Showing posts with label Mike Starr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Starr. Show all posts

December 16, 2022

The Bodyguard (1992).

Review #1940: The Bodyguard.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (Frank Farmer), Whitney Houston (Rachel Marron), Gary Kemp (Sy Spector), Bill Cobbs (Bill Devaney), Ralph Waite (Herb Farmer), Tomas Arana (Greg Portman), Michele Lamar Richards (Nicki Marron), Mike Starr (Tony Scipelli), Christopher Birt (Henry Adams), DeVaughn Nixon (Fletcher Marron), and Gerry Bamman (Ray Court) Directed by Mick Jackson (#202 - Volcano and #1630 - L.A. Story)

Review: 
Well, even the popular entertainment has a shelf life worth looking into. Three decades have only kept the attention for the second-biggest hit of the year in the discussion, if only because of the even more popular soundtrack with Whitney Houston. The Newark native was after all a major singer with a string of hits since the late 1980s, and her performance and production made the best selling album for a soundtrack...ever. All of this happened for a film that had seeds of creation first planted a decade earlier. It probably should surprise you that the film was originally written with Steve McQueen and Diana Ross in mind. Yes, in the mid 1970s, this was pitched as a film, and yes, it was apparently rejected for being "too controversial". An attempt to do the film a few years later with Ryan O'Neal as the lead stalled because of strained relations between O'Neal and Ross. The film was written by Lawrence Kasdan (who had written the initial script in 1975), who you might recognize as writer of films such as The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and director of films such as The Big Chill (1983). Attempted revisions to the script apparently made it dark enough to where Mick Jackson insisted on just returning to the original concept. This was the third feature film for British native Mick Jackson, who was fresh off his success in directing L.A. Story (1991).

This is a confused movie, one that somehow is too silly and contrived to be taken seriously for anybody thinking this might be a thriller along with being too stoic in the art of going beyond first gear for what is meant to be called romance. It is also way too ordinary to run for 129 minutes. The only thing the movie has going for it is the songs, because yea, who can resist "I Will Always Love You" (sung by Houston as a cover, since the original song was done by Dolly Parton). It isn't even a case of being paint-by-the-numbers, because even other movies would know when to get on with the show. Costner probably was quite proud of himself for getting do a film where he also served as producer (just like previous efforts in Dances with Wolves) and could cut his hair like McQueen to try and hone his presence. He certainly acts like a bored McQueen would have likely been if this had been done in the 1970s, that much is sure. If you want to watch the film to make fun of it, you might have a ball looking at how understated his performance ends up being, as if he was replaced by discount Costner. The only scene that has any impact is one where he has a scuffle with Starr which ends with him throwing a knife right near him to close out a silent fight where he shows just how good he is. Houston had never acted in a film before this one, and, well, that is pretty evident early on, which results in a very mild case of "well, natural acting is technically a thing" that is then followed with "she can sing, just get her better material". She acted in three further films before her death in 2012. The movie doesn't even bother to have a middling attempt at a threat, since there is never one moment where the tension rises to any sort of interesting level. You would think a movie that has its climax during an Academy Awards ceremony would bring out some sort of curiosity to things. Nope. Kemp was one of the musicians for Spandau Ballet. That is pretty much all one can say about his performance. Cobbs and Waite are practically standing there begging for more substantial lines, but nope, this patchy romance is totally stable enough.

I kid you not, there was almost a sequel to this film. Apparently, Costner wanted to do another film with a different famous name, one who was a friend of his. The friend was Diana, Princess of Wales, but her death in 1997 put an end to it in predevelopment. A musical adaptation was done in London in 2012, and there are apparently plans for a film remake (heaven forbid they make a film that might actually show some depth - well, a man can dream, can't he?). As a whole, the best way to approach the film is to close one's eyes and just think really hard about what the hell they are watching. It might be the only movie where shutting everything but the music off might be a better experience than this overlong average movie. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

November 25, 2021

On Deadly Ground.

Review #1764: On Deadly Ground.

Cast: 
Steven Seagal (Forrest Taft), Michael Caine (Michael Jennings), Joan Chen (Masu), John C. McGinley (MacGruder), R. Lee Ermey (Stone), Shari Shattuck (Liles), Billy Bob Thornton (Homer Carlton), Richard Hamilton (Hugh Palmer), Chief Irvin Brink (Silook), John Trudell (Johnny Redfeather), Mike Starr (Big Mike), and Sven-Ole Thorsen (Otto) Directed by Steven Seagal.

Review: 
For a long time, I wondered exactly what to think about watching a movie featuring Steven Seagal. No, really. When one has seen countless action movies that have featured folks like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Bruce Willis, or even folks outside the Hollywood system in the heyday of action films, one does eventually wonder just how green the grass is on the other side when it comes to folks with reputation that could be considered "boorish" or "different". Of course, let's start at the beginning. Born in Michigan but raised in California, he actually started his adult life as a martial arts instructor in Japan before returning back to run his own dojo (of course, he had made claims that he actually had an association with certain CIA agents during that time, but this is dubious). Eventually, he broke into films, although he started out as a coordinator for stunts and martial arts. At any rate, it was the help of an agent within Hollywood that got him into his first film role with Above the Law (1988), which he also co-produced and co-wrote. This would be followed by a string of action vehicles such as Hard to Kill (1990), Out for Justice (1991), and Under Siege (1992), with the latter generally being considered his most mainstream hit. Seagal still persists on as an actor in film roles, although generally they are either "direct-to-video" or "video-on-demand" or "well, he has a supporting role, but he is top-billed like some other action stars". At any rate, 1994 Seagal had star power that he could use for something meaningful in films and he clearly wanted to make a feature film with a message. As such, On Deadly Ground is his debut feature film as a director, done in a deal with Warner Bros. that in exchange for directing that he could star in Under Siege 2: Dark Territory for them the following year.

Oh, he was trying to be serious with this film. With lines such as ”What does it take to change the essence of a man?”, you better believe that the action star wanted to create something thoughtful. Of course, he was quoted as stating he did not consider himself a martial-arts star, as if he did not in fact want to be thought of as the next incarnation of folks like Chuck Norris (another time, another time). Indeed, Seagal can state that he directed a film for a major studio that other stars did not...and he inadvertently made one of the most unintentionally hilarious films of its time, a movie that waxes on about the environment and what must be done about it while being stuffed with a body-count akin to a horror movie, complete with giving an esteemed actor like Michael Caine an unsightly hairdo in a role likely up there in amusement with Jaws: The Revenge. You could actually cut the movie to make it look like Seagal is some sort of slasher character, since he runs the gamut of creative death sequences for the folks he takes down (who are as one dimensional as he is), which revolves from setting traps to dropping people into oil. But hey, let's briefly talk about the supporting folks first, because they sure are disposable enough to make fun of. Caine looks and sounds befuddled here, as if he was wondering where the "Captain Planet" voice booth was instead, and he is given exactly the amount of depth one would expect from a cardboard cutout villain. Chen is the accompanying leading lady with Seagal, and it is amusing to see the absolute zero chemistry between the two, which is made more amusing with her being present for a variety of death scenes that involve no reaction on her part. McGinley plays the toady role with cheese that at least looks like he is having an ounce of fun (one wonders how Thornton did with his small part in amusement). Ermey is technically meant to be the adversary to Seagal, but since our hero never experiences any real threat, he is more amusing than anything.

I strongly suspect that there would have better movies to watch Seagal in before I tried this one, because no one could be this wooden. He may have the physique for an action star, but he seems far too wrapped up in...whatever his attempt at charisma is. There are lines that sound like they should be funny, but it is the stuff that is supposed to be taken seriously (such as the aforementioned line I stated in the previous paragraph...which he speaks to a guy he just beat up after doing a slap hand game) that is more amusing, as if he was playing a killer without any awareness at all. To top it all off, Seagal spends the last couple of minutes talking about the environment (as if to the audience), which apparently was actually cut down from the request of Warner Bros. (since Seagal had a much longer plan); it might be appropriate for Greenpeace but otherwise it proves hysterical when it comes from a movie where a dude just destroyed a rig and dozens of people. At any rate, the movie (known first as "Rainbow Warrior" and "Spirit Warrior" before this title) involved a guy trying to rectify the wrongs of an oil company that plans to use their latest device to drill before the native Alaskans can retrieve the land back, a vision quest, and dozens of amusing moments. Oddly enough, the most equivalent film in that regard might be Billy Jack (1971), since that movie also features a hero that is friendly with the natives that likes to kick and kick before preaching about a certain message (which was pacifism, although that movie had plodding sequences with hippies). Honestly, more folks should probably check this one out for its sheer failure in message and execution, regardless of how it easy it seems to pick on Seagal these days. This is the one chance you have to see him as both star and director, and it all comes in a flop like this.
 
Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Fate lends a hand and delivers In the Name of the King for Black Friday.

January 23, 2021

Miller's Crossing.

Review #1629: Miller's Crossing.

Cast:
Gabriel Byrne (Tom Reagan), Marcia Gay Harden (Verna Bernbaum), Albert Finney (Liam "Leo" O'Bannon), John Turturro (Bernie Bernbaum), Jon Polito (Johnny Caspar), J. E. Freeman (Eddie "the Dane"), Steve Buscemi (Mink Larouie), John McConnell (Bryan), Mike Starr (Frankie), Al Mancini (Tic-Tac), Olek Krupa (Tad), and Frances McDormand (The Mayor's Secretary) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, #1063 - Blood Simple, #1517 - The Big Lebowski, and #1552 - A Serious Man)

Review:
"It doesn’t really concern me if the audience sometimes loses the thread of the plot. It’s not that important to understand who killed the Rug Daniels character, for instance. It’s far more important to feel the relationships between the characters. The question of intelligibility concerns me more, but, until now, I haven’t received any bad reactions concerning that."

It can be amazing to look upon the early part of the career of a director and see how they can synthesize entertainment with their own particular brand of craftsmanship and characters that entices one with wit and intrigue in where it all will lead by the time of its final shot. The Coen brothers certainly have done well with cultivating memorable films over the span of four decades, with a fair share of notice to accompany it depending on how it reaches them. Miller's Crossing, the third film directed, written, and produced by the Coens, was made on a budget of roughly $10-$14 million, but it did not shake the world with fervor upon release, likely owing to the fact that it was released days after Goodfellas (1990). Granted, they are not entirely similar when it comes to dealing with the gangster film genre, since this one is more of a synthesizing of the gangster and noir genre than anything - they were not so much inspired by the gangster film but rather with the gangster novel with the works of Dashiell Hammett, particularly with the novels The Glass Key and Random Harvest (incidentally, the Coens have argued it to be more closer to noir than the gangster film). Incidentally, the time it took to write such an intricate plot (roughly eight months) led to writer's block, during which the Coens were inspired to write what became their next feature with Barton Fink the following year.

It sure is a puzzle with a dazzling look to go with it. It is a series of contradictions and machinations, whether that means a struggle for ethics in illicit activities or various angles for all but the one that matters (i.e. the man who takes more blows than a sunken ship). In short, it moves like the breeze on a fedora in a forest (that particular image spurred the idea for the film). They wanted to make a film with a jigsaw puzzle in the background as a plot that makes one focus on the momentum of the folks inhabiting a "dirty town movie". The 115 minute run-time moves with the shift of a long con that can go for humor alongside curiosity but also melancholy, which is naturally aided by its soundtrack by Carter Burwell and look (shot but not exactly set in New Orleans - this was the third and final film that Barry Sonnenfeld shot for the Coens). It's a journey with various twists that goes with such a visual and complex punch that has a rhythm of greatness that always keeps itself a step ahead of the viewer without shaking them down for it. There are a variety of memorable presences, all of which spring down from its primary man of inscrutable charm in Byrne, who actually had to lobby with the Coens to keep his native Irish accent for the film (The Irish accent would also be done by the British-born Finney). He protrudes icy confidence with reasonable edge, one that can take a hit or an angle without ever striking a false note throughout all the layers. He weaves his way through a rough and tumble rat-a-tat kind of film with the sense of a lead presence taken from 50 years prior (such as a Bogart) but without the sense of being duped into watching an impersonation, which works with scenes that revolve around banter with Harden to moments spent in counsel with Finney. This was the first major role for Harden, who had a few roles on television and stage prior to this feature - she does well here, fitting the screen well in sultry jaded charm (in a sea of gangsters and molls, who expects anything less?) that keeps in motion with Byrne in clear-cut noir interest. Finney was a last-minute casting choice, as Trey Wilson died just before shooting was to begin. Who knows how it would have worked out with Wilson, but one sees Finney right at home with this role, one that is sprinkled through the film with great character role presence in wry intrigue. He has likely the best scene in the whole film, involving him in a shoot-out while "Danny Boy" (sung by Irish tenor Frank Patterson) plays in the background to a constant pulpy hail of gunfire. This was the first collaboration between the Coens and numerous actors that they have worked with in various films, such as Polito (5 in total), Turturro (4 in total), and Buscemi (5 in total). Each are memorable in their own way, such as Turturro and his rambling cover of hustling, which naturally sticks with one in scenes dealing with guns in a forest or in a dark house. Polito (who was actually approached to play the Dane but insisted on reading for Caspar) proves his own among a talented group of ethically challenged folks that try to avoid (or give) the high hat. Buscemi may have just one scene, but he sure talks his way into it (and webbing of the plot) with worthy ease. Freeman finishes the job with worthy smarm required of a second man in a film full of triangles between folks. What we have is a film that moves on its own plotting, detailed in its style with intricate care that will leave one curious by the time of its climax and its last fateful scene in the trees. It is the kind of noir that fits like a glove with others of its ilk in one category: it merits more than one viewing in a positive way, where one wants to follow along with the webbing of its story and characters through and through, because it looks and feels so good to do so. It may not have been the proper respect it deserved three decades ago, but it surely has found a place in worthy entertainment in the noir and gangster genres that one should be looked upon with great interest in the progression of the Coens in their execution of story and style.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

December 29, 2020

The Ice Harvest.

Review #1616: The Ice Harvest.

Cast: 

John Cusack (Charlie Arglist), Billy Bob Thornton (Vic Cavanaugh), Connie Nielsen (Renata Crest), Randy Quaid (Bill Guerrard), Oliver Platt (Pete Van Heuten), Mike Starr (Roy Gelles), Ned Bellamy (Sidney), T.J. Jagodowski (Officer Tyler), and David Pasquesi (Councilman Williams) Directed by Harold Ramis (#138 - Bedazzled (2000), #208 - Caddyshack, #342 - Groundhog Day, and #804 - National Lampoon's Vacation)

Review: 

"This movie is about people who've lost any sense of meaning in their lives."

One wonders where the time goes when it comes to films that can be defined by one word: "should". But why don't we do a few pleasantries first, since this does fall somewhat into the yuletide spirit (a sort of alternative to the alternative of films set on Christmas Eve), and it can be said that there are some promising names involved. This was the tenth of eleven films directed by Harold Ramis, although it is one of four that he did not also write the script for, with writers Richard Russo (a fellow novelist in his own right) and Robert Benton responsible for the script (they had worked together previously on Twilight seven years prior, since Benton directed that film alongside adapting one of Russo's books into a film). They wrote the film as an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Scott Philips, which was written in 2000 as his first work (incidentally, the Wichita native had done a brief spell as a screenwriter), which he thought was unfilmable (he ended up liking the adaptation, so that is one relief). A book review from the New York Times had attracted Benton and Russo to doing a script, and Ramis eventually was brought in to do a film made with cheaper budgeting than usual for director and stars for Focus Features (who greenlighted it after six weeks for $14 million). There were a few differences made from novel to screen, such as the time (originally 1979) and the dynamic between Cusack and Platt's character (which went from brother-in-laws to friends who each were married to the same person).

So yes, there is that magic word that goes for this film. It should be better, honestly. Namely, it should be funnier, but if that option seems a bit locked out, then one should hope for a darker movie instead. This was the only film Ramis did that resembled a film noir, and it sure is a shame to see those results play out here. Simply put, it is a shaggy dog noir that seems to parade itself for 89 minutes with pacing equivalent to a fish in a tiny glass bowl. Dissapointment has never tasted so cold, particularly because one should know better when it comes to making an interesting experience with a cast like this. The performances are here and there, fleeting in those moments of actual, meaningful, useful, time to highlight. Cusack does fine in digging through the molasses, one who mixes smarm with dogged hope in the face of seedier folks around him. In other words, he comes off fine being the most likable one of the group. Thornton comes and goes with a lead heart towards scuzziness that seems to merit more interest, as if somehow he seems more interesting to see in the seen/unseen aspects of below-the-belt demeanor. Nielsen is okay, but one doesn't really seem grabbed by her as any sort of fatale presence, where one feels that they are instead waiting for the train to come in instead, as if vacancy is the one thing needed in a quasi-noir. Platt turns out to have the most presence in the film (obvious when playing a drunk), but while he is amusing in parts, one tunes him out gradually in the same way they might do if having to see an intoxicated fellow around them for nearly an hour. Of course there is Quaid, who in theory could have an interesting performance in booming presence....he doesn't show up until the last twenty minutes, and one wishes for something more from seeing him in one room and just that. Starr and Bellamy do fine in those small parts of amusement (with the former relegated to mostly voice duty, such as a bit when trapped in a box), so there is that for a positive, in the sense that mediocrity doesn't strike in every aspect of the movie. As a whole, it is an okay movie that should know better, one that seems vacant in either comic or dark aspirations, a movie that will come and go for 89 minutes with the bare minimum in shaggy dog ambition that is more bland than bleak to really be interesting to talk about beyond just the simple word of "should" to describe it. In other words, it should be more interesting, it should have a better pace, it should be anything else than it ultimately turns out to be, and it should be recommended for those who have an average streak with talented folks that should do better.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.