Assassins (1995).

Review #2546: Assassins (1995).

Cast:

Sylvester Stallone (Robert Rath / Joseph Rath), Antonio Banderas (Miguel Bain), Julianne Moore (Electra / Anna), Anatoly Davydov (Nicolai Tashlinkov), Muse Watson (Ketcham), Steve Kahan (Alan Branch), Kai Wulff (Remy), Mark Coates (Jereme Kyle), Kelly Rowan (Jennifer), and Reed Diamond (Bob) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, #734 - Lethal Weapon 4, #1452 - The Omen, and #1542 - 16 Blocks, #1700 - The Goonies)

Review: 

"Assassins, I thought Stallone did one of the best jobs he’s ever done. He totally underplayed, he was quiet, he found the character and he went with it. I thought Antonio Banderas was wonderful. The picture came out, and it did not do very well at all. Sure, it hurts and you know why you wish it would do better? The studio gave you a lot of money and you want them to make their money back so that other people can make movies...And I thought we did a good job and they thought we did a good job, but the audiences and critics didn’t like it. Did I feel bad? Sure. Did it get me down? Nope, nope, nope — too lucky to be in this business to be down in the dumps."

Admittedly, I picked this movie because I felt it was time to look at another Richard Donner movie. So why not go with this one, a movie released near the tail-end (16th of 20*) of a fairly interesting career? You might think the film credit for the writing is interesting because it lists the Wachowskis for the story and a co-credit with Brian Helgeland (who at the point had worked on the scripts for the fourth A Nightmare on Elm Street film, 976-EVIL, and Highway to Hell) for the screenplay. When Donner got the script from Joel Silver (who had bought the spec script along with The Matrix), he had re-writes done to it (which namely involved toning down the violence along with emphasizing the Rath-Electra storyline while not having a certain character included for the climax), which the Wachowskis did not like to the point where they tried to get their name removed from it, but the Writers Guild of America refused. Interestingly, both screenplays are available for viewing (the Wachowskis one is seen here, while the modified shooting script is seen here). Made on a reported budget for $50 million, the movie was not a huge success with audiences or critics at the time. Probably the only thing the movie ended up being noted for was a reaction shot by Banderas that became a "meme" on the Internet.

 

In some ways, it feels like a movie that is desperate to be liked. With such a limited cast of basically three (with one further person being shoehorned in for the start and end), you might be forgiven for wondering if there was a tiny bit of a Western yearning to come out (an old gunfighter wanting to retire, only to encounter one more gunfight could be seen in say, The Shootist [1976]). And there are moments that are fascinating in Stallone trying to play an understated hero to go along with a colorful Banderas. Of course, the sinking feeling of watching the film unravel around the backstretch of setting up the final  act combines with a middling Moore and an unwieldy runtime of 133 minutes for a sad disappointment that I cannot really defend beyond saying "I like the people* in it but not the vehicle they are driving." Banderas basically steals the show in the theatrics that come in "trying to be No. 1" for basic one-upmanship that desperately needs a funnier or tighter movie to really let him do his thing besides a listless one that seems to accidentally stumble into anything. He's fun, if only because it is Banderas, not so much the script or direction. Stallone could do things other than action movies, the righteous ones know that from Oscar (1991), but I do get why "subdued" isn't exactly an easy sell. Some of the time feels like doddering to try and make him sound more interesting than he needs to be, because really it could've just been a hard-lined silent type and that would work better than trying to play type with Moore, who just seems adrift in "hacker" cliches and little humor to really make for a connection beyond one you might see when stuck at the self-checkout lane at the supermarket. You would think a movie where a guy is chasing someone around in the craven pursuit of being "number one", complete with various "conversations" spent on the computer (as one does as a hired guy, talking with a supervisor) would be more interesting, but no, it's just generic stuff. For a movie with an alleged polish, it just seems all too sluggish to actually get anywhere in staging the action, particularly with a climax that relies on the adversary having to sweat out waiting to shoot a dude leaving a bank (see, because that guy did the same years ago, so it is...tasteful imitation) only to get frustrated to go the bank to confront said guy (which in turn leads to sneaking around the creaky hideout), because, yeah, okay. The twist for the end is just lazy and leads to an even lamer resolution because, screw it, we forgot to have a body count worth updating regardless of how silly it looks. As a whole, Assassins is just a bit too lazy to excel as anything other than a mediocre effort from people who can't override the feeling of watching an undercooked movie that never rises all the way above the bare minimum. It just doesn't have the milage to do better than picking any other action film of its ilk, which is a shame. It's an autopilot movie that you may or may not see some interest in if you really, really, really need to see a certain director or star all the way through. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*21 if you want to include Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006)

*What can I say, Sylvester Stallone is a fascinating person to see in movies? Sure, I doubt I would agree  with him on say, a certain political topic, but really, how can I turn away from seeing whatever ridiculous stuff he starred/directed? And Moore, well, I love women.

Cobra (1986).

Review #2392: Cobra (1986).

Cast: 

Sylvester Stallone (Lieutenant Marion "Cobra" Cobretti), Brigitte Nielsen (Ingrid Knudsen), Reni Santoni (Sergeant Tony Gonzales), Andrew Robinson (Detective Monte), Brian Thompson ("Night Slasher"), John Herzfeld (Cho), Lee Garlington (Officer Nancy Stalk), Art LaFleur (Captain Sears), Marco Rodriguez (Supermarket Killer), Ross St. Phillip (Security Guard), and Val Avery (Chief Halliwell) Directed by George P. Cosmatos (#818 - Rambo: First Blood Part II, #1177 - Tombstone)

Review: 

Sure, it is loosely adapted from a book. But the real curiosity might be from the fact that the script for the movie was inspired by a failed idea. You might remember that Sylvester Stallone was the serious candidate to star in 1984's Beverly Hills Cop (after the attached actor in Mickey Rourke dropped out) at least before he made his script revisions. Apparently, he was once quoted as saying "Somehow, me trying to comically terrorize Beverly Hills is not the stuff that great yuk-festivals are made from. So I re-wrote the script to suit what I do best, and by the time I was done, it looked like the opening scene from Saving Private Ryan on the beaches of Normandy." The bottom line is that Stallone's revisions were just not suitable to film (particularly in the budget) and, well, you know the rest. Stallone was credited writing the screenplay while the "based off" material was the 1974 novel A Running Duck, as written by Paula Gosling. Interestingly, the novel was later published under a different name in Fair Game and Andrew Sipes filmed an adaptation of the book under that title in 1995 with William Baldwin as star. The finished version of Cobra runs at 89 minutes after extensive battles with editing, since the MPAA originally rated it as an X, and it probably didn't help that it was released in the wake of Top Gun (1986). Deleted sequences from the film do exist online, if one is curious to search for it, anyway (one small scene for example, has a kid delivering a present to the police that is stated to be a hand). This was actually a co-production between The Cannon Group and Warner Bros. (only the logo of the latter is seen, naturally), and Stallone would be involved with the two again with Over the Top (1987).

It's very amusing to make a Dirty Harry pastiche with two of the actors from the first film (Robinson and Santoni) in it, don't you think? There might be some who believe the film would serve as a comedy to lampoon the over-the-top nature of the movie, what with its view of a character taking extrajudicial measures to get things done and the occasional one liner (those people probably think MacGruber is just as funny as Cobra or go on Reddit). Well, I take that back, he starts the film by listing crime statistics of burglaries happening every 11 seconds and violent crimes happening every 25 seconds and so on. It is a pretty terse 89-minute movie, but I think you can see how someone could enjoy the proceedings, particularly with the curious observation that Stallone saw the lead character as "Bruce Springsteen with a badge." Even in its average qualities that mark it as roughly equivalent to Cosmatos & Stallone's previous collaboration with Rambo: First Blood Part II (as released one year prior), there is something curious to watch with a movie that basically comes off as a supercut of all the cliches possible for strange delight: villains with understated motives? attempts at levity for romance in the middle of mayhem? A secondary character exchanging quips with our lead that gets setup for getting wounded in an ensuing firefight? A grisly finish to close out the proceedings? All that and more is present here, and it goes to show that you can include plenty of familiar aspects of an action movie and seem pretty enjoyable anyways. Edits aside, there is an energetic presence to the film that comes out quite clearly even if it wasn't going to a series of movies. Stallone might've had a bit of an ego present with being part of filming, but there is still something worth watching him engage with the proceedings, which might as well be blueprint for further smart-ass heroes going against free-wheeling bad guys in the future with Stone Cold (1991). It doesn't really mean great chemistry with Nielsen (Stallone's wife at the time), but I can imagine worse. Thompson may not exactly get much to really do as the heavy (okay, there's a cult that likes playing with axes, I expected less anyway), but I like it anyway, he just has a ferocious energy that inherently watchable, particularly when it comes to the climax (okay, it ends with him on a hook, but still). You get the "heh, that's nice to see" with folks such as Santoni and LaFleur, suffice to say, mainly because it's hard to make an unenjoyable wiseass accidentally in an action movie. Robinson* and character apparently was meant to be the real bad guy of the movie, complete with a planned sequence involving a tattoo at the end. Even here there is still a wiseass energy that I can't help but like from Robinson, cliches be damned. The supermarket sequence and the climax are fair enough highlights in mayhem, at least for those who know that what they get here is mainly stuff that wouldn't be too removed from a Dirty Harry offshoot (the ones who don't hesitate to label those movies as "fascist" would probably get more blubbery in criticizing it, but, well, the eyes only roll so much). Cobra might be thought as the litmus test for seeing one's taste in the same way in the same way that one can tell if someone is prevaricating you in explaining things as evasively as possible**. You either get with it or don't, as Cobra is a lubricious but worthwhile piece of entertainment. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*See, I don't hate Reddit, here's a source from there, as Robinson was quoted on there as calling Cobra: "The worst movie I was ever in... well, there are a few that qualify, but on another level Cobra was one of the best things I've ever done because it gave me the down payment on our house of 30 years."

**I heard that one word earlier, so why not use it?

Oscar (1991).

Review #2239: Oscar (1991).

Cast: 

Sylvester Stallone (Angelo "Snaps" Provolone), Ornella Muti (Sofia Provolone), Peter Riegert (Aldo), Tim Curry (Dr. Thornton Poole), Vincent Spano (Anthony Rossano), Marisa Tomei (Lisa Provolone), Elizabeth Barondes (Theresa), Eddie Bracken (Five-Spot Charlie), Linda Gray (Roxanne), Chazz Palminteri (Connie), Don Ameche (Father Clemente), Kurtwood Smith (Lt. Toomey), William Atherton (Overton), Art LaFleur (Officer Quinn), Robert Lesser (Officer Keough), Yvonne De Carlo (Aunt Rosa), Martin Ferrero (Luigi Finucci), Harry Shearer (Guido Finucci), with Richard Romanus (Vendetti), and Kirk Douglas (Eduardo) Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, #1465 - An American Werewolf in London, #1699 - Blues Brothers 2000, #1718 - The Stupids, #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie)

Review: 

"Oscar is a farce set in 1931, sort of Damon Runyon meets Feydeau. I shot the picture in a deliberately stylized manner, attempting a thirties Hollywood comedy look and feel (Peter Riegart, at one point, actually says, Why I oughta...)"

 

Sure, I had this on my mind for a few years. How could one not be interested in a film with a director and actor passing through different tides of their career? It was the film Stallone appeared in right after the first perceived end of the Rocky series with Rocky V [1990] while for Landis it was the first of a string of, well, six films with little-to-no appreciation in the 1990s (which includes The Stupids [1996], a movie I heartedly defend). The film is a remake of the 1967 film of the same name, as originally directed by Édouard Molinaro (which in turn was based on a play by Claude Magnier). The key difference between the two Oscars is that the Landis one is set in the 1930s rather than being a contemporary comedy of errors; Landis wasn't exactly a stranger to screwy comedies, as evidenced by Trading Places (1983), for example. The film was written by Michael Barrie and Jim Mulholland, who actually had written for the comedy skit anthology film Amazon Women on the Moon (1987) to go with years and years of TV comedy writing. The movie was neither a hit with audiences or critics, with the common remark being that audiences apparently were not willing to go with Stallone in a non-action role (apparently, a test audience member actually wondered when Stallone was going to take off his shirt and start blasting people). Of course, Landis and Stallone do not shy away from talking about the film and its distinct place when it comes to actors trying to play against type (particularly when compared to Stallone in say, Rhinestone [1984] or the film that immediately followed Oscar with Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot [1992])

I don't really understand how people didn't like this film. Was it really that hard to see Sylvester Stallone (who was cast in the film after Al Pacino came and went because Dick Tracy offered more money) do comedy? Really? Sure, the "Around the rugged rocks the ragged rascals ran" bit may have been familiar to some folks, but was it really hard to see how it could be played for worthwhile amusement with Stallone there to say it? Of course, Tango & Cash (1989) was sort of a funny movie that I appreciated with Stallone, so maybe broad It is a gangster film without any violence that confines itself to one location for most of its runtime (109 minutes) with a cast packed to the gills in names to see for later (and those that weren't as much) in support around Stallone that do the type of hit-or-miss comedy that is just about screwy enough to work. It is delightfully manufactured weirdness that contorts itself for a few delightful moments. Stallone isn't asked to do too much broad comedy here, but he clearly is game to play along with the idea of "civility" packed in a suit that handles the ever-growing confusion of daughters and cases with charm (I'm not sure if I agree with his musing that he should've played it "incredibly cynical"). Riegert and Palminteri accompany Stallone at times with their own goofy type of charm (one snide and one in constant confusion), which is delightful in the best ways possible. Go figure that Curry nails his enunciation act right then and there with dignified timing and (wait for it) charm to spare. Tomei is quite amusing in flapper attitude that is fiery in that momentary sparkplug of goofiness. It should be noted that Tomei was cast in My Cousin Vinny (1992) because the filmmakers for that film were invited to the set by Landis and liked what they saw of her acting in a scene, so that's one person who really benefitted from this film. For all the credit one can give to Stallone or others, Spano unfortunately draws the shortest stick, because he isn't particularly interesting enough to keep being in the film to draw attempts at what I think should be humor but is the equivalent of a vacant stare (Muti and Barondes narrowly miss the shortest stick). Others get less to nibble on but are neat for those who like certain faces or sounds in say, eagle-bleary-eyed Smith or the small double act of Ferrero and Shearer. The film drifts in and out with wry enjoyment at being a quirky flashback that I enjoyed more often than not with its dedicated cast engaged to make silly entertainment that is sincere enough to merit a look for the curious at heart.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Next up: Debt 1, Pirates 0 in Cutthroat Island. 

Death Race 2000.

Review #2231: Death Race 2000.

Cast: 

David Carradine ("Frankenstein"), Simone Griffeth (Annie Smith), Sylvester Stallone (Joe "Machine Gun" Viterbo), Mary Woronov (Jane "Calamity Jane" Kelly), Roberta Collins (Matilda "The Hun"), Martin Kove (Ray "Nero the Hero" Lonagan), Louisa Moritz (Myra), Don Steele (Junior Bruce), Joyce Jameson (Grace Pander), Carle Bensen (Harold), Sandy McCallum (Mr. President), Paul Laurence (Special Agent), and Harriet Medin (Thomasina Paine) Directed by Paul Bartel (#955 - Eating Raoul)

Review: 

"Most of my guilty pleasures in this film were ripped out by the roots by Roger Corman before the film ever saw the light of day and substituted with crushed heads and blood squibs. Nevertheless, there is a joke about the French wrecking our economy and telephone system that I still find amusing. And I am pleased by the scene introducing the Girl Fan (played very effectively by my sister Wendy) who is to sacrifice herself beneath the wheels of David Carradine's race car and wants to meet him so that the gesture will have 'meaning'."

Okay, so you have managed to encounter a Roger Corman-related production. Gratuitous and all around weird is what one might expect from a film that was inspired by the publicity that came for the film Rollerball, which was slated for release in June of 1975. Corman found a short story to crib for an adaptation with Ib Melchior's "The Racer", which actually had been inspired by the revulsion Melchior seemingly had when he saw a death at a motor race. Script troubles meant that the film had a prolonged production schedule, which initially had a script written by Robert Thom before re-writes were done by Charles B. Griffith and its eventual director (Corman would play influence when it came to looking over tone, naturally). At director was Paul Bartel, who had made his first noted film with the short The Secret Cinema in 1968 (after several years of shorts, which included work for the United States Information Agency) before becoming a feature director with the horror-comedy film Private Parts (1972), which was produced by Gene Corman; the following year, Bartel did second unit work on Big Bad Mama. Interestingly, Carradine wanted to pick a movie to help his film career after spending three seasons as the star of Kung Fu, the television show he is perhaps most famous for (having seen the show, this is probably true), and the film was released one day after the final show airing; he came around after Peter Fonda was approached and had declined (of course, there was a moment in time during the turbulent production that had Bartel thinking about replacing Carradine with Lee Majors (!), but the two eventually bonded). The film was a hit in the general sense; Bartel's next film was Cannonball (1976), which had Carradine as star that aimed for comedy within its inspiration based on a real race (as you might know). In 1978, Corman, having a contract with Carradine, spearheaded a push for another vehicle-related film with motorcycles that that eventually became Deathsport (as directed by Allan Arkush and Nicholas Niciphor), which was not particularly successful. In 2008, a remake of the film was done by Paul W. S. Anderson, which was the first of five "Death Race" films that were either follow-ups to the 2008 film or in the case of Death Race 2050 (2017, as produced by Corman), a sequel to the original.

So, here is how the future is envisioned by 1975 standards: to pacify the population under a tough regime dealing within crisis comes the "Transcontinental Road Race" that has seen twenty years of violence and gore because of combat of cars and, well, people. You get to see the gauntlet of just who would do these kinds of races: people who dress up like gangsters...and Nazis. In the land of B-movies, it really can come down to just how much fun one sees on screen when it comes to execution and commitment. This is aa pretty neat one that surely delivered a tiny bit of inspiration for Mad Max (1979). The conflict of nudity and gore with the attempts at comedy (the latter was favored by Bartel and Carradine to an extent) makes for a curious experiment that may have a random viewer wondering just what the hell they are supposed to think about its 80-minute runtime of lean and mean nature. That strange casual blend (in of itself a "Frankenstein" creation of Corman and Bartel) of guts and the occasional chuckle that arises from people watching the violence of car-on-man (or in the case of point-seeking to the extreme, the elderly) is a feeling that one always hopes to find in an exploitation film. I particularly like hearing from Bensen and his mimicking of Howard Cosell when it comes to being a voice from the crowd (alongside other "journalists"). Carradine just has a natural charm to him that attracts one's curiosity in what is left said and unsaid within that everyman nature that comes out for a role that if played by a lesser talent would've been just a film with less interesting impact in terms of (pun intended) drive. He has the gumption to roll with the inane goofiness that is apparent even with the real assertion one could argue about just how much curiosity people really have about violence (in living color). It's interesting that two of the early roles for Stallone before Rocky (1976) were Corman productions, with this and Capone being released in 1975 (the same year that he got the inspiration for, well, Rocky). He provides a few good heel chuckles in a cast that is mostly fine in those silly one-note mannerisms (which ranges from the aforementioned Nazi helmeted person to, uh, bits of nudity). There is just a mayhem and energy here that works so well in making light of the obsession that arises from violence in terms of the spectator or opportunistic journalists that is hard to match. The climax is pretty neat in one lasting chuckle that really does prove Bartel had the right idea in mind (Corman wanted to film an ending where the FBI shoots an annoying reporter rather than, well...) in making a film with useful timing in manic commitment without having to be broad about it. In the long run, it is a neatly cheap movie with the idea of conveying what people seem to think about seeing violence play out right in front of them that goes with the entertainment value of the film: fun on the run.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

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.

Demolition Man.

Review #1504: Demolition Man.

Cast: 
Sylvester Stallone (Sergeant John Spartan), Wesley Snipes (Simon Phoenix), Sandra Bullock (Lieutenant Lenina Huxley), Nigel Hawthorne (Doctor Raymond Cocteau), Benjamin Bratt (Officer Alfredo Garcia), Denis Leary (Edgar Friendly), Bill Cobbs (Zachary Lamb), Bob Gunton (Chief George Earle), and Glenn Shadix (Associate Bob) Directed by Marco Brambilla.

Review: 
"I'm not handsome in the classical sense. The eyes droop, the mouth is crooked, the teeth aren't straight, the voice sounds like a Mafioso pallbearer, but somehow it all works."

There is a strange undeniable appeal to the films of Sylvester Stallone, one must admit. No matter how good or bad the material is (star or director/writer), there is a certain appeal to how he handles himself that has made him an interesting presence in film for over four decades, with Rocky (1976) and First Blood (1982) proving to be highlights that hold iconic status that stand well for themselves despite varying quality of further sequels. To accompany him as the second lead is Wesley Snipes, who had first expressed an interest in theatre and dance before being discovered for acting, which led to his debut in Wildcats (1986) and an eventual breakthrough in Major League (1989). The genesis of the film came from first-time writer Peter M. Lenkov, who took inspiration from the Lethal Weapon films along with an interest in cryogenics to make a spec script that was originally just a straight action film pitch. Several other writers would come in to do re-writes (with three credited in Lenkov, Robert Reneau, and Daniel Waters, as the former two did the story and the screenplay alongside Waters), while others such as Fred Dekker did un-credited re-writes (such as suggesting the opening scene in the past); Waters (writer of the considerably inferior satire Heathers) worked a span of roughly over two weeks to shift it from straight-action to one with attempt at humor, and Brambilla joined in helping with the script after being brought in as director, which would be his first directorial effort in film after a career spent doing television commercials (although this is his only major production, he is generally known for his video art installations).

It figures that a film involving peace without expression could prove so amusing. We aren't exactly living in a society like the one presented in the film, but there sure are a few itching similarities, particularly when it comes to the way we treat expression and government overreach (thankfully we have not done something as drastic and possibly ill-advised as trying to defund the police-I mean reduce them to not deal with violent crime), although at least spicy foods being banned is something I can live with. How could I resist such a strange little action film like this? It might prove as one of the best dumbest films one could ever watch, making a spectacle of itself within the confines of interesting action films from the era that work far better than it should because of its cast and execution. Stallone seems quite at home within the confines of a macho fish-out-of-water hero that rises above what might have been a leaded block of wood with a lesser actor (after all, Steven Seagal was originally thought of for the role) with a decent sense of timing and energy that one could expect from him. Snipes proves just as worthy as the other side of the coin, confident in madcap anarchy that is given time to let himself out of control with zippy lines. Bullock proves worthy in a early prominent role that lends a bit of cheeriness as the nostalgia-struck counterpart to Stallone that lends a hand for a few amusing moments. Hawthorne is adequate as the carefully-controlled peace man for the film while Leary proves exactly what one could expect of a cynic with the world on his mind. It has a decent pace of 115 minute that balances a wry sense of the future with some fun action moments that never seems dated or out-of-step with delivering entertainment worthy of curiosity as a feature of the time for another time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rambo (2008).

Review #1275: Rambo.

Cast: 
Sylvester Stallone (John J. Rambo), Julie Benz (Sarah Miller), Paul Schulze (Michael Burnett), Matthew Marsden (School Boy), Graham McTavish (Lewis), Rey Gallegos (Diaz), Tim Kang (En-Joo), Jake La Botz (Reese), Maung Maung Khin (Major Pa Tee Tint), Ken Howard (Father Arthur Marsh), and Supakorn Kitsuwon (Myint) Directed by Sylvester Stallone (#047 - The Expendables, #277 - Rocky II, #340 - Rocky III, #597 - Rocky IV, and #1163 - Rocky Balboa)

Review: 
It is interesting to come back to this series, which sprung to life with the adaptation of David Morrell's novel First Blood in 1982. In changing the nature of the character and his fate to make for a film like that one, sequels followed in the later part of the decade. Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) was a pretty ridiculous experience, but it was a good adventure for what it was worth. Rambo III (1988) proved to be a hollow experience, but at least one didn't find themselves with a lingering taste of tiredness, silly but passable in the right circumstances. Two decades passed before a new film came out, due to Stallone not having a compelling story idea to return to the role, one that he felt was one of a man lost in the world and wandering it while hating the very thing he is. This isn't so much a curtain call for Stallone and his character as much as it is a revitalization of what made him such a compelling force to be reckoned with in the first place. It is a grim movie with plenty of (fake) blood that uses the real world conflict in Myanmar (Burma) for effect, if only because it just gives Rambo reason to just go all-out on faceless bad guys in his rescue mission once again (whether it happens to be POWs, his military commander friend, or this film with missionaries). There are two ways to look at this film: it can be pretty riveting with its action, dreary but watchable with Stallone at the helm that at least hasn't become a neutered shell of itself. On the other hand, it can be thought of as a brutal, ugly film that becomes more and more cynical before it decides to reward itself with cheap thrills that satisfy the basic need to see a whole bunch of blood and not much else. To me, each resulting sequel gets more and more ridiculous in their attempts at depth when compared to the original, but at least they stay watchable. Stallone stands his ground this time around, a burnt-out warrior who doesn't say much but doesn't really need to say anything that he can't do with a trusty weapon and a reason to persist on. With the passing of Richard Crenna five years earlier, who does one turn to as the main supporting character? The film pretty much leaves that empty, whether intentionally or not. Sure, you have scenes with Stallone speaking with others (which can be pretty much counted by an old stopwatch), but I never really seem to care about anybody other than the lead. It isn't so much a problem of likability as it is more a problem of them seeming more like composites than real people to go along with. In that regard, the acting is just okay all around, with Benz and McTavish making the most impression  The most memorable adversary, supporting character, and impact all still come from the same film - the first one. The most interesting sequence in the whole film is the bloodiest, involving a big machine gun, which complements the idea that these films only get rougher with age. Perhaps the sequence at the end where he goes to see his dad would've been the top one, if it didn't segue into the closing credits. On the whole, this is a film that just goes with the flow of what it think people want from a new 91 minute installment of a burnt out hero done by Stallone - brutal, with plenty of roughness to go around, for better or worse. I shrug my shoulders (and a coin) in the air, because some films really do just fall in the middle. In this case, I recognize the film for doing the basic requirements for an action film, give the film mixed credit for its surroundings, and then say that it would do just fine on the shelf with the other films. In other words, it's fine.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Creed II.

Review #1165: Creed II.

Cast: 
Michael B. Jordan (Adonis Creed), Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Tessa Thompson (Bianca Taylor), Dolph Lundgren (Ivan Drago), Florian Munteanu (Viktor Drago), Phylicia Rashad (Mary Anne Creed), Andre Ward (Danny "Stuntman" Wheeler), Wood Harris (Tony "Little Duke" Evers), Brigitte Nielsen (Ludmila Drago), Milo Ventimiglia (Robert Balboa), and Russell Hornsby (Buddy Marcelle) Directed by Steven Caple Jr.

Review: 
Creed (2015) certainly was a big surprise for numerous reasons. I certainly didn't expect another installment of the Rocky series, particularly a spin-off with Jordan in the lead role and Ryan Coogler writing and directing. The result was a film that ranks up there as one of the better Rocky films, being just as good (if not better than) as Rocky II (1979). With the resulting success that came from the film, obviously a follow-up would be expected, with a good chunk of the cast from the previous film returning alongside a few new and a few familiar faces, although Coogler now only serves as an executive producer. The writing credits certainly are different this time around, with Stallone co-writing the screenplay alongside Juel Taylor while the story was done by Sascha Penn and Cheo Hodari Coker. It certainly feels that Stallone wanted in some way to make a better sequel than the ones that had followed up the original, particularly III through V, and there are quite a few beats that seem a bit familiar. However, the best that can be said for this movie is that it is quite entertaining, with Jordan and Stallone headlining a fairly game cast that make the experience worth it. Jordan does a fine job in keeping things fresh and interesting that one would expect from a lead, handling himself in the boxing sequences fairly well. Stallone, in his eighth reprisal of the character, manages to retain the same kind of charm and quality as expected from him for the scenes he is in. Thompson also delivers a fine performance, with her and Jordan having good chemistry once again. Lundgren is fun to watch, being more of a character to watch this time around with a bit of grizzled depth - he's actually more interesting to be around with than his on-screen son (Munteanu, who does fine with the boxing sequences at least). The rest of the cast all do their parts just fine. The film is privy to a handful of cliches for the sports film (much like any of the previous Rocky films, although not as silly), being a bit predictable at times, although the boxing scenes are up to code once again, leaving a good punch. The run-time of 130 minutes is manageable, and on the whole I'm sure that this film will serve its purpose of entertainment just alright, working as a mostly solid follow-up to the first film while leaving room for the desire to want to see another one of these down the road.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rocky Balboa.

Review #1163: Rocky Balboa.

Cast: 
Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Burt Young (Paulie Pennino), Milo Ventimiglia (Robert "Rocky" Balboa, Jr), Geraldine Hughes (Marie), James Francis Kelly III (Stephenson), Tony Burton (Tony "Duke" Evers), Antonio Tarver (Mason "The Line" Dixon), and Pedro Lovell (Spider Rico) Directed by Sylvester Stallone (#047 - The Expendables, #277 - Rocky II, #340 - Rocky III, and #597 - Rocky IV)

Review: 
Admittedly, the Rocky series has certainly had its share of ups and downs. The first three films are all pretty good sports dramas (with the first being the pinnacle), although I will say that it could've ended after Rocky II (1979) or Rocky III (1982) without any objection. Rocky IV (1985) was the pinnacle of ridiculousness, but again - end it there, and that's okay. Rocky V (1990) was (and still is) the worst of the bunch, and even Stallone expressed disappointment with the final product. Honestly, it really is a surprise that there is even a sixth film at all, considering that it was released sixteen years after the last film and thirty years after the original. It has been said by Stallone upon doing this film (for which he wrote and directed) that he would rather "...do something that he enjoyed badly, than feel bad about not doing something he enjoyed." In that respect, I find that the end result is a movie that is just fine. It isn't anything great, and it doesn't really have too much reason to exist, but it is ultimately a decent piece of entertainment that will prove itself to the audience it is trying to reach without too much struggle. It loves to do callbacks to previous films and hark back to the days of yesteryear from the series (particularly with flashbacks of scenes with Talia Shire), and it comes off more poignant than over-reaching in the final result. It is the kind of movie that perseveres just as much as the other films in part because of the pull from Stallone in the title role. With the pull of having to play a role now filled with loneliness and the search for having meaning, he steps up just fine to the task of making this character as compelling and believable as he can, being as entertaining as ever. The film does sometimes teeter on the edge of collapsing to the problem of self-parody, but it does manage to steady itself enough with some fine supporting performances. There are a few returning actors from the previous films, such as Young, Burton, and Lovell, and they are fine for the brief time they show up on screen. Ventimiglia and Hughes also do decent with their roles, being people worth following for short bursts with their interactions with Stallone while not being clunky or too cliche. Tarver (an actual boxer) is okay for the parts required of him; obviously he does better in the boxing sequences than the parts involving trying to pull a bit of drama with his character, but he at least isn't too wooden for the film nor does he make you wish someone else was in the role, for the most part. Much like before, the fight sequence proves to be the biggest punch the film has going for it, and it certainly comes out well, executed with a look and feel that reaches levels that the other films hadn't dared to try - namely, realistic sound effects and a fight that certainly feels up to the task. At 100 minutes, the film doesn't overstay its welcome too much, having a decent pace that builds to its final fight without leaving too much at the door. On the whole, it may have been a bit strange to have a sixth film to begin with for this aging series, but the end product justifies itself enough to make for a fine installment without too much objection or regrets.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Rambo III.

Review #961: Rambo III.

Cast: 
Sylvester Stallone (John J. Rambo), Richard Crenna (Colonel Sam Trautman), Kurtwood Smith (Robert Griggs), Marc de Jonge (Colonel Alexei Zaysen), Sasson Gabai (Mousa Ghani), Doudi Shoua (Hamid), Spiros Focas (Masoud), Randy Raney (Sergeant Kourov), and Marcus Gilbert (Tomask) Directed by Peter MacDonald.

Review: 
When I watched the second film, I described it as "moderately entertaining, but not as good as the first film", crediting its satisfying action in a movie that was okay with being average but fair entertainment. But this one felt like middling returns, where the action scenes outweigh the heart of the film and make for something that isn't as satisfying in entertainment. There isn't anything that is inherently awful, but there is nothing that suggests greatness or new in interest. Nothing is really improved on from the last two films, essentially. Stallone is what you've seen before previously (which is fine), though one the best highlights involving him is one where he removes a spike from his side and seals the wound with flaming gunpowder. Crenna does a fine job once again, while having a bit more screen-time this time around, and he gets to be part of the action, which is nice. It's always nice to see Smith, but he doesn't really have much to do in his small time on screen (never trust the billing, I suppose). de Jonge seems more in line with a cartoon-ish villain than anything really menacing, not even a silly over-the-top moment or a memorable henchman. The rest of the cast is decent, but they can't help elevate the movie toward anything worth competency. There definitely is a good deal of action (listed by the Guinness World Records book to have 221 acts of violence, at least 70 explosions and over 108 on-screen deaths), but it seems a bit hollow and not as electrifying as the previous films for me. The movie (filmed in Israel, Thailand, and Arizona) does have a neat look to it, at least. It's easy to say this isn't a good movie, but it's hard to recommend against watching it, particularly if you are an action buff. It has quite a good amount of imperfections, but perhaps there is some sort of gem within all of this film's mess.

Happy Independence Day, folks. I hope you've enjoyed this review.  Enjoy the sixth straight year with a review on July 4th.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Background: 
It has been one full year since I watched Rambo: First Blood Part II as part of my Independence Day Feature, and since the time has come once again to do something for my home country, it only makes sense to cover this film. This is the 11th film done since I began the Independence Day Feature in 2012, with the other films being: #193 - Independence Day, #413 - The Patriot, #414 - Air Force One, #415 - America, #416 - Yankee Doodle Dandy, #611 - Spider-Man, #612 - The Devil's Disciple, #724 - Sagebrush Trail, #817 - Suddenly, and #818 - Rambo: First Blood Part II. 

original image: 

Rocky V.

Review #895: Rocky V.

Cast:
Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Talia Shire (Adrian Balboa), Burt Young (Paulie Pennino), Sage Stallone (Robert "Rocky" Balboa, Jr), Richard Gant (George Washington Duke), Tommy Morrison (Tommy "The Machine" Gunn), Burgess Meredith (Mickey Goldmill), Tony Burton (Tony Evers), and Paul J. Micale (Father Carmine) Directed by John G. Avildsen (#003 - Rocky)

Review:
Ah yes, this one. It has been a while since I talked about the Rocky franchise (#003, #277 - Rocky II, #340 - Rocky III, #597 - Rocky IV, #760 - Creed), so it only makes sense that I review the one that attempted to return Rocky to his roots...and does so with minimal results. It's not the fact that it inverts the formula as it the fact that it's just not that entertaining. Neither Rocky IV or V are good, for varying reasons, with one being ludicrous and the other feeling hollow. The way that the film resets Rocky's status seems cheap, with the brain damage part somehow not clicking, in part because Rocky seems the same anyway, and the climax is a fight in the streets (which goes down the way you expect, sans any idea of Rocky getting more damage). Probably the easiest problem with the movie is the fact that it tries too hard to return to the grit of the first film (while doing an inverse of the rags-to-riches story), without much of the heart of what made that movie entertaining. Obviously this is a movie that tries to end the series with some sort of dignity that the fourth film didn't have, but it all comes off as a throwback with some mold on it. The two stories (Rocky training Tommy and his family drama) don't mesh well, in part because they just feel unfocused.

It only makes sense that Stallone cast his son to play (are you ready for this): his son, ignoring the age difference from previous films. Obviously the two have father-son chemistry, but I didn't really find the son's narrative to be particularly interesting enough to care about. Of course the solution to his problems is fighting (literally every problem in these movies can be solved by fighting), but it just feels superficial. Heck, he even befriends the dude he beats up, because I guess that's how things work in Philadelphia in the 90's. As for the main Stallone, he does a fine job as always, continuing to make Rocky a likable character, though he does have some moments where he experiences some sort of depth, like when he is talking to Adrian about having meaning in his life again by training Tommy. Relating to that, Morrison (an actual boxer) doesn't have much screen presence, never really seeming like someone to care about, with Gant taking most of the villainous role...while playing it as over-the-top as one could do it. I didn't find him to be that great a villain (in part because half the time his pleas for Rocky to fight are rejected by Adrian), and his scenes with Morrison aren't anything special. He definitely doesn't help when the movie is trying to return to its roots. Young is fine as usual, with a bit more importance this time around (for better or worse). It is somewhat nice to see Meredith (playing Mickey again in a flashback) again, even if his scene is there mainly to speed the plot up.

There is a climax, culminating in a street fight...and some messy editing, where it flashes back at times to Rocky's other fights (which occurred numerous times already), which just makes me want to watch any of the other films instead. There really isn't a way to end the movie without the status quo (Rocky still being broke) still being the same unless you kill off Rocky, which apparently was the original plan, before it was changed...and it's easy to see why. Seeing Rocky die would be the ultimate downer in a series all about perseverance and heart. Sure, he wins the fight. So what? The movie's ending can be questioned with that phrase, and there really is no answer. The previous films had some sort of meaning with the way the fights go (even the fourth one, with Rocky's speech at the end), but this one just doesn't feel right. The last scene with the two Stallones (and a credit sequence that takes images from the previous films) is somewhat good, but by then it's too late to make any real kind of impact. At the end of the day, Rocky V just doesn't click right. There's no real punch to it, and it certainly doesn't feel like a proper finale to the series.

Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Rambo: First Blood Part II.

Review #818: Rambo: First Blood Part II.

Cast
Sylvester Stallone (John Rambo), Richard Crenna (Col. Samuel Trautman), Charles Napier (Marshall Murdock), Steven Berkoff (Lt. Col. Podovsky), Julia Nickson (Co-Bao), Martin Kove (Ericson), George Cheung (Lt. Tay), and Andy Wood (Banks) Directed by George P. Cosmatos.

Review
It really has been a long time since I reviewed a Rambo movie (#025 - First Blood), hasn't it? It wasn't entirely intentional, it just got lost in the shuffle over nearly 6 years and over 700 reviews later, but here it is, to end this Independence Day doubleheader. The movie was written by James Cameron, though Stallone also provided significant input as well. In a nutshell, it's a movie that for me is moderately entertaining, but not as good as the first film. It's an action movie without much in the way of developed characters, but it satisfies anybody looking for some action, while not insulting their intelligence too much. There is some sort of fun in seeing specialized arrows blowing up stuff. Rambo is Rambo, with Stallone excelling as the action hero he was in the 80's, purely simple. There isn't too much for the supporting cast to do, but Crenna and Stallone do have some good brief scenes with each other, along with him and Nickson. I really can't complain all too much about a movie that is simple, but to the point in its intentions, with Rambo having a little monologue at the end that does at least bookend the movie well enough. It's not a bad 7/10 movie, and I'm sure others enjoy it more than I do (which I can respect), so take it for what it's worth.

I hope you enjoyed this doubleheader for Independence Day, as I did watching these movies and writing these reviews.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Creed.

Review #760: Creed.

Cast
Michael B. Jordan (Adonis Johnson Creed), Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Tessa Thompson (Bianca), Phylicia Rashad (Mary Anne Creed), Tony Bellew (Ricky Conlan), Graham McTavish (Tommy Holiday), and Wood Harris (Tony "Little Duke" Evers) Directed by Ryan Coogler.

Review
Almost 40 years after the original Rocky, here we are with a spin off (or sorts), with Rocky still playing a role even outside the ring. To be honest, I had no clue on how it would be mainly because I had no clue the movie was going to be made in the first place. The four Rockys I had seen all had varying degrees of entertainment (the first being the best), and I was at least interested in seeing how Jordan and Stallone would do. As it turned out, they both did great. It rises from potentially being mired in cliches to deliver a movie that is flat out entertaining. Jordan and Stallone are excellent together, having a good rapport with Stallone (the only person from any of the past six films) passing the torch onto Jordan. Rashad, though she doesn't have a lot of screen time, is also good to watch on screen. Bellew doesn't get much personality to work with the role he plays, but he does manage to make for an interesting character for Creed to fight in the end, and he certainly looks the part. Jordan and Thompson also share some good scenes with each other that certainly make the movie a little more than just boxing, though admittedly the boxing is excellent nonetheless. It looks really well-done, even including some blood (you can't have a Rocky movie without a little blood). It's a movie all about identity, and by the end it certainly seems to have found a lasting identity and the seeds to build a legacy. I'd love to see more movies about Creed, or even just movies with Jordan in general. This is an engaging movie that manages to evoke fun and the Rocky spirit to make for a excellent movie.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Expendables 2.

Review #675: The Expendables 2.

Cast
Sylvester Stallone (Barney Ross), Yu Nan (Maggie Chan), Jason Statham (Lee Christmas), Dolph Lundgren (Gunner Jensen), Jean-Claude Van Damme (Jean Vilain), Bruce Willis (Church), Arnold Schwarzenegger (Trench Mauser), Terry Crews (Hale Caesar), Randy Couture (Toll Road), Chuck Norris (Booker), Jet Li (Yin Yang), Liam Hemsworth (Billy the Kid), and Scott Adkins (Hector) Directed by Simon West (#458 - Lara Croft: Tomb Raider)

Review
It figures that I'd get to this eventually. And 628 reviews later, a review of the sequel to a movie that to begin with was a nice little capsule for action stars old and new...now with two sequels in tow. Granted, it is fun to see Schwarzenegger in an action role (as opposed to a cameo) again, and I admit, this is more of a guilt pick for me. And yes, Van Damme plays a villain called Jean Vilain. He's actually pretty decent in this film, and he's about as right for this film as tanks getting blown up. Really when you think about it, this is a sandwich of action with a slice of referential humor in there for effect, with the plot representing the condiment on the sandwich (or bagel, if you prefer), which I guess makes sense. Or it makes me hungry. The cast is enjoyable (Terry Crews especially, but hey, even Lundgren is cool). Nan provides a breath of fresh air to the movie, which is a good thing. The movie is what you want: awesome fun that doesn't drag too much. Honestly, it's better than the first film, even if still gets the same rating, so make up your mind on that one. Tomorrow (December 20th) is the 4th Anniversary of the show, so I've got something planned for it. Stay tuned.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Cliffhanger.

Review #670: Cliffhanger.

Cast
Sylvester Stallone (Gabe Walker), John Lithgow (Eric Qualen), Michael Rooker (Hal Tucker), Janine Turner (Jessie Deighan), Rex Linn (Richard Travers), Leon Robinson (Kynette), Craig Fairbrass (Delmar), Gregory Scott Cummins (Ryan), and Denis Forest (Heldon) Directed by Renny Harlin (#012 - Die Hard 2)

Review
Honestly, this sounds like something that could've been made in the 40's/50's, especially with the cliffs. But hey, some idea did stay original in the 90's, all you needed to do is add an action star and a villain with a cool accent and boom, you've got a winner. Stallone is entertaining enough, I guess when you co-write the screenplay, you can seem just fine (the "Premise by John Long" credit notwithstanding), but there you go. Lithgow is at entertaining enough as a villain, though he only gets one fight with Stallone...which lasts about 3 minutes. For some reason, my favorite actor in this film is Rex Linn. I don't know, maybe it's his exasperated expression, or his killer mustache (insert your CSI: Miami joke here). The cliff action is pretty fun though, you can enjoy it and still have a laugh anyway. You can be a good action/adventure film and yet still have some laughs with it (not necessarily at it), I especially like the scene where Linn's looking for a case of money...and the tracker leads him to a rabbit. Yes, he shoots at the bunny. And yes, he misses as the bunny runs away. This actually drives his character to go crazy. What's even more funny is the fact the original scene had the bunny dying before Stallone (personally) changed it due to crowd reaction. You want some entertaining action and a decent enough film? Then this is for you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rocky IV.

Review #597: Rocky IV.

Cast
Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Dolph Lundgren (Ivan Drago), Talia Shire (Adrian Balboa), Burt Young (Paulie Pennino), Carl Weathers (Apollo Creed), Brigitte Nielsen (Ludmilla Drago), Tony Burton (Tony "Duke" Evers), and Michael Pataki (Nicoli Koloff) Directed by Sylvester Stallone (#047 - The Expendables, #277 - Rocky II and #340 - Rocky III)

Review
When did the Rocky franchise went over the top? Rocky IV? I say that because Rocky III was the first movie where Rocky didn't fight Apollo Creed, instead he fought Mr. T. Oh, and Mickey dies because you know, reasons. But that argument goes out the window when the robot is introduced. Yes, a robot, which I guess would be fine except 29 years later, we're still waiting for robots. The foundation of silliness is cemented by James Brown and then planted fully into the ground with Ivan Drago, if that even makes sense. Going into this, I knew it would be silly, that it would probably the weirdest of the franchise. That, and it would have montages. Many, many montages. This is what parodies are made of, especially this movie. But is the movie any good? Probably. Look, it's a silly film with a lot of cheese and a lot of effort, and the performances are what they are, the good and bad. At this point, you know these characters and what they'll do and not do. You know Rocky will fight Drago despite people telling him not to, because reasons. The movie is like processed cheese: It's American, it can be used for almost anything, and it's easier to poke holes at it than Swiss cheese. Take this film for what it's worth: the silly, the silly and the bad.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rocky III.

Review #340: Rocky III.

Cast
Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Mr. T (Clubber Lang), Talia Shire (Adrian), Burt Young (Paulie), Carl Weathers (Apollo Creed), Burgess Meredith (Mickey Goldmill), Tony Burton (Duke Evers), Ian Fried (Rocky Balboa, Jr), and Hulk Hogan (Thunderlips) Directed by Sylvester Stallone (#047 - The Expendables and #277 - Rocky II)

Review
The previous two Rocky films were like a two-parter, with the first being about Rocky's rise to the top and the second culminating with just that, but with heart and soul. The third is not as deep as the last two, but I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily. Third films do have some good as well, like Return of the Jedi, Die Hard 3, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, even Revenge of the Sith. Pardon for being off topic, but oh well. How is the film? It's...80's. 80's good. Stallone tries his best, and Shire and Young do a fine job as usual. Then there's Mr. T. I love the performance. It's so...fun in how simple it is, and it works well. I pity the fool. Weathers and Meredith also do a good job. It is weird at times (especially with Rocky fighting Thunderlips...) , and it may be the turning point of the franchise, but it does provide some good quality with effort. Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Judge Dredd.

Review #332: Judge Dredd.

Cast

Sylvester Stallone (Judge Dredd), Armand Assante (Rico Dredd), Rob Schneider (Fergee), Diane Lane (Judge Hershey), Jürgen Prochnow (Judge Griffin), Max von Sydow (Chief Judge Fargo), Joanna Miles (Judge McGruder), and Joan Chen (Dr. Ilsa Hayden) Directed by Danny Cannon (#146 - Goal! The Dream Begins)

Review

Ah yes, Sylvester Stallone once again. This my seventh review with him in the film being reviewed (#003 - Rocky, #025 - Rambo: First Blood, #047 - The Expendables, #059 - Zookeeper, #254 - Antz, #277 - Rocky II), and he usually got some sort of praise, doing a respectable job, so how does he do here? Uh...Let's get to some history. Judge Dredd is based off the strip of the same name that is featured in a magazine called 2000 AD. And apparently that Dredd has a helmet that coves all but his mouth. However, if I came to this without any of that small info and watched the film, I'd believe Dredd doesn't wear it much, if at all. But is it any good regardless?....Nope. Its action is standard fare, its locations look slightly okay, but more reminding of other dystopian films. And its acting? Stallone does...a weirdly bad job. Assante acts more like he's trying to compete with Stallone for most overacting (Especially in one scene where he says "Law!" in a really silly way. It's better to explain in context.), and even though Sydow does a fine job, the rest can't be said for Schneider. The story feels kinda predictable: A judge is framed by his...brother in an attempt for...power, so he can have his own...order to stop crime. Is there any real benefit to watching this? The only one I can think of is the unintended badness of it. It might be slightly enjoyable if you lower your expectations really low.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rocky II.

Review #277: Rocky II.

Cast
Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Talia Shire (Adrian), Burt Young (Paulie), Carl Weathers (Apollo Creed), Burgess Meredith (Mickey), Tony Burton (Tony Evers), and Sylvia Meals (Mary Anne Creed) Directed by Sylvester Stallone (#047 - The Expendables)

Review
It's a new month, a month washed away from the horrors of October and into something anew. And I what do I review for the first of the month? A sequel to a film I've reviewed here. How long has it been since my review of Rocky? Really, really long, back in December. December 2010, to be exact. (#003 - Rocky) 274 reviews later, here I am. So how is the sequel? It is without a doubt...A good film. I think it rivals the first film in terms of quality, as it springs more character development, more emotional issues, and more...Stallone, who wrote along with directed (doing the latter until the fifth film). The acting is good, Weathers gets more of a chance to just be angry, but you do feel for him and why he is angry. The boxing here is a bit more tense here, and in the end it has a good conclusion for a film that still lives on to this day as a strong sequel to an already strong first film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Antz.

Review #254: Antz.

Cast
Woody Allen (Z), Sharon Stone (Princess Bala), Gene Hackman (Mandible), Sylvester Stallone (Weaver), Jennifer Lopez (Azteca), Christopher Walken (Cutter), and Anne Bancroft (Queen) Directed by Eric Darnell (#154 - Madagascar 2 and #165 - Madagascar) and Tim Johnson.

Review
You might be (or not) thinking that this is a rip off of A Bug's Life. Is it? Well...No. Pretty much the opposite. The film is more risque (in some respects) than Bug's Life, some of it being funny, some not as much. The animation is decent for 1998 standards. This was the first DreamWorks Animation film, released before The Prince of Egypt. The acting is reasonable good, even from Woody Allen (Who I seem to not like for some certain reason) The film is a typical length of 83 minutes, which is reasonable. In the end, the film has some good moments in DreamWorks Animation's first foray into film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.