Bulworth.

Review #1518: Bulworth.

Cast: 
Warren Beatty (Senator Jay Bulworth), Halle Berry (Nina), Oliver Platt (Dennis Murphy), Don Cheadle (L.D.), Paul Sorvino (Graham Crockett), Jack Warden (Eddie Davers), Isaiah Washington (Darnell), Christine Baranski (Constance Bulworth), and Amiri Baraka (Rastaman) Directed by Warren Beatty (#205 - Dick Tracy)

Review: 
"I think it’s crazy to take what aspires to be a work of art and loquaciously expand on what you think about it. Ideally you’d like a movie to speak for itself. It’s like giving subtitles to one, two or three years of work. But nowadays it’s such a mass medium you have to. Especially if you make very few films."

It is hard to state how much responsibility one can really have on a film if they have enough self-confidence and control in oneself to back themselves up. Warren Beatty certainly belongs in that category. By the time the New Hollywood era rolled around in the late 1960s, he had already worked with numerous respected directors while eventually growing an interest in becoming more than just a star in a production, such as producing the hit Bonnie and Clyde (1967). In a film career that started in 1961, he has starred in 23 films (with considerable time spent in other interests such as family), while also serving as producer on ten of them, directing six of them (starting with Heaven Can Wait in 1978) and writing for five (he does all three for this film). He has made his films his own way to his own interests like a good director does that has received quite a deal of attention, such as an Academy Award for Best Director with Reds (1981) and an Irving G. Thalberg Award (meant to honor creative producers such as him) in 1999.

One can only imagine what kind of film can be made on the pitch Beatty had for the film: "A man is depressed, makes a deal for life insurance, takes a hit out on his life, then falls in love with a girl, changes his mind and tries to call the whole thing off.” It only was after he was given the green light to go with it that led to what he wanted beyond that pitch (in other words, a lost idealist finding the words to what he really wants to say to everybody that involve race relations and class disparity). Beatty sought others who helped him in the past with ideas, such as James Toback (writer on Bugsy) and Jeremy Pikser (previously a historical consultant on Reds and credited co-writer on this film with Beatty) while Aaron Sorkin reportedly did a re-write on the script, and the approach of hip-hop came about because of Beatty favoring it as a "great comic contrast." In a way, I had to resist my first instincts when it came to approaching the film. It definitely is a strange film in terms of tone that will either seem really dated or somehow fairly prescient in what it means to society as a message film that verges away from others of its type by going off the rails at certain points with humor. It is an acrid film, one that argues for one to find the spirit in them to rise above market research and go against the grain to speak the straight truth - no matter how it may come out to some in its clash of ideal and compromise. Is it a prescient film about the nature of straight-talking politicians? I don't know if I would go that far (because just saying "It's the film for [current year] politics" is complete hokum), but it definitely has a bit of meaningful sting as a wakeup call of sorts for what matters most: Stick to the issues and just money compromises (whether Democrat or not). It certainly isn't perfect by any means, but I did find myself soon enjoying its attempts at satire that hit more often in striking lines with a beat towards the present without becoming too dated in outlandish histrionics.

One might come to see Beatty have his share of dialogue in rap, but they will generally also stay to see him engage in some straight charisma that will rally some insight alongside some decent timing that never seems too buffoonish, although the romance is debatable. His little jabs at everyone along the way in talking facts (or at least straight-edge ones for 1998, like supporting single-payer healthcare), for better or worse. Berry provides some intrigue, although really they seem more suited as a counteract than anything involving romance mostly because it also just happens to be interlocked with this assassin stuff very disjointedly - she has a good sense of careful charm while playing against a beleaguered (or perhaps strange) Beatty. Platt plays the sniveling type that surely was meant to be an amusing supporting counterpart to management, which he does fine despite not really being that funny (one almost would rather see a criminally underused Warden in that role instead). Cheadle makes fragmented appearances that likely deserves more to really do, which can be reflected with a just as quiet Sorvino in their deep presences within certain interests. On the whole, its first half seems more suited to more interesting moments of farce and perhaps some insight moreso than the stranger (if not still curious) second half that trades in a suit for contemporary clothing and becomes perhaps a bit more hollower than it really believes it should be. I can't say it really kicks in for all of its 108 minutes to be anything more than a passing curiosity of its time, because it really does dwell a bit all over the place, but the rails can go off and still click fine. The ending yearns to inspire a lasting thought about being a ghost with a song to sing for when it comes to saying (and being) what you believe in, and whether the film succeeds in actually generating a push for curiosity about certain aspects of society (race, and I mean more than just asking if you can solve racism by having everybody mix in as one race) is up to how much of it really resonates in the final margin call.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Goodfellas.

Review #1496: Goodfellas.

Cast: 

Robert De Niro (Jimmy Conway), Ray Liotta (Henry Hill), Joe Pesci (Tommy DeVito), Lorraine Bracco (Karen Hill), Paul Sorvino (Paulie Cicero), Frank Sivero (Frankie Carbone), Tony Darrow (Sonny Bunz), Frank Vincent (Billy Batts), Chuck Low (Morris Kessler), Frank DiLeo (Tuddy Cicero), Henny Youngman (Himself), Gina Mastrogiacomo (Janice Rossi), Catherine Scorsese (Tommy's mother), Charles Scorsese (Vinnie), Suzanne Shepard (Karen's mother), and Debi Mazar (Sandy) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, and #1463 - Raging Bull)

Review: 

"You think you're doing something at the time, and that gets you through it. And maybe it changes over the years. A picture takes on a life of its own."

A great movie can come out of a little observation. In this case, a little bit of observation over the life of a mobster resulted in one of the best films of the 1990s, with others going farther in calling it one of the greatest ever made, with an influence that has reached across other media that took inspiration from its content and style, most notably with David Chase and his television series The Sopranos. The basis for the film is the 1985 non-fiction book Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family by Nicholas Pileggi, which was about the exploits of Mafia mobster-turned-informant Henry Hill over the course of 25 years, and the film would follow a majority of the beats covered by the book (aside from a few name changes and certain omissions, such as Hill's hustling while enlisted in the United States Army). Scorsese was first interested in the book while in production on The Color of Money (1986), liking its documentary-style writings of how the Mob worked while beginning it "like a gunshot and have it get faster from there". There is a natural way to how everything flows together in this film, where one feels at ease with time when viewing the life of these wiseguys, with a script (done by Scorsese and Pileggi) that had improvisation that one can see at key points in the film. For example, the "How am I funny?" sequence was actually based on Pesci's experience as a waiter serving an actual wiseguy in a restaurant, which was acted and rehearsed with Pesci and Liotta before being constructed by Scorsese from the transcripts (since this was not actually in the original script). Scorsese was inspired by Jules and Jim (1962) with its use of voiceovers, while deciding to do a mix of the traditional narrative that would start in the middle and move backward and forward. 

Although Hill was not directly involved with the film, De Niro talked to both him and Pileggi (who let them use research material not in the book) in preparation of the role from his walk to how he ate his food, while Liotta listened to tapes of Hill talking to Pileggi, which would be key in the narration in how dynamic it is to the story being told. This is a film with plenty of nuance that handles its subject with precise execution in its cast and direction that spring for several memorable moments mixed in with swift and clear-cut violence that make a fascinating look upon a unsavory-yet-captivating world of crime. It moves at an efficient pace that uses its 145 minutes to tell a well-cut story that has the classic Scorsese hallmarks of quick cuts alongside frantic style (in an attempt to show a "punk attitude", he stated) and key choices of music to go alongside key moments. Liotta is our focus (and voice) for the film, and he does a tremendous job with being our center of unflinching energy that draws us in as well to a certain lifestyle through his eyes with conviction. De Niro proves just as prepared, wrapped in relentless gravitas that carries the film with naturalness. The third leg of our trio is Pesci, who moves along with crazed unflinching energy that attracts us with that early question about a funny wiseguy that keeps you on your toes (the scene with him and C. Scorsese involving cutting a deer and a painting proves just as well in improvised morbid energy). Bracco goes along with the action with frenzied perceptive timing that carries the film with her own narration as someone who enters in the action and stays in that web of crime, even with such turbulent (but fascinating) chemistry with Liotta, such as the moment where she has him in bed with a gun on him. Sorvino rounds out the cast with a collected presence that has plenty of stature and coldness for one to fear and appreciate whenever on screen. The others in the cast (including real-life mobsters cast as extras) prove fine in lending presence and body language to the key moments of the film, which can lead to some tension or a bit of humor (including the famed one-liner comedian Youngman) that make the shifting from youth to adult crime for our lead all the more easier. It handles its moments of violence with cold-cut effienct, never shying from depicting the lifestyle it wants to show in all of its honesty (for a film at least) that runs the gamut of ambition, avarice, and paranoia in all of its unseemly glory. Three decades have only brightened the legacy of this film, an achievement for its cast and director in execution that has kept it in the public consciousness as a seminal crime film for the 1990s and beyond.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

A Touch of Class.

Review #1443: A Touch of Class.

Cast: 
George Segal (Steve Blackburn), Glenda Jackson (Vickie Allessio), Hildegarde Neil (Gloria Blackburn), Paul Sorvino (Walter Menkes), K Callan (Patty Menkes), Cec Linder (Wendell Thompson), Lisa Vanderpump (Julia Allessio), Michael Elwyn (Cecil), Mary Barclay (Martha Thompson), Nadim Sawalha (Night Hotel Manager) Produced and Directed by Melvin Frank.

Review: 
"Acting is not about dressing up. Acting is about stripping bare. The whole essence of learning lines is to forget them so you can make them sound like you thought of them that instant."

Do you like a comedy of errors? One that wants to have a share of amusement with (presumably) mismatched characters who find their way towards some sort of romance? Welp, this might work out well for you, I suppose. You know the type: one's American while the other is British, one is high-strung while the other is high-tempered, one's married with kids and the other is divorced (with kids too, although they basically disappear from the film pretty quickly). It definitely seems like a film with old-fashioned roots to it (where adultery could not be as broadly covered). Technically this is correct, since Melvin Frank was a co-writer/director for over four decades, with notable co-writing credits including My Favorite Blonde (1942, his debut script with longtime partner Norman Panama), Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948), and The Facts of Life (1960, co-written, co-directed, and co-produced with Panama). The last one is interesting to note, since that film (featuring Bob Hope and Lucille Ball) also featured an affair that unwittingly turns into a romance, although this occurs during a trip between neighbor couples; Frank and co-writer Jack Rose adapted this film from Frank's short story "She Loves Me, She Told Me So Last Night". Frank, alongside Rose and some of the production crew would return with Segal, Jackson, and Sorvino for Lost and Found (1979), which also dealt with the struggles that develop with lust and love between an American and a British person (although this results in marriage as opposed to an affair).

In other words, one might be thinking that they are seeing something familiar when it comes to a romantic comedy like this, particularly when it comes to the bickering. It generally works best when it is set on the chemistry between its main stars and less so when it tries to go farther than cute scenarios for its last third, with an ending that might make you shrug either out of mild acceptance or apathy as opposed to being successfully bittersweet. On the one hand, there is plenty of talent present: Segal, prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s with dramatic and comedic roles with Jackson, who had risen from work in television (1957) and the theater (1964) to add film to her respected body of work that resulted in numerous accolades (starting with Women in Love (1969), which along with this film resulted in an Academy Award for Best Actress). Not to be forgotten in the fracas is copywriter-turned-actor Sorvino, however (an underrated supporting man, particularly here). One finds plenty to find interest with the main couple, with Segal proving fair in resilient smarminess with occasional quips that make for quite a match with an amusing and passionate Jackson that is filled with just as many retorts and allure that makes one almost think they are watching a Tracy and Hepburn film. Sorvino chimes in at times with persistence and some humor (such as going out to walk the dog and returning without the dog), which makes up for an otherwise quiet supporting cast. While this can be an amusing little film with some useful views on looking transparently at a love affair, one always gets the feeling that there is something missing to really make it mean something. Sometimes one cares about the situations with these folks, and other times you are left there shrugging your shoulders, as if it somehow couldn't quite balance comedy and drama for 106 minutes. It is like if a 1940s script escaped from the lab and only changed its pants before it got caught. Does it even matter to know how their affair will turn out? Is it really something with meaningful realism if it comes off as a fitting capstone of mediocrity for a film? Of course I fall into the line that seeing someone with wife and children having an affair only to eat crow by having the affair fall flat is amusing enough, as opposed to seeing them somehow get away with it. This is a film that only seems to be there 70% of the time to make fair wit and a look upon the pitfalls of falling in love - the ultimate take-it-or-leave-it film fitting perhaps with other mediocre romances like Love Affair (1939) with a capable pair in search of much more than they ultimately get.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Money Talks.

Review #1001: Money Talks.

Cast: 
Chris Tucker (Franklin Maurice Hatchett), Charlie Sheen (James Russell), Gerard Ismael (Raymond Villard), Heather Locklear (Grace Cipriani), Elise Neal (Paula), Michael Wright (Aaron), Paul Sorvino (Tony Cipriani), Larry Hankin (Roland), and Paul Gleason (Det. Bobby Pickett) Directed by Brett Ratner (#012 - X-Men: The Last Stand, #305 - Rush Hour, #306 - Rush Hour 2, #402 - Rush Hour 3)

Review: 
It is not so much that this movie is not good as it is that it is not worth giving extensive criticism to. Does one really need over 500 words to express how this is just a film I didn't care much for? In the four films that Ratner and Tucker have teamed up together for (with this being their first), I found only one of them (Rush Hour) to actually be satisfyingly entertaining enough, and that was because the duo of Tucker and Jackie Chan actually worked out quite well (the same can't be said for the sequels).

In this case, Tucker is paired with Sheen, who can be a decent actor when in a coherent comedy (and occasional drama), but they simply aren't an effective duo together. Sure, you could make the case that they aren't supposed to be like other buddy duos (after all, one is a reporter while the other is a hustler), but I never really found myself wanting to care about what goes on with these two. Tucker (and his shtick) is tolerable to a point, with some likely having more (or less) patience with him and his lines. He falls along the middle for me, but that's not really much of a compliment. He certainly is more interesting than Sheen, who doesn't really have much to do. The villain (Ismael) is fairly generic; the only other interesting supporting character is Sorvino, who seems right at home in this role somehow. Simply put, this is a movie without much fire in it. Why should I care about their attempt to get to sweeps week? Why should I care about the valuable diamonds? Or the random twist involving a minor character at the end? If you have read some of the reviews on this show, you know that I do not try to over-think things in a film or overtly go critical on a film, because what purpose does that serve to you? This is a movie that would likely be easy bait for someone wanting to get irritated while not striving for anything other than just being a piece of entertainment. It's not a movie to use as an example of lazy filmmaking nor is it something worth fawning nostalgic over (even after 20 years), but it's a film that is what it is. I can't say this is an awful movie, and I also can't say I blame someone if they like (or at least tolerate) the film. Take that for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Romeo + Juliet (1996)

Review #103: Romeo + Juliet.

Cast
Leonardo DiCaprio (Romeo Montague), Claire Danes (Juliet Capulet), Brian Dennehy (Ted Montague), John Leguizamo (Tybalt Capulet), Pete Postlethwaite (Father Lawrence), Paul Sorvino (Fulgenio Capulet), Diane Venora (Gloria Capulet), Paul Rudd (Dave Paris), and Vondie Curtis-Hall (Captain Prince). Directed by Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge!)

Review
Well, well, well, look what we have here. This is a "modern retelling of the classic story by William Shakespeare. And it is not a great retelling really. The casting is allright, especially with Romeo and Lawrence. However, at points it gets silly and stupid, such as the beginning scene, in which shouting is the only thing heard (And guns, so there ya go) It's a weird little film that uses the same dialouge from the play, cuts things out (such as the servent scene and others), and yet doesn't feel like a retelling. It feels like someone wanted to make Romeo and Juliet, but they were too lazy to just use the city of Verona, so they just used Verona Beach and messed around with the naming. It doesn't satisfy the modern audiance much in terms of making it big extravagence, and it doesn't impress the buffs of the play, making this an odd experiment that's point was...I don't know. Maybe it was to jump start plans for Hamlet 2000...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Cheaters.

Review #066: Cheaters.

Cast
Jeff Daniels (Dr. Gerard Plecki), Jena Malone (Jolie Fitch), Paul Sorvino (Constantine Kiamos), Luke Edwards (Darius Bettus), Blake Heron (Matt Kur), and Dov Tiefenbach (Irwin Flickas) Directed by John Stockwell.

Review
This film is actually really good. The premise is a true story based on the 94-95 Steinmetz cheating scandal in which a student got the test answers and the team used it to cheat their way to first, before it all came down. The acting is genuine good, considering that most of the cast are just teens. Jeff Daniels plays his role, making you almost sympathetic to the cheaters because..well Whitney Young (the rival school) has won so many consecutive State championships (nine years), and yet they've gotten the better funding and everything. The movie offers the question: Is cheating wrong? And under any circumstances, is it right to cheat? The film does it all, making it a good film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.