Mo' Better Blues.

Review #2350: Mo' Better Blues.

Cast: 

Denzel Washington (Minifield "Bleek" Gilliam), Spike Lee (Giant), Wesley Snipes (Shadow Henderson), Joie Lee (Indigo Downes), Cynda Williams (Clarke Bentancourt), Giancarlo Esposito (Left Hand Lacey), Bill Nunn (Bottom Hammer), Jeff "Tain" Watts (Rhythm Jones), Dick Anthony Williams (Mr. "Big Stop" Gilliam), Abbey Lincoln (Lillian Gilliam), John Turturro (Moe Flatbush), Nicholas Turturro (Josh Flatbush), Robin Harris (Butterbean Jones), with Samuel L. Jackson (Madlock), Leonard L. Thomas (Rod), and Charlie Murphy (Eggy) Produced, Written, and Directed by Spike Lee  (#1255 - Do the Right Thing, #1543 - Inside Man, #1643 - Malcolm X, #1976 - She's Gotta Have It, #2181 - School Daze)

Review: 

"I always knew I would do a movie about the music. When I say the music, I’m talking about jazz, the music I grew up with. Jazz isn’t the only type of music that I listen to but it’s the music I feel closest to."

Believe it or not, this was the first collaboration between Spike Lee and Denzel Washington on film. 

The inspiration for the movie came from Lee's interest to do a jazz movie with his own perspective after seeing Bertrand Tavernier's 'Round Midnight (1986) and Clint Eastwood's Bird (1988). The script for the film came up when Lee was working on Do the Right Thing (1989), with the first-draft screenplay being written in fifteen days. The fourth feature film directed and written by Lee, the movie was shot in roughly eight weeks with a budget of $10 million. The movie features the music of the Branford Marsalis quartet with Terence Blanchard doing the trumpet, with Delfeayo Marsalis lending assistance to Bill Lee with the producing of the music recordings (this was the last of four films where the Lees worked together, as they soon had a falling out). One isn't actually seeing the actors (most, anyway) playing the instruments, but they sure do a good job looking the part in imitation, which is more than enough. The first of nine movies Lee directed in the 1990s, it was a mild success at the time; the next movie directed by Lee after this one was Jungle Fever (1992).

Overlooked or not, there is something quite soothing about the way the movie flows in looking at the edges that come with trying to work at one's craft at the expense of relationships. It is hard to show maturity and know what one really wants when one could be working on something else, you might say. It is a movie based on mood and energy that is a curious one in basically reflecting its introduction and ending when it comes to parents and their son when it comes to shaping them and making a choice for them (in a movie where the rest of it is comprised of fallout from certain choices made, naturally). There is a crushing pressure one can feel in trying to hold on to themselves and not burn out into the night while also trying to think that everything is totally normal with how they do things within "fundamentals", and that includes one's love life. Undeniably, the sequence involving Washington opposite the two women in bed (at different times, obviously) is the most striking when it comes to misplaced ideas about people. Washington does pretty well with all of that in mind, mainly because he glides from place to place with weary disposition for what he seems to really want in life beyond that smooth facade of confidence (it takes more than talent to be a saint of jazz, shall we say). Basically, he treats the two women (C.Williams and J.Lee, the former making their film debut) in his life like they were items to check out at the store (incidentally, Lee called it a movie specifically about relationships and not a love story). The two women are only seen in that lens but each handle it with clear differences when it comes to timing and, well, allure. The Turturro brothers pop in from time to time to provide a few chuckles in the business interest side (if one ever believed the current times are weird for stereotypes, inquire further about this movie being called "anti-Semitic" and look to now when it comes to how much people like to waste time looking for stereotypes that aren't there). Lee also does pretty well in shaky stature (as one does when finding new ways to play characters in one's own story, which he did for his first nine movies). By the time the movie has its reckoning with certain decisions made in and out of good reason, one has found a pretty good time with the rhythm that the film has accomplished for itself, one filled with worthwhile interest in showing the power of human contact and making one's mind besides drawing it all in the craft. The relationships matter all around us: the music and the people we hold to us and how it matters so much to hold it tight to us as long as we can, which in this sense works out pretty neatly in the long run.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

New Jack City.

Review #1978: New Jack City.

Cast: 

Wesley Snipes (Nino Brown), Ice-T (Scotty Appleton), Allen Payne (Gerald "Gee Money" Wells), Chris Rock (Benny "Pookie" Robinson), Judd Nelson (Nick Peretti), Mario Van Peebles (Stone), Michael Michele (Selina Thomas), Bill Nunn (Duh Duh Duh Man), Russell Wong (Park), Bill Cobbs (Old Man), Christopher Williams (Kareem Akbar), and Vanessa Estelle Williams (Keisha) Directed by Mario Van Peebles.

Review: 

“Typically, in a gangster movie, you’re emotionally connected with the gangster. If you watch ‘Godfather,’ you connect with the gangster, but in ‘New Jack City,’ you connect, not just with the gangster, but hopefully with the cops — but even more with the victim.”

Cliche as it may sound, the story of a filmmaker in this case of like father, like son. Mario Van Peebles was born in 1957 in Mexico City, Mexico to a photographer mother and a filmmaker father in Melvin Van Peebles. The Van Peebles family moved around between the United States and Europe, although the younger Van Peebles dabbled first in acting in his teens (which included Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, as you already may know). He studied and graduated in Economics at Columbia College (the oldest undergraduate college of Columbia University, located in New York); he had acted on the advice of his father, who told his son to work hard and advertise while getting a business education. After time spent in the City of New York Department of Enviromental Protection, Van Peebles re-entered acting in the 1980s, which included roles in films such as Exterminator 2 (1984), Rappin' (1985), and Heartbreak Ridge (1986). Van Peebles started as a director in television in 1988 before he got his chance to make a feature with this film. In over three decades as a director, he has done films of varying quality such as Posse (1993) and Baadasssss! (2003) along with countless television projects. The screenplay was done by Thomas Lee Wright and Barry Michael Cooper, while the story was done by Wright. Cooper was a writer for The Village Voice, going from music critic to investigative reporter for the New York City alt-weekly. He wrote an article called "Kids Killing Kids: New Jack City Eats Its Young" in 1987 that talked about drug trade (such as in Detroit). It spurred a meeting with Quincy Jones and eventually a job in re-writing a screenplay that was about a 1970s Harlem heroin kingpin in Nick Barnes (so you can guess how that plays into this film). In 1994, two of Cooper's scripts involving Harlem came out with Sugar Hill and Above the Rim. Wright had been an executive at Paramount Pictures that aspired to be a screenwriter and apparently made a script treatment for what a third film for The Godfather (1972, 1974) could look like. When Paramount was interested enough to have him do an early draft, Wright used experiences in interviews from New York's Little Italy and black kingpins that modeled themselves like the Mafia in Harlem...which was founded by Nicky Barnes.

When you are trying to do a slick piece of entertainment, most might wonder if a resemblance to Scarface (1983) is wise. But New Jack City is still entertaining for what it shows in the contradictions that come in making a film about the rise and fall of one pusher of crack cocaine that has many interesting players that engage with the action in comic-book style energy. It isn't just a movie all about a kingpin or the cops that try to bring him down but instead a film that encompasses both sides of the story that is a deconstruction of the drug trade. In a way, it a refining of what used to be called the "blaxploitation film", one with distinct music and characters that resonate with the flow of the story for what is basically a lyrical action-drama. Of course, it is also a movie that doesn't just roll only in action, because one can always sense the plight of unemployment, social inequality, and systemic racism within the seams. Snipes is the head of where the film works best, one that saw him rocket to further recognition as an actor beyond supporting roles (and for good reason). There is a devilish charisma to everything that he does in this film, one that the writers wanted to show to make one believe him akin to a vampire when it comes to the community. It works exactly to plan because of how much he resonates on screen in presence, sucking our attention as an angel of death, right down to one of the last sequences referring to "my brother's keeper", which is undoubtedly the most effective by the fact that it has lingered as an Internet meme for years (so yes, a somber sequence turning into a moment for humor is far better than you think); the inevitability of where things will lead doesn't degrade the overall experience when it comes to seeing Snipes in a leading role that matters. Ice-T (who got the nickname by his memorization and reciting of excerpts of Iceberg Slim novels) was better known for his music (hip-hop, rap, heavy metal) than an actor, and he apparently got the role because Van Peebles heard him mouth off while in a nightclub bathroom. It is apparent pretty quickly that he makes a quality counterpart to Snipes because of how he manages to hold his own in worthwhile conviction and energy, which makes for quite the pairing when against Snipes in cover or opposite Nelson. Payne and Rock (at that time a member of Saturday Night Live) are the other key aspects of the film that strike interesting chords in the effects of where the trade takes them, whether that involves the decay of brotherly devotion or the attempted decay of one's soul (incidentally, the film has inspired a live stage show that saw Payne return to the role in 2022). As a whole, the 100 minutes feel quite efficient in execution because the movie always seems quite "on", never lingering in unnecessary territory or becoming only just a cliche to pick at. It is a movie with a soul for the moment that still seems quite prescient now, which means that it still has worthy staying power three decades later that is ripe for celebration due to the efforts of Van Peebles and company to make it a worthwhile time to check out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Tyler Perry...in a non-Madea movie with Why Did I Get Married?

U.S. Marshals.

Review #1692: U.S. Marshals.

Cast: 

Tommy Lee Jones (Sam Gerard), Wesley Snipes (Mark J. Sheridan / Mark Roberts / Mark Warren), Robert Downey Jr (John Royce), Joe Pantoliano (Cosmo Renfro), Daniel Roebuck (Bobby Biggs), Tom Wood (Noah Newman), LaTanya Richardson (Savannah Cooper), Irène Jacob (Marie Bineaux), Kate Nelligan (Catherine Walsh), Patrick Malahide (Bertram Lamb), Rick Snyder (Frank Barrows), and Michael Paul Chan (Xiang Chen) Directed by Stuart Baird.

Review:

Do you remember The Fugitive? A long time ago, I was first introduced to it by the 1993 film, one of a string of adaptations of familiar television shows that have been quite prevalent over the past few decades. The original series had ran for four seasons from 1963 to 1967 involving the chase of an escaped convict (an innocent victim of blind justice) that goes from place to place trying to clear his name while an lieutenant bound to enforce the law is keen on catching him. The show was created by Roy Huggins (whose previous successes included Maverick, which also saw a film adaptation in the mid 1990s) with Quinn Martin producing the show; supposedly the idea for the show was based on the real-life trial of Sam Sheppard, who was convicted but subsequently acquitted of the murder of his wife, although Huggins denied this (at any rate, Victor Hugo's 1862 novel Les Misérables is likely the most evident inspiration). Oh, and it happened to be one of the first notable series finales ever broadcast on television, but that's besides the point. The reason I mention all of this is to provide context for when a film adaptation of the show eventually came to pass, one that modified details within an attempt at making a thriller capped by one big stunt (with a train, what else?). It did its own interpretation of the main two characters that retained a good deal of the claustrophobic feel of the series that works in character-driven drama with plenty of shots of Chicago that seemed distinct and useful when compared to the anthology premises used by the show. It wasn't a perfect movie by any means (since it inadvertently captured the fuzzy resolution of trying to cap a thriller with shaky explanations that the show also had), but it certainly received enough notice from folks to stand well among its time, even after nearly three decades. One of the benefactors from that success was Tommy Lee Jones, who won an Academy Award for his performance in that film; if you remember correctly, Jones spent screen time either paired with an elusive Ford or paired with the folks on the hunt for him that ranged from Joe Pantoliano to Johnny Lee Davenport (i.e. a supporting cast of five), and most of that supporting cast returns here. As with this film, Huggins served as one of the executive producers, while John Pogue served as screenwriter.

Are you surprised that this movie came out five years after the success of The Fugitive? Or is the real surprise the fact that this "spinoff" was even created at all? Nay, the true surprise is how average the movie is, a movie that is blandly unnecessary yet never infuriating enough to stop watching (if only because of the folks involved). In other words, if you've seen one movie about a fugitive on the run, watch The Fugitive. You could replace Jones and his character with any kind of generic hero and probably not lose much when it comes to entertainment value (incidentally, Stuart Baird had served as the editor on a variety of action films that ranged from Lethal Weapon (1987) to Demolition Man (1993) before debuting as director with Executive Decision in 1996). The movie builds on the idea of "innocent man on the run" in trying to add a conspiracy aspect to it that results in a very muddled movie that takes quite a while to really do anything of circumstance, and we are talking about a 131 minute movie. When one starts talking about innocent fugitives who are also former CIA operatives after we see him nearly get taken down by zip guns hidden in a prison plane, the brain starts to check out. The performances are relatively fine, in that the main group of Marshals roll with the clichés without turning into complete cardboard (i.e. you don't groan at the banter). However, Snipes certainly suffers the most when it comes to having to deal with the muddled focus, contrasting oddly with Jones in the levels of interest despite having (on paper) more to work with in terms of people to bounce off than Ford had to do in the first film (i.e. Jacob, although she is merely just okay here), and yet it still feels a bit hollow. I like Jones just fine for this film, but he clearly had better material to work with before, in that there isn't anything that really stands to interest a newcomer or one familiar with the first one. Of course, if one likes seeing Jones or Snipes as actors, one could be fine with what they see anyway, since bad movies with a favorite actor can theoretically still be interesting to view (for example, there are folks who probably can stomach Blade: Trinity for Snipes just as I remind myself of the amusement I share in thinking about Volcano (1997) with Jones in its monumental amusement factor). Downey has described this as one of his worst filming experiences, going so far as to call it "the worst action movie of all time", one that depressed him and made him rather be in prison than wake up on the set of it again. It likely doesn't help that he seems a bit miscast here, and we are talking about a movie that barely has that much energy to go with in the first place. Really though, a great deal of the movie could be summed up as "on paper", in that the idea of a film about folks pursuing people on the run could on paper be interesting, or maybe the idea of seeing where a guy like Gerald goes after having spent considerable time catching one innocent fugitive goes (on paper). Instead, one gets a mild movie that seems to have the odors of studio notes, where the demand to try and top the stunts that captured attention before go hand in hand with trying to wring originality out of familiar pulp. The swinging stunt onto a passing train is likely the most notable scene from the movie (the plane crash is a close second, but yeah), and if it is taken as just a movie for distraction without taking too much into its middling middle-ness, it might prove inoffensive enough to see once. As a whole, it is an unnecessary spinoff that doesn't equally doesn't do much to spin on what had been done years before while serving average in every other aspect that will either mean a movie one will pass on seeing or find to be a mild curiosity on a long boring night.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Blade: Trinity.

Review #1667: Blade: Trinity.

Cast:

Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks / Blade), Jessica Biel (Abigail Whistler), Ryan Reynolds (Hannibal King), Dominic Purcell (Dracula / Drake), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Parker Posey (Danica Talos), Callum Keith Rennie (Asher Talos), Paul "Triple H" Levesque (Jarko Grimwood), Natasha Lyonne (Sommerfield), Haili Page (Zoe), Mark Berry (Chief Martin Vreede), John Michael Higgins (Dr. Edgar Vance), Patton Oswalt (Hedges), and James Remar (FBI Agent Ray Cumberland) Written and Directed by David S. Goyer.

Review:

“That was the most personally and professionally difficult and painful thing I've ever been through,. Having said that, I have incredibly fond memories of working with Ryan and Jessica and a lot of people on the movie. Ryan and I remain really good friends today. It was a challenged shoot, as has been reported. What can I say?”

You don't need any fancy sentences to tell you that this is the worst of the Blade trilogy. However, I will make one easy crack at it: Blade: Trinity is probably the dumbest third action installment of a film series since RoboCop 3 (1993), and it is appropriate given the link between main performances that might as well be played by robots. Each film effectively turned their title hero character into a joke while killing their franchise - it should only make sense that there are talks for a remake of Blade, considering that RoboCop got a remake as well (albeit a very mediocre one). Of course, there are a few differences that make this argument amusing: RoboCop 3 is actually quite amusing to watch, one that is a cheap thrill of hammy lines and effects from folks that did what they had to do with a PG-13 script. Blade: Trinity is a movie to laugh at, mindboggling in its attempts at finishing a trilogy that can't even be definitive in its actual conclusions while being plagued by an indifferent actor and a director/writer that also were producers. Oh, but one could be fair to David S. Goyer, because he actually had been a director one previous time before this film - Zig Zag was released two years prior. However, Snipes did not find favor with Goyer being selected to direct the third movie (after a previous director was selected), and production only rolled down the hill from there in terms of interference and breakdowns - if you listen to the grapevine of reports, Snipes at one point would only respond to the name of his character and communicate by post-it notes, although he has refuted these reports (made by cast members alongside a report from someone who spent time on set that claimed of extensive use of stand-ins for Snipes for anything that wasn't a close-up shot), since he was a producer on this film (among the other two). How about we just sum up the troubles like this: it is a movie so miserable that its main star sued the production for its choice in director, writer, and cast (a settlement was apparently reached, although it certainly left no one with a good taste of memory).

Of course, you have to remember what the Blade series was about in the first place: an adaptation of the comic book character of the same name (as created by Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan) that first got his start in the comic series The Tomb of Dracula - Snipes really seemed in his element with a coolly collected hunter of vampires that had plenty of action to go with some dazzling over-the-top action with plots that hold up just enough to work out well as the first triumphant example of turning Marvel characters into movies. Blade: Trinity is none of that. Vampires have now progressed to running themselves in a big skyscraper with an interest in art that makes them want to bring Dracula into the fold (or more specifically, Dracula leading the vampires around). They have also decided to bring Pomeranians into the fold, which is probably worse than having those dogs as pets. Is this a movie that is supposed to be taken seriously? Perhaps the best argument against that is a scene involving Blade meeting the villain (Dracula, who for some reason is also referred to as Drake) after a long foot chase that ends with a confrontation with a baby being thrown; one gets to see the perspective of Dracula towards humans and vampires...and then he throws a baby at Blade that ends up with him going "coochie coo" after the catch. Actually, you could start as early as the first action sequence with Blade, since (are you ready for this?) he is fooled into taking down humans that were disguised as vampires. Blade has become so efficient at killing vampires that he can't even tell the difference between human and vampire anymore. Questions start to arise quickly? How about Whistler getting shortchanged and dying (again) 20 minutes into the movie? How about a character that engages in action with earbuds that blares music into her ear - who just happens to be the secret daughter of Whistler (a character who saw his two kids and wife get taken down by vampires)? How about a scene where Dracula goes into a goth store that is selling merchandise of Dracula from lunch boxes to cereal (before drinking a worker's blood)? The answer to everything is simple: There is none.

One could almost forget that actors are present in this film, really. Snipes probably didn't say that many lines in the first two films to begin with but consider one thing: him and Kristofferson are the only ones to star in each movie, let along star in two of them. Each movie is a different group to experience that just happens to have him paired with Kristofferson in diminishing ways, and the only way Snipes reacts to it is to persist on with trying to seem cool. This time around, it is a good thing I found out about the "stand-in" rumors after I saw the movie, because one could really be distracted by what counts as acting by Snipes and what isn't acting and never come out with a straight answer. Simply put, there is a balance of times where the lines will land as amusing that are either meant to be that way or are not intended to be but come off as unintentionally hilarious, as if the sunglasses are only there to hide displeasure at what is going on in the script. Before we get to the other main focuses, I have to note Kristofferson, because it seems almost any movie with him being featured should get a modest description of him - man, do I wish he wasn't short-changed in this feature. Perhaps it was always the intent to have his time with Snipes come to a natural conclusion...of course, he also was "shot" in the first film, and that last exchange was actually more meaningful than anything that came afterwards. Simply put, Kristofferson deserved better than to be cut down to a few sentences. Oh but Purcell deserves mention too when it comes to deserving better, because he has to play a role that has been done to death for over a century in Dracula, who this time around gets to walk in the sun and shape-shift on occasion before turning into a beast. That aforementioned scene in the goth shop is the easiest scene to highlight in embarrassment, not so much because it is meant to show Dracula's disdain for the modern world (uh huh), but because of the fact that you could trim it down to five seconds and probably miss nothing of importance. By the time he is fighting Blade with a blade, one isn't so much wondering how the fight will end but rather how silly it can get with beast-man Dracula in this duel of honor. Biel and Reynolds each were best known for roles on television series (7th Heaven and Two Guys and a Girl, respectively), although film roles were sprinkled between that. One can see where the idea for a spin-off could happen here, not so much because they are good, but because they might actually have more stage presence than the main star itself with their attempts at action hero dress-up. Reynolds is better in that the ad-libs are the easiest thing to remember in terms of lines (whether to groan at or not), even if they can't help be anything other than generic. Posey, who most might know for work within independent cinema, is certainly an interesting pick for a secondary villainous role - she seems fine with the role, treating it as something fun to do as one could see in a big dumb action movie without falling into the trap of scene-chewing (at least not too much, considering the film). Triple H, however, seems aptly appropriate for a movie this ridiculous, towering over all the folks with a goon presence that only a (WWE) wrestler could do with flourish. Everyone else is pretty much disposable, which seems appropriate given the propensity of the series to keep introducing people to Blade for help/hinderance only to see them not be seen again.

Folks who remember the first film well enough will note that the third film has decided to use the "blood farm" idea that had been deleted from the first film's intended climax, in which the vampires had a solution to that whole problem of turning everyone into a vampire - just store some humans in a fridge and feast on the leftovers. Honestly, it still seems pretty silly to think about, but what is amusing is the fact that each side ends up having the exact same plan: wanting to wipe out the other side like the plague. It is bad enough to have resorted to Dracula as your final villain, but sure, let's just throw a plague out there in the open...and the movie can't even be definitive about anything, since the movie ends with Blade still going around trying to take down more vampires in a never-ending war. The action shots don't seem that much more interesting, as if to add insult to injury. Somehow, there are three different endings to this mess: the original ending involves Dracula being nice in honor of his death by making it look like Blade is dead for the authorities while Blade goes on to fight his never-ending war against vampires; the unrated ending ends with Blade attacking the authorities that makes one wonder if the thirst has returned, while a different ending involves a new enemy for everyone but Blade: werewolves (yes, you heard that right). There were ideas of doing a spin-off film with the Nightstalkers, because if you couldn't do anything else with Blade (aside from a subsequent television series that lasted one season), why not spin further away from things? In the end, 113 minutes cannot end fast enough for a movie that is an absolute headstone for a series that ran its course with failures in action and characterization that make for a laughable affair for all involved, going from Snipes all the way down to its director. But hey, at least a new Blade feature might come into your future to make things seem better.

Overall, I give it 5 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.

Blade II.

Review #1188: Blade II.

Cast: 
Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks/Blade), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Ron Perlman (Dieter Reinhardt), Leonor Varela (Nyssa Damaskinos), Norman Reedus (Scud), Thomas Kretschmann (Eli Damaskinos), Karel Roden (Karel Kounen), Luke Goss (Jared Nomak), Matt Schulze (Chupa), Danny John-Jules (Asad), Donnie Yen (Snowman), Marit Velle Kile (Verlaine), Darren "Daz" Crawford (Lighthammer), Tony Curran (Priest), and Santiago Segura (Rush) Directed by Guillermo del Toro (#425 - Pacific Rim and #1061 - The Shape of Water)

Review: 
The cheapest way I think I could describe the film would be that if you liked the first film, you'll be fine with the sequel. It isn't wrong, however. It's a movie that has plenty of loud action, ridiculous moments, and a continuing winning combo of Snipes and Kristofferson. Its plot and some of its characters may be a bit shaky, but in the long run there is just enough here to make something worth a watch for entertainment. It isn't a particularly great comic book film, but it tries to have a balance of action and horror that makes it stick out a bit, not being too much of a copy from its predecessor, which was also written by David S. Goyer. I can't really say it is a better film, in part because of the story, which is okay in getting to its spectacle parts but sometimes ridiculous when giving deep thought to some of its motivations. The initial idea of the film (which sounds like Blade crossed with the Dirty Dozen but with vampires that call themselves the Bloodpack) is a curious one, although it is amusing in execution, since if this so-called pack were trained to supposedly terminate Blade at some point in time, I imagine they would've probably been beaten senseless in less than a hour. Obviously the movie doesn't reply on the ability of this pack to be able to beat Blade, but their lack of characterization besides Perlman and Varela, with the others feeling like fodder. Even though they do fine jobs, they are characters who can sometimes feel one-note, with the former being a bully with watchable qualities and the latter being okay but not invoking as much interest when it comes time to the plot or when with Snipes. Reedus is okay and charming, and Kretschmann is occasionally creepy, but these are cursory moments. Even Goss can't really deliver too much as a villain, perhaps because he doesn't really have much to say (which doesn't help when compared to Stephen Dorff and his villain from the original), and the Reapers (as interesting as they look) seem a bit muddled when compared to Blade; the action is fine and dandy, but after a while the film can't quite find a way to wring itself to anything other than just going through the motions between going from one dialogue piece to another before an action sequence comes in. At least it doesn't feel like an endless cutscene (although the CGI can be a bit dodgy sometimes). The climax is alright for spectacle, although it doesn't really have too many surprises. The film suffers a bit when comparing it to the first film, which felt more flexible with balancing its action and mythology without too much trouble. As okay as the film is with its execution, it still invites curiosity for anyone looking for some vampire action horror that can deliver in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Special Note for 2019 only: In an error best described as "counting sheep wrong", the review count for Movie Night had been miscounted since review #1168, which was Firewall (2006). Somehow, it was never properly cataloged into my records (which I keep for things such as ratings of each film, release year, etc), while the reviews that followed were. The numbering was done correctly for #1169 (About Schmidt), but the next review of Futureworld was mislabeled as #1169 instead of the correct #1170. This means that the reviews that followed up to now were the wrong number. The review numbers have been corrected and things are fixed, but I wanted to make sure that there is no confusion. Enjoy.

Blade.

Review #1049: Blade.

Cast: 
Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks / Blade), N'Bushe Wright (Dr. Karen Jenson), Stephen Dorff (Deacon Frost), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Donal Logue (Quinn), Udo Kier (Gitano Dragonetti), Sanaa Lathan (Vanessa Brooks), and Arly Jover (Mercury) Directed by Stephen Norrington.

Review: 
Blade was the sixth film that was based off a product from Marvel Comics (although it was only the second to be released widely in America, besides Howard the Duck in 1986), adapted off the comic book series created by Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan. The film began its development earlier in the decade, with LL Cool J expressing interest in playing the lead role before Snipes signed onto the role in 1996 (it is interesting to note that Snipes had plans to make a film about Black Panther, although that movie languished in development for over two decades until this year). In any case, this is an interesting take on the vampire film that generally hits more than it misses while notably being Marvel's first box office success.

There is just a certain level of excitement and style that makes the film ride consistently enough that comes in large part due to Snipes and his performance. He just manages to make the material feel believable and useful that might've sound silly with a lesser actor. Wright does a fine job, although I find that she doesn't particularly stand out too much. Dorff proves to be a quirky but fairly entertaining villain, having an unhinged manner to him that gels well on screen at times. Kristofferson manages to stand out pretty well with his rugged charm that clicks despite not having too much time on screen. The rest of the cast do their parts fairly well, not going too overboard nor too serious either. The action sequences are gripping and intense, managing to make for a quick tone that is fairly effective while not being disorientating. The plot isn't anything to be desired, but the film keeps itself entertaining enough to erase some of the nagging problems that would've become more noticeable for a film without as much enthusiasm or fun. The effects (with numerous sequences involving blood) look a bit wonky, but they don't distract too awfully as they probably could've been. The original cut (which lasted 140 minutes) had Dorff turn into a big mass of blood instead of the sword fight that does happen in the final cut, and upon seeing both versions of the fight, I can definitely say that they made the right decision in not using the big mass. At 120 minutes, the movie has a serviceable length that works without too much drag to it. On the whole, Blade is a strange mix of energy and slick filmmaking that works in the right places to make a solid piece of entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Major League.

Review #426: Major League.

Cast
Tom Berenger (Jake Taylor), Corbin Bernsen (Roger Dorn), Charlie Sheen (Ricky Vaughn), Margaret Whitton (Rachel Phelps), James Gammon (Lou Brown), Rene Russo (Lynn Wells), Bob Uecker (Harry Doyle), Wesley Snipes (Willie Mays Hayes), Charles Cyphers (Charlie Donovan), Chelcie Ross (Eddie Harris), Dennis Haysbert (Pedro Cerrano), and Andy Romano (Pepper Leach) Directed by David S. Ward.

Review
Major League may not bring too much of new things to the table that other sports films like The Natural or 42 have, but it has its own way of trying to reach the level of enjoyment that it mostly gets right. It has its moments of being funny, and while it is sometimes crude in approach, it is excusable because the characters are endearing after a while.  The actors are alright, Berenger and Bernsen do good, Sheen steals the show, but Bob Uecker of all people has memorable moments, even for an announcer, the one liners are memorable It feels dated at times, with the old, now demolished stadiums (Milwaukee County Stadium was used for filming, though it was used only because the stadium that is actually depicted (Cleveland Municipal Stadium) was too busy for filming), the uniforms and other such things, But this film has some charm, it feels close to home, there's always that team that just feels down on times, especially Cleveland teams, and while the idea of comeback is somewhat cliche, there's always something to try and make different about it, and while sports films do run into one another a lot, this breaks that mold, if only slightly.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.