only thing that wasn't particularly accurate was Brooks being friendly with the players (shown by him being at the Christmas party), with one player saying: "We respected him, but I wouldn't say that we liked him". The film's 135 minute pace feels satisfactory enough without being suffocating, and the film certainly has a correct feel that never looks suspiciously off-putting nor distracting.

There is time given to show some of the twenty hockey players that made up the roster, with Cahill and Demsey being fine standouts among the bunch. The players certainly look the part, with the hockey action being quite energetic and intense, looking fairly convincing without any resorting to anything too flashy, with accompanying commentary from Al Michaels and Ken Dryden (who had done the commentary for the original game, with all but the final ten seconds being recreated by the two). Clarkson isn't given too much to do, but she does her part convincingly enough. Emmerich does a fine time with the part he has, feeling fairly useful along with right for the part. McCann and Welsh do alright with the small amount of time they have to speak, but they serve as fair pieces to the film. A slight bit of time is given to show the Soviets, but the movie doesn't resort to trying to make them out to be villainous, instead just showing them and their dominance simply and naturally (except for the final, of course). This is a fine piece of entertainment, striving for satisfaction and achieving its goal without straining itself too hard in part because of a satisfactory cast with Russell doing a highlight job and hockey action that serves as tools to showcase the Miracle on Ice, being as majestic as it must've felt back then that still works now. It isn't anything too great, but it satisfies everything required with flying colors and that is more than enough.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Review #932: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Cast:
Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), Zoe Saldaña (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Baby Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Michael Rooker (Yondu Udonta), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Elizabeth Debicki (Ayesha), Chris Sullivan (Taserface), Sean Gunn (Kraglin), Sylvester Stallone (Stakar Ogord), and Kurt Russell (Ego) Directed by James Gunn (#626 -  Guardians of the Galaxy)

Review:
With reviews like these, I generally try to avoid making it about the experience I had around watching the movie in a theater on opening week, mainly because I fear that it may come off as irritating to you fellow readers. But I do admit that the Marvel films (after nine years and 15 films) are generally entertaining along with being well crafted, whether watched alone or with others by me (with the latter applying this time around). The first Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun enjoyable time that had its shares of amusement and thrills, which definitely hit the right spot for me (I'm just surprised it was released three years ago). In any case, this is a fairly enjoyable sequel, and while it doesn't quite rise to the level of the first film, it still works just enough without just being a rehash. The story decides to split the characters up until around the climax (while thankfully not hinting at them breaking up or anything), and I think it helps in letting the film breathe a bit with the characters it tries to feature along with the action. The main group of heroes are all pretty well in their roles; Baby Groot is a neat highlight. Pratt does a fine job, having good chemistry with Saldana and Russell. Cooper and Bautista also do fine jobs. Rooker (a fairly neat standout in the first film) gets a more significant kind of role this time around, and he does a good job with that advantage, being quite fun to watch. Russell is naturally entertaining, and he does a fine job at delivering the gravitas one would expect playing a living planet as a character. Klementieff is also pretty good at playing a slightly naive but easily likable character that has some neat scenes with Bautista. The rest of the cast (such as Gillian and Gunn) are also pretty fine at the roles they play. There is certainly a degree of emotional depth this time around (reminding me of The Empire Strikes Back, at least in some part) that more often than not manages to hit the mark and not bog the movie down, especially when the movie has a great spectacle of effects and action to back itself up nicely at 136 minutes. Take it for what it is: Good ol' fun, with Gunn delivering a fun flick once again.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Escape from L.A.

Review #732: Escape from L.A.

Cast
Kurt Russell (Snake Plissken), Steve Buscemi (Map to the Stars Eddie), Georges Corraface (Cuervo Jones), Cliff Robertson (President), Stacy Keach (Cmdr. Malloy), Peter Fonda (Pipeline), Pam Grier (Hershe Las Palmas), A. J. Langer (Utopia), Valeria Golino (Taslima), Bruce Campbell (Surgeon General of Beverly Hills), and Michelle Forbes (Brazen) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween, #634 - Escape from New York, and #712 - The Thing)

Review
It's been a while (ten days) since I reviewed a movie, so let me get back to work with a familiar director, John Carpenter. And hey, it's the sequel released 15 years after the first movie, what could go wrong? The answer to that question lies within the movie itself. I praised the original for its dystopian outlook, Russell himself, and the thrilling action. What I forgot to mention is that Escape from New York managed to keep itself from losing momentum. The sequel? Not so much. While Russell is still the best actor in the movie, the rest of the cast isn't as impressive. Corraface's character comes and goes too quickly to make any real impression on you, while Fonda's character is more pointless than Buscemi's character, but at least the latter does something important, so points for that. The movie is bleak, but it isn't as interesting as the first movie, and the computer effects for water effects (especially the surfing - yes Snake surfs) don't help the movie, as they come off as too distracting. It takes a while for the movie to become interesting, and the action scenes are passable, though they are overshadowed a bit by the scene where Plisskin has to make 5 baskets in a row (at the LA Coliseum, no less), and the aforementioned surfing scene, which is just plain strange. The movie was written by Debra Hill, John Carpenter & Russell, with Russell apparently coming up with the ending. I guess it was hard to make an ending that wasn't just like the last one, with this ending being more bleak given that there was no sequel (which apparently would've been Plissken escaping Earth) because this movie proved to be a failure financially. It's not a bad movie, it at least is entertaining to a degree, and Russell clearly had a lot of passion for this movie, and I respect his performance. The movie itself, though, isn't as good, but it is at least a good way to pass 100 minutes, and you might enjoy the movie more than I did. It's hard to believe this movie was released in August 1996. August...9th, 1996. Okay, I didn't plan for this to be an anniversary review. Welcome to the human race.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Escape from New York.

Review #634: Escape from New York.

Cast
Kurt Russell (Snake Plissken), Lee Van Cleef (Bob Hauk), Ernest Borgnine (Cabbie), Donald Pleasence (President), Isaac Hayes (The Duke), Harry Dean Stanton (Harold "Brain" Hellman), Adrienne Barbeau (Maggie), and Tom Atkins (Rehme) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween)

Review
Some movies are just born to be awesome (the inverse is also true as well), and this is one of them. This is a dark movie, an unrelenting movie that never lets up on its dystopian outlook, with Plissken (played excellently by Kurt Russell) being the essential anti-hero for a movie such as this. The characters are jaded, but they still manage to be entertaining, such as Borgnine, he has a quirky charm in this movie, which contrasts well with Russell. The wire frame effect is in the movie for a few moments, but it does look impressive, and it is one of the highlights of the movie. That, and the fight between Russell and Ox Baker, or the car chase at the end, take your pick. This is at heart a thrill of a movie, it's an action movie that has fun in its own way, with a rouge gallery of characters and a good deal of sense. Now if you excuse me, I have some work to do. See you all soon.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.