 I do tend to have a bit of a fascination with "bottle movies". I've mentioned this a few times before, but for me, it's seeing how good of a story can be told with how little there is to use. Typically, a bottle movie will take place in one room, and there are a few classic examples out there under this category. However, if you see just one bottle movie to say that you've had the patience to sit through one (they aren't necessarily for everyone) it should probably be '12 Angry Men', being that it is the quintessential classic in the genre.
Amazingly, I haven't actually seen this movie until fairly recently when a friend showed it to me. I'll be perfectly honest with everyone here, I didn't LOVE it and even had a few moments when I snickered at something that probably wasn't supposed to be funny. But having said that, it does become a movie I have a certain admiration for. Keep in mind that I'm no pro critic who gets paid for everything he writes, and some really classic stuff like this is material that's not as much in my wheelhouse as it is something I can admire from afar and have respect for. A lot of this was really good, but I think my genuine problem going into it was just already knowing how it would all go down. The film takes place in an overly hot jury room of the New York County Courthouse where a jury discusses the case of an 18-year-old boy who has been accused of stabbing his father to death. If at the end of the day, this young man is found guilty, he faces the fatal electric chair. Furthermore, the verdict of guilty or not guilty must be completely unanimous. As eleven men seem to have no problem at all looking at the evidence and sealing the kid's fate, Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) has a different idea, and reasonable doubt of the crime in his mind. So, this is the story of the one guy in the jury room trying to convince everyone else there to shift their verdict in order to save a potentially innocent person. We've seen it parodied numerous times, but this is where all those parodies really came from. We can't give a bottle movie like this much credit without its performances that really carry the film. Aside from Juror #8, we've also got Jurors #1 (Martin Balsam), #2 (John Fiedler), #3 (Lee J. Cobb), #4 (E.G. Marshall), #5 (Jack Klugman), #6 (Edward Binns), #7 (Jack Warden), #9 (Joseph Sweeney), #10 (Ed Begley), #11 (George Voskovec) and #12 (Robert Webber), and no, none of them are referred to by their real names until the very end. Seems like a lot of name-dropping to fill space, I know, but there's something to be said about these performances along with their personalities. The film forces the audience to think for themselves, and even relate to one or perhaps a few of these characters as we go. Despite knowing how it all ends, I might suggest that from a filmmaking standpoint, this is a pretty golden title. It is and has been for a while now, toted as one of the best films ever made, and with the simple techniques used here, it's easy to see why. The example that stood out to me was seeing these guys seemingly literally sweating throughout their performances in this overheated jury room. The heat adds to the tension everyone feels and seems to make the delivery of frustrating dialogue more believable. Are these guys planning on just saying "guilty" so they can go home and be comfortable, or will they endure this discomfort as long as they have to in order to save a life? Although on a personal level, this doesn't land on the list of my favourite movies, the film has my utmost respect for its overall execution, and it's not at all hard to see why this film is so beloved by so many. I really think if I had no idea what to expect here, going into it, I'd have gotten a lot more out of it. But again, it's just a scenario I've seen a whole bunch of different times, and it's a shame that I managed to watch something like 'Jury Duty' (a Pauly Shore comedy) before this. I will, however, still highly recommend it to anyone looking for a solid classic because it still does provide a good amount of tension and drama by using so little. It may not be on my list, but if you can, give it a shot for yourself! 4/5  For as popular as this film seems to be, I probably never would have heard of it if it wasn't for a Chris Farley sketch on SNL where he dubs it an "awesome flick" while "interviewing" Jeff Daniels, who plays the starring role here. Despite Farley's opinion, It was never really on my list of things to do. However, recently, someone in my life recommended it for my "romantic comedy" catch-up theme, so I finally decided to check it out.
The film really hits the ground running, as it introduces us to Charlie Driggs (Daniels); an uptight investment banker who skips out on a restaurant bill. Catching him in the act is the free-spirited Audrey Hankel (Melanie Griffith), calling herself "Lulu". Their confrontation ends on a friendly note, however, as she offers him a ride downtown. Instead of going downtown, though, she throws his beeper out of the car and heads for New Jersey while openly drinking and driving. While hesitant about all of this at first, Charlie soon finds himself falling for the free spirit, all culminating towards her taking him to her high school reunion, posing as her husband for the evening. Things start to take a turn when Audrey's old flame Ray (Ray Liotta) runs into them at the reunion and isn't too keen on giving up what he once had with her. The whole thing sort of turns into loser vs bully for the woman's hand. As with most stories like this, the "loser" has to try to learn to be a bit more confident through trial and error as the woman takes him by the hand. Meanwhile, the bully is ultimately possessive, even if he acts kind of friendly to begin with. So, in my mind, I just feel like I've seen this sort of thing before. Whether or not it's been done better though; perhaps, but I have to admit that I still enjoyed this for what it was. If nothing else, I had fun with it. I think what really helps this movie stand out from others like it is the somewhat surprising dark turn it takes towards the end. I might not consider this film as much a comedy as a light drama with comedic elements, but that part of it is the first two acts. When we get to the third act, it does sort of turn into a thriller of sorts, and the climax isn't entirely something one would expect. With that said, I can't say the surprise twists and turns were very shocking as we've pretty much come to expect Ray Liotta's face to be that of someone who will kick your ass into your own face if you so much as look at him the wrong way. I mostly know him as something of a "tough guy", so it's no surprise to me to see him "Goodfella" things up here. About the only other thing I have to say about this is that it is very hard to find. This is one of those titles that may very well be fading into actual extinction, as according to 'JustWatch', you can find this on Hoopla (which I'm unfamiliar with), Tubi (with ads) and the Criterion Channel (which I didn't know was a thing). I managed with Tubi, but ads are SO annoying when they cut in so randomly. In saying that, I might not recommend looking too hard for this one, unless you're genuinely curious. I feel like it was something far more special for its time than for now. While I did have fun with it, it stands out as very "80s R" - sex, drugs, language and violence all there, but toned way down from what we have these days. If you have a Sunday afternoon to kill, check it out, you could have a good time. 3/5  As far as I'm concerned, Schwarzenegger's last really good film was probably 'True Lies' (1994). But that doesn't mean one shouldn't appreciate the effort Arnold still put forward in giving us the action hero we all love him as, despite the quality of some of his more recent action films. I would probably consider 'Eraser' to be right around the time we were seeing a tipping point. It's fun, but at the same time, it felt like it was about time to make way for a new action hero.
Here, Arnold plays John "The Eraser" Kruger. Working for the Witness Security Protection Program (aka "WITSEC"), he "erases" the identities of high-profile witnesses by faking their deaths, protecting them from anyone who might get to them before they are able to testify in court. John is assigned by his boss, Chief Arthur Beller (James Coburn) to protect a Cyrez Corp. senior executive named Lee Cullen (Vanessa Williams). Cyrez is a defense contractor, wherein top executives have developed a top secret weapon, and Cullen has warned the FBI that they plan to sell the weapon on the Black Market. Cullen delivers the disc with the weapon's data to the FBI, and is soon put under Witness Protection with Kruger's help. However, the disc is replaced with a fake by a mole who works for a man named Daniel Harper (Andy Romano), who happens to be the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Long story short, it's not long before John finds himself stuck between protecting Cullen, and battling sources of conspiracy from within his own company. And to make it perfectly clear, this was another action flick I found somewhat hard to follow, so if my description is a bit broad, I apologize for that. I think in some ways, this feels somewhat typical for the time. There's not a whole lot of substance to the film, but it's largely dealing with conspiracy, corruption from within and of course it all adds up to some over-the-top action. But let's be fair, it's Schwarzenegger - we WANT that over-the-top action, complete with his ever-famous one-liners. Look no further here than the scene in the zoo, involving a couple of killer crocodiles. So I think if you're a die hard Schwarzenegger action fan, this can still be fairly solid, if only a little typical. This was 1996, so the box office was starting to get a little more "disaster movie" than "shoot-em-up", making this one film that sort of dangled there during the change-over. I think, however, I only have a couple of small, maybe even insignificant criticisms to give to this movie. I can be far more forgiving than others, considering this seems to be a low-ranking movie, critically. I think it's a bit complicated (although, I tend to get confused easier than others), I think it could be considered a little too "shoot-em-up" at times, and it's often quite over-the-top with its violence. But having said all of that, this is a Schwarzenegger flick, and he's a well-established action hero. I might say it's equivalent to me buying a coffee and being a little disappointed that it wasn't actually a mocha. It's decent for what it is, there are better Arnold movies out there, but there are certainly much worse. 3/5  'Twins' was always one of those movies that people seemed to really like, but I never actually bothered with it for whatever reason. Every once in a while, it could come on TV, and I might catch a scene or two. But I'd just get uninterested, change the channel, and for all this time, I have not actually watched it from start to finish. Honest truth - all I really knew about this was that they were twins who weren't very "twin-like". So, how was this for my first viewing?
Plot-wise, we have Julius and Vincent Benedict (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito, respectively). The pair are the results of an experiment in which six different "fathers" donate their DNA in order to create the "perfect child". The embryo splits, creating the twins, and while Julius carries the strength, knowledge, wisdom and good manners these scientists hope for, Vincent carries a little more of the negative side of things. The results are covered up from their mother, Mary Ann Benedict (Bonnie Bartlett), however. She's never told about Vincent, and told that Julius died in the process. For decades, nothing is revealed, but when Julius learns of his brother's existence, he heads into the big city to seek him out and reunite. But while Julius is pretty much just after a friendship and peaceful brotherhood with Vincent, things don't look so great for Vincent's gambling debts. As one can probably imagine, a whole lot of the movie is Arnold playing DeVito's "guardian" through all of his criminal problems, while trying very hard to otherwise be a heartwarming story about them finding their father, and figuring out their real story. I suppose there's a bit of a charm to it, but truth be told, I didn't get a whole hell of a lot out of it. There didn't seem to be a lot that stood out in the comedy department (well, except maybe Schwarzenegger's classic one-liner, "the pavement was his enemy") But really, DeVito is just being that sleazy character we all know and love him for, and a bit of womanizing isn't out of the question with him. Although, it should be mentioned that his official love interest here is a lovely lady named Linda Mason (Chloe Webb), who happens to have a sister, Marnie (Kelly Preston) who is very much into Julius. So two brothers pair off with two sisters and... I guess take that as you will. It's something that feels weird, but at the same time, maybe it's just me? This is a bit of a difficult one to really, truly like as well, just on a personal level. When you come to find out that DeVito is basically "all the bad of the experiment", it feels very mean-spirited. Honestly, when things are being revealed to Vincent here, the "revealer" is a real dink about the whole thing. However, it all feels so heavy-handed that you have to feel sorry for him. The film doesn't even really have a message of "inner beauty" or anything, it's just "hey, you suck, that is actually scientific fact, and you have to figure out how to live with that". at the very least, however, Julius is a very likable character, albeit a bit awkward at times. So I guess I could say that this movie is a bit of a mess, at least emotionally. It's a little hard to tell exactly how to feel by the end of it, despite the idea that it does, in fact, end on a happy and uplifting note. The story is straightforward enough, but there's a lot of it that's very typical of the time. Crime comedies like this were very common in the late 80s and early 90s, so there's a good chunk of it that feels all too familiar. The idea of long lost brothers isn't exactly original either, even for the time. I'm probably an odd man out here, but this isn't something I'd rush back to anytime soon. 2/5  I'm gonna start this one off by putting my cards on the table (appropriately enough) and just confess that I found this to be one of those hard-to-follow movies that is, perhaps, a bit beyond me. This was also my first time watching it, so it's also a movie that I feel I'd get more out of with multiple viewings. However, at about 3 hours, it's one I need to be in the mood for.
I'll do my best here, but bear with me. It won't be my best quality review. Sam "Ace" Rothstein (Robert De Niro) is sent to Las Vegas by the Chicago Mafia to run the Tangiers Casino. While Sam unofficially runs everything behind the scenes (often quite brutally), there is still a front man serving as the casino and hotel manager named Philip Green (Kevin Pollak). Sam is incredibly successful, leaving nothing to chance with any cheaters, raking in cash, and sending some to Midwest Mafia bosses. Meanwhile, Sam's childhood friend, Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci) is also sent by Chciago boss, Remo Gaggi (Pasquale Cajano) for Sam's and the casino's protection. While Nicky does a fine job of keeping everyone in line, his own criminal activities end up catching up with him by drawing too much media attention, especially when he gets his brother, Dominick (Philip Suriano) and friend Frankie Marino (Frank Vincent) involved. This threatens getting Sam into hot water on its own, but Sam also has to contend with his drug-addled, alcoholic, former prostitute wife, Ginger McKenna (Sharon Stone) who still cares way too much about her former pimp, Lester (James Woods). So a lot of it seems to have to do with Sam being sort of caught in the middle of things. While his wife is an off-the-wall, overall unlikable drama queen of a character, Nicky ends up taking a lot of his "talents" much too far. I'm a little ashamed to end things there, but that's essentially what I got from it. Having said that, however, this is the kind of movie you have to really focus on if you want to follow it, and I did have a few distractions along the way. But once again, I do feel like I'm quite honestly just a little below this movie as far as really getting it goes. It's the kind of movie where I wish things were simplified after a long explanation. But is this something I would call a "bad" movie? Not even a little. I think I just need to view it a few more times to get more out of it. It's clear that it's cleverly written, and beyond that, I have to say I liked how "real" it got in a lot of parts. The whole ending quite honestly made me a bit uneasy, so kudos to Scorsese for his great direction. At the end of the day, it's simply not my favourite Scorsese flick, and I'm gonna end up in the 1%, I'm sure. I know this is a total classic, and I don't mean to take that away, but I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure this one was for me. It does, however, have genuine potential to grow on me over time. 3/5  For as much as I enjoyed this, I have to admit that I find many more of Scorsese's works much better. It seems in the early 90s, one of the big trends was thrillers that sort of bridged the gap between slasher horror and dramatic mysteries. The best example of such a film was probably 'Silence of the Lambs', but there were several, and this was Scorsese's take on the subgenre. As far as his movies are concerned, the only thing I've seen that would even come close in comparison is probably 'Shutter Island', which I see in the same light - enjoyable, but he's done better. For yours truly, 'Goodfellas' still has yet to be dethroned.
Anyway, the story follows a North Carolina lawyer named Sam Bowden (Nick Nolte). He lives a seemingly average, upper-middle class life with his wife, Leigh (Jessica Lange) and 15-year-old daughter, Danielle (Juliette Lewis). That is until Sam's former client, Max Cady (Robert De Niro) is released from a 14-year sentence, after being tried for the sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl. What seems apparent to Max, is that Sam had further evidence that could have lightened his sentence, or secured his acquittal. However, due to Max's crime, Sam buried the evidence, but still managed to get him less than he really deserved. This leads to Max stalking Sam and his family, and being a real jerk about it. I know how that sounds, but the way he goes about it is completely legal to any onlookers, while doing terrible things behind closed doors. Eventually, Max ends up targeting those close to Sam rather than Sam, himself, in a vengeful effort to take it al away from him. The thing about this is that the big "bullseyes" are, of course, Leigh and Danielle. Neither are even remotely close to strong characters, and they really do end up playing damsels in distress. To be perfectly blunt, I even kind of despised Danielle and her naivety here. Let's just say it makes me glad I don't have a teenage daughter to worry about with certain things. Perhaps the most fun I had with this, however, was comparing it to the 'Simpsons' episode, 'Cape Feare' (S05,E02). There wasn't quite as much as I expected, but I did love catching what I did - namely the music, which I ONLY associate with Sideshow Bob these days. Sadly, I never got to see De Niro step on a rake and thwap himself in the face. But hey, he rode the underside of the car, and that was almost enough. But for as much as I did enjoy De Niro here (who earned an Oscar nomination for this), much like Scorsese, I feel like I've seen better from him. Juliette Lewis was also nominated here though, so that might say a lot about how Oscars work (her role would almost never fly these days). By the end of it, this was a lot like the first time I saw 'The Shining' or 'Elm Street' in that I saw the 'Simpsons' spoof on it far beforehand. I did enjoy the film on its own, but the most fun I had with it was picking out all the references. It was good on atmosphere, the acting is decent, and it its goal is to make you somewhat uncomfortable, it definitely succeeds. A certain scene between Lewis and De Niro actually had me squirming just a little, knowing their age separation in real life of 30 years AND the idea that she's playing a15-year-old here. So maybe I just prefer his take on other things, namely the Mafia. This is fine, but it's nothing I'd rush back to. 3/5  Now we're going to take a look at some of the most important film material I've missed over the years; movies directed my Martin Scorsese, featuring his old go-to, Robert De Niro. I've seen some, but missed most, and we kick things off with the film that arguably put both Scorsese and De Niro both on the map. After this, they would both go down in cinematic history as one of the all-time great duos. But the path starts here, where De Niro actually plays a secondary role, but an interesting one nonetheless. He's not quite the guy we've come to expect over the years. In fact, this one's more of his comedic side - but not a family friendly one.
The film opens by introducing us to our four leads, and showing us their individual personalities; Michael (Richard Romanus), Tony (David Proval), Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro) and Charlie (Harvey Keitel). Johnny Boy is a small-time gambler, owing money to loan sharks and refusing to work to make it happen. Feeling a responsibility towards him as a good friend is Charlie, who also happens to be having an affair with Johnny Boy's epileptic cousin, Teresa (Amy Robinson).Charlie also works for the mafia, under his Uncle Giovanni (Cesare Danova), who would rather Charlie distance himself from Johnny Boy and his self-destructive behavior. Most of the movie is watching how Charlie deals with his personal divide between his devout Catholicism and his work for the mafia, which ultimately tears him between his friend, Johnny Boy, and some of the people Johnny owes money to. As for the other two characters, they are essentially a part of the group, playing side characters who own a bar, make deals in the streets, and have a fairly solid future ahead of them. They're the ones who may or may not get really hindered by Johnny's eccentric personality in the long run. But that's really about the extent of things as far as plot goes. What I really liked about this one was its overall simplicity. This wasn't another mafia movie as we've come to know them so much as a "slice of life" movie about one particular mafia character. The movie is largely just watching how these four characters act, and it's surprisingly packed with a certain sense of humor you don't always get in these kinds of movies. And the way it ends, for yours truly, is just a *chef's kiss*. Without spoiling anything, it's left open-ended, but not in the sense that you think a sequel is going to happen. Think 'Inception' or 'Thelma & Louise'. I love having to use my imagination for stuff like that because, dammit, sometimes being "spoon-fed" is just no fun. As one would probably expect from a movie from 1973, there are bound to be areas of the film that wouldn't quite fly as well today - but at the same time, when we're looking at these characters, these offenses come as no real surprise. Regardless, the film went on to be one of the all-time great "break-out" films in history. The equivalents to this for Scorsese would be along the lines of 'Jaws' for Spielberg, 'Clerks' for Kevin Smith, or 'Halloween' for John Carpenter. So it could be that this one is off the radar for some, simply due to age, but if you like a good mafia type movie with a good sense of humor, I can highly recommend this one. While it may not be my favorite Scorsese flick, I still really enjoyed it for the type of movie it turned out to be. 4/5  Unlike the other movies I have reviewed this month, '48 Hrs.' is a title that I remember once seeing, but this particular viewing may very well have been my first. In other words, I didn't remember a damn thing. Having said that, it's unfortunately a bit easier nowadays to claim this as a pretty dated piece of work they may not be able to get away with these days - much of it having to do with race. So fair warning before going into this, it is another one of those 80s flicks that's sort of stuck in its time.
As the film opens, we are introduced to convicted criminal Albert Ganz (James Remar) as part of a road gang. He meets up with a Native American man named Billy Bear (Sonny Landham) who stages a fight with him, and in the process, eventually escape the situation, killing a few cops in the process. Meanwhile, Inspector Jack Cates (Nick Nolte) is sent with two other detectives to investigate a man by the name of G.P. Polson. This results in a shootout that kills the two associate detectives, reveals Polson to really be Ganz, and makes things a touch more personal for Cates. This is when fellow cop, Ben Kehoe (Brion James) informs Jack about Ganz former partner in crime, Reggie Hammond (Eddie Murphy); a criminal serving three years for armed robbery with just six months left. With the cooperation of the department, Jack gets Reggie out of prison on a 48-hour release so that he can assist in taking down his former partner. What results is what is widely recognized as the first in a long line of buddy cop movies. Being 1982, it predates pretty much anything else I can think of in the category. Although the technicality here is that Reggie really isn't a cop, providing us with another "tomayto/tomahto" situation, like 'Die Hard' being a Christmas movie (don't argue, we see it as we see it, and I am of the Christmas mind). Anyway, the first in a subgenre (whether one agrees or not, it is highly credited as such) is a pretty big deal, as it sets the bar for something new. The problem in going back to this, and having it be so fresh in my head, is that I've seen so much more I would deem a lot better, a lot funnier, and the bar has really just been set higher in the years since. When we think of buddy cop movies now, the first ones to spring to mind are titles like 'Lethal Weapon' or 'Rush Hour', where this may not even really be in the game anymore. That said, it still makes for an interesting bit of cinematic history, all things considered. This is another one of those titles I remember being looked at very fondly back in the 80s. I can still remember a lot of grownups talking about it (this came out the year I was born, so the memories are definitely very hazy), and I can still remember a lot of laughter associated with it. I admit to a few giggles here and there, but not a whole lot stood out to me in any way. By the ends, one thing remained very clear - that this is most definitely a product of its time, and we've come a very long way since. But here I am, making it sound like it's probably not worth the watch anymore. On the contrary, I think it makes for a decent viewing with the right frame of mind. Before you enter into this, you might want to take the Disney+ disclaimer into consideration. Basically something that says "certain things were said and/or done here that aren't allowed anymore, and have since been deemed offensive". Then you can go into it, seeing it as a little piece of history. You can educate yourself on what we used to be able to get away with, and how far we've come. You can see it as the buddy cop movie that started it all (again, debatable), and do it all with the understanding that this was once a big hit. If nothing else, it was definitely an interesting title to look back on. But unfortunately for yours truly, I don't think it holds up enough to want to revisit it any time soon... the sequel on the other hand, at least has me mildly curious... 3/5  As soon as you hear those few opening chords to 'Old Time Rock & Roll', odds are, the first thing to spring to mind when hearing them is something along the lines of Tom Cruise (or *insert pop culture character here*) sliding into view with a popped collar, no pants, and an air of "freedom" about him as he's been left at home with his parents out of town. Most of the time, this would generally result in some sort of party gone awry, but 'Risky Business' takes the whole concept to the extreme.
We are introduced to Joel Goodson (Cruise - get it? "good son?"). He lives with his parents (Nicholas Pryor and Janet Carroll), is a great high school student in all regards, and has plans (that are really more his Dads) to eventually go to Princeton University. Joel participates in an extracurricular activity involving the creation of small businesses in teams of students called "Future Enterprisers". Everything is on the up and up until Joel's parents leave on a trip, where his friend, Miles (Curtis Armstrong) tries to convince him to take full advantage of his parents absence, have some fun, loosen up, and just be able to say "F*ck it!" It all starts out with the typical - raiding the liquor cabinet, driving the "good" car, etc. But a whole new and weird door opens up for him when Miles calls an escort to Joel's house for a good time. At first, there's a misunderstanding, but Joel is given a different contact who might be what he's looking for. Joel goes through with things, only to meet Lana (Rebecca De Mornay), who asks after the deed is done for $300, which leads Joel to the bank in which he has to use some pretty important cash in order to pay for his one night of fun. When he returns, Lana is gone, along with his parents expensive... egg. They eventually meet again and have a confrontation that leads Lana to leave her pimp, Guido (Joe Pantoliano), and bascially end up squatting at Joel's house, only to introduce him to the concept of running a whole different kind of business. This will get him more money than the egg is even worth, and perhaps send him down a much darker path of destiny than he initially intended. But while this would be a cautionary tale most places, the thing about 'Risky Business' is that it, shall we say, "embraces the sleaze". We get that Joel is very uptight and cautious about where he ends up in the future, but we also get his reluctance about his situation and that maybe, just maybe, he's interested in something much more edgy. For yours truly, I kind of see this as the 'Boogie Nights' of the 80s (I dunno what it would be today). It shows a certain side to the whole sex industry, but does so with escorts instead of porn stars. For 1983, it was probably a bit heavier than it stands today. By today's standards, I've just plain seen more, and there's nothing shocking about this movie at all. But I also can't think of much like it that came before it, and it really does kind of stand alone in its overall concept. So it certainly gets points for being unique, and edgy for the time. I don't know that it necessarily holds up today, but it also is what it is - a sleazy 80s comedy drama involving escorts. So I enjoyed it for what it was, but I have to admit that I don't necessarily understand the hype behind it. It's perfectly fine, but it's not something I'd be able to throw on any old time, either. It probably worked better back then than it does now. But If nothing else, it has engraved the "Old Time Rock & Roll" image in the cinematic history books, and that's an image that has withstood the test of time in a major way. As I mentioned, that scene alone represents what's going on in a lot of teenage heads when their parents make the announcement that they're going away for a few days. 3/5  Here we have a fine example of a great movie that's slowly dying. One can find it, but they really have to dig - at least up here in the Great White North, where of course, we must dig through snow. Anyway, one can only rent it here from Apple TV or the Cineplex Store, and it really, truly deserves much more exposure than that. I think the idea is something that, while simple, isn't really something that has been repeated. I could be wrong, but as far as what I've seen goes, this feels like a breath of fresh air.
A bounty hunter by the name of Jack Walsh (Robert De Nero) is hired by bail bondsman Eddie Moscone (Joe Pantoliano) to bring in a $450,000 bail-jumping accountant named Jonathan Mardukas, aka "The Duke" (Charles Grodin). The Duke's crime was to embezzle $15 million from Jimmy Serrano (Dennis Farina), a powerful Chicago mob boss. As a result, The Duke ran from LA and his bail. Walsh takes the job, demanding $100,000 for his return. When Walsh finally finds him, he ends up with more than the trouble seems to be worth, as The Duke happens to be a real talker and nit-picker. Although the character is pretty irritating, it all works when that personality clashes with De Nero's tough guy personality. Some of their exchanges are actually pretty hilarious. In the meantime, more people are chasing down The Duke for different reasons. FBI Agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto) wants to bring Mardukas in to testify against Serrano. But an angry Serrano also sends his goons Tony and Joey (Richard Foronjy and Robert Miranda, respectively) to intercept Mardukas for reasons perhaps a touch more lethal. Let's not forget Walsh's bounty-hunting rival, Marvin (John Ashton) who's a bit desperate for a bounty himself. To make matters even more difficult for Walsh's mission, Mardukas seems to have a panic-inducing fear of flying, so a lot of the return journey is on-foot or other various forms of transportation that don't "go down". This is a cross-country chase movie, jam-packed with a great cast. Some of the delivery these guys have is comedic gold. I particularly enjoyed De Nero responding to Grodin a lot of the time, and the entire side of the mob. Farina, in a way, is the cherry that really tops this sundae. He was making me laugh almost every time he was on-screen, and his two bumbling henchmen weren't far behind. It was further interesting to actually see Yaphet Kotto in a role that wasn't horror. Despite his filmography being fairly extensive, I know him best from 'Alien' and 'Freddy's Dead'. I didn't feel like he really stood out here, but he did manage to have a moment or two that caught my funny-bone, even if it wasn't intentional. It had been a while since I'd seen this, but I think I had more fun this time around than my first viewing several years ago. If you can find it, I highly recommend checking it out if you've never seen it. It's well-worth the rental cost, and it's easily one of the best examples of a mob comedy (mobedy?) I can think of. I may have a few nit-picks if I dig dep enough (like Grodin annoying me sometimes), but the truth of the matter is I had a lot of fun with this; certainly enough fun that it overshadowed any complaints I might have had - which I'd honestly have to look for. This one is hereby bookmarked as something I'll definitely be watching a few times over. 5/5  This one takes me back to around the middle of last year, when a coworker recommended it. It took me a while to get around to it, but I promised to check it out and review it on my next round of "Reader's Suggestions", and I finally made it. It was recommended as a solid Denzel movie after I brought up the fact that I find him to be one of the all-time greats, but there's still a lot of his material I haven't seen yet (which may lead me to a Denzel month soon for "Catching Up").
Anyway, something a lot of people don't know about me is that before watching almost any movie, I check out Rotten Tomatoes just to get an idea of the movie's quality towards critics and general audiences alike. Be it the critic meter or the fan meter, one is almost always higher than the other, but this actually caught me totally off-guard. The critics give it a measly 23%, but the audience seems to appreciate it as generously as 78%. This means it averages out at almost exactly 50/50, and it was very clear that it was a film I'd be analyzing from both perspectives - which honestly makes things much more fun. John Quincy Archibald (Denzel Washington) is a factory worker in Chicago, living with his wife, Denise (Kimberly Elise) and son, Michael (Daniel E. Smith). The couple are in the midst of some financial trouble when suddenly, during a little league baseball game, Michael collapses. After rushing to the hospital, John and Denise learn that Michael's heat is wearing out, and he will need a heart transplant in order to survive. The procedure will cost $250,000, with a required down payment of $75,000 just to get Michael on the organ recipient list. To make matters worse, John further learns that his job has changed health insurance policies, no longer covering him for his son's surgery. When desperate times call for desperate measures, a spark is ignited by Denise when she tells John to do what he needs to do in order to get Michael on the list. This leads to John confronting the hospital staff at gunpoint, and forming a whole hostage situation. His demands are quite plain and simple; to get his son on the list. But with his stand-off with negotiator, Lt. Frank Grimes (Robert Duvall) and police chief Gus Monroe (Ray Liotta) come the whole documentary of 'Sicko' in which the film digs into the unfair practices of the American Health Care system. In that sense, it may be seen as a bit preachy. But I can't say I don't empathize with the whole situation, either. The film represents the desperate voice crying out through it all, pleading for help. Imagine being told "you don't have enough money, so your son is out of options and won't get to live" - I don't even have kids and that hurts. Going back to looking at those Tomatometers, let's first take a look at the critical side of things. I think I understand a lot of the criticisms behind it, because I have a few of them, myself. For one, it's a movie that relies on tugging at your heartstrings. I don't tend to mind that as much as others, but I do recognize it. It goes to extremes even beyond the poor kid who is slowly dying in the background. I think it also clearly takes its "Q"s from other movies too, for instance I saw some 'Dog Day Afternoon' with the crowd cheering on the gunman, agreeing with his purpose. Besides that, it is kind of just another hostage movie; desperate man takes hostages and demands things while a celebrity negotiator tries to talk him down. On the other side of things, there's still something likable about this, and level out a lot of that criticism. For starters, there's just Denzel, himself, and that's all you really need. This is a guy who just oozes charm in whatever he's doing, even if he's being an asshole. He's one of those actors that really adds "star power" to a movie in a very real sense; perhaps because most of the time he sticks to reality, and is therefore more relatable than an actor who dabbles in fantasy or sci-fi. Otherwise, I appreciate the film's very real statement, and they use the extreme of their young dying boy for the purposes of standing out and asking "what if this was you?" Where some see it as too much, I see it as the message the film is trying to get across, and the more personal it is, the more effective it is. I appreciated what the film was, I'm glad I saw it, but it's also not something I'd rush to see a second time. Landing on the Tomatometer, I might end up more on the fans side, but while understanding the critic's perspective. Where do you land? 3/5  This month is another focus on reader suggestions. I have been keeping a list as I go, and in some cases I ask about films with certain details. In this case, I requested an international action flick - and oh boy did I get one. To me, this was a mixture of 'John Wick' and 'Taken', and adding just a dash of 'Oldboy' to it, at least as far as the film's overall disturbing nature goes. It's a very dark, badass revenge film, but there's enough here to make one cringe in just how far it's willing to take things. One might even say there's a horror element to it all.
The central character of this story is ex-special agent Cha Tae-sik (Won Bin), a man who runs a pawn shop and keeps to himself. He befriends a curious little neighbor girl named Jeong So-mi (Sae-ron-Kim) who is seemingly fascinated by him, and sees good in him where others can't seem to. So-mi's mother, Hyo-jeong (Hyo-seo Kim) is a heroin addict who one day entrusts Tae-sik with a camera bag which, unbeknownst to Tae-sik, contains some stolen heroin. This captures the attention of a crime lord named Oh Myung-gyu (Young-chang Song) who sends his brothers Man-seok (Hee-won Kim) and Jong-seok (Seong-oh Kim) to retrieve the stolen drugs. This eventually results in the kidnapping of both Hyo-jeong and So-mi, who the gang promises to release upon delivery of the stolen goods which Tae-sik has in his possession. Of course, when an ex-special agent finds himself in such a situation, especially with the kidnapping of the young So-mi, you know shit's about to go off. As one can predict, you get what you come to see. For me, it's not quit as up there in action as 'John Wick', and it's actually a bit closer to 'Taken' as far as its execution. There's a bit more of a thriller here than straight up action. But I will say that when the action does unfold, it's some pretty badass stuff. The film is certainly propelled by the same ideas as John Wick though in the sense that something of pure innocence is taken away and we want nothing to stop our hero in his mission on getting revenge. We live vicariously through this hero as he stabs, shoots and punches his way through all the bad guys - and the worse someone gets it, the better we feel, especially when we know they're horrible people. Just to appeal to the masses, this is the same feeling just about anyone gets nowadays when we watch a World War II allied soldier take out a Nazi who's in the middle of torturing an innocent civilian. I suppose there's a sort of sadistic glee we get from such things - myself included. We just want to see horrible people get their comeuppance. If you're looking for a solid revenge film and don't mind a few subtitles, I might recommend this one to you, especially if you're missing that feeling 'John Wick' or 'Taken' gave you. However, I might bring to mind the horror element to this I brought up before. There's a certain realism to this film that is downright disturbing, and there are some pretty gruesome scenes throughout, be it in the physical or psychological sense. I'm not afraid to admit there were a few scenes here that got in my head, not because they were necessarily scary, but the imagery just stuck, and some of it was a bit too real - especially some scenes involving children. The odd thing is, it's probably not disturbing in the same ways one might imagine This is certainly one of those movies that falls under the category of movies where you feel like you need a post-viewing shower because it's just that filthy. But I will say that if you manage to make it through, the ending is something pretty powerful, and I have to say it caught me right in the feels. While it maintains a dark, creepy and even dirty atmosphere, there is still something about it that captures your heart in the sense that you feel for the misunderstood Tae-sik and you sincerely want him to find So-mi because their friendship is something truly special. I would recommend this to anyone looking for something more intense. It's not exactly what I'd call fun in the same way 'John Wick' is, but it does strike that chord of vengeful badassery quite nicely all the same. 4/5  There was once a time when Kevin Smith left his Askewniverse (AKA, anything that features Jay and Silent Bob) to dabble in other things. This all basically started with 'Jersey Girl' in 2004 and carried on with 'Zack & Miri' in 2008 and 'Cop Out' in 2010. But this was all still comedy, and about the furthest we ever saw him veer off a comedic course was how dramatic 'Jersey Girl' and even 'Chasing Amy' were. So, after 'Cop Out' (which perhaps I'll review another time) bit the guy in the ass with bad reception, he decided to try his hand at real-life horror with this film.
For me, this one had a very 'Hostel' feel to it for various reasons; namely the idea of horny teenagers falling into a brutal trap. In this case, three hormone-driven dudes; Travis (Michael Angarano), Jarod (Kyle Gallner) and Billy Ray (Nicholas Braun) are convinced that an older woman named Sara (Melissa Leo) wants to have group sex with them. Upon meeting her, Sara drugs the boys, and we are offered Jarod's perspective as he wakes up in a covered cage in the hyper-conservative Five Points Trinity Church, led by Abin Cooper (Michael Parks); a hate-filled, prejudice man - especially towards the gay community. The reality of this movie pops a bit when you realize he's based on Fred Phelps; a very real and frankly scary right-wing extremist. On their way to meet Sara, the boys manage to sideswipe the vehicle of Sheriff Wynan (Stephen Root) who gets his deputy Pete (Matt Jones) to go out to look for the vehicle that hit his. This eventually leads Pete to the church where he realizes very quickly that he's gonna need some backup, namely from Agent Joseph Keenan (John Goodman) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Things eventually come to a stand-off between the authorities and the church while the boys do what they can to escape their captors. It's not exactly a plot you'd consider fresh or original, but I will admit that it's interesting to see Smith tackle not only the horror genre, but keep it in the real world (although apparently an alternate ending to this involves the Rapture). Make no mistake on this one though - it's not a fun horror movie, despite the fact that it's directed by Kevin Smith. This is very reminiscent of torture porn, although it's not nearly as extreme as something like 'Hostel'. But the general idea that someone seeking fun finds themselves drugged and held captive in any way just points in that direction. This one also has that does of reality that, most unfortunately, there are some right wing extremists out there who are that horrifying. I can't imagine actually being gay (or for that matter, any member of the LGBTQ community) and knowing that I have these real-life Boogeymen to look out for. I have no basis for comparison on a lot of things, being a straight, white, male - but I can certainly empathize when I see a film like this, and if that was Kevin's point, it worked. I can't really say I got a lot of entertainment value out of this one, but it was a fascinating one-off for a few different reasons. Namely, this includes Kevin breaking off from his regular comedy routine to try something new, bringing a reality to his horror, and basically just having the balls to tackle something so controversial. For me, this is one of those movies you watch once to try it out, but you don't feel much of a need to return to it any time soon. It's not something you can just watch over and over again like so many of his other films, but I'd say if you're curious about seeing Kevin flex that horror muscle, it could be worth checking out. Just bear in mind the controversial issues involved, as this one is bound to cause discomfort for a few. 3/5  This film has provided me with a pretty good opportunity to express my feelings on Melissa McCarthy. I have always said that she definitely has the talent, but she's so terribly typecast that she's not given the room to be at her best. Of course, since 2015, when this film was initially released, we've all seen her come pretty far. This includes a Best Actress nomination for a very serious role in 'Can You Ever Forgive Me', and I really do hope to see more opportunity present itself to her in the future, as she's such an underutilized actress.
I personally found that after watching this movie, 'Spy' may be that perfect balance of her talents. She does the funny thing, she does the serious thing, she does the badass thing, and it all comes together with a fantastic supporting cast, great dialogue, and a fair share of decent action. I can say with all honesty that this was a very pleasant surprise, as I went into it expecting something pretty bottom-shelf. I do love when a film proves me wrong though, and this is no exception. In fact, even thought it's a bold statement, I might currently consider this the most surprised I've been by a movie (although 'Jumanji' 2017 is a big contender). We're introduced to a desk-bound CIA agent named Susan Cooper (McCarthy); a techie for field agent Bradley Fine (Jude Law). Things go pretty well between them as a team, and we get that Susan has a bit of a thing for Fine's suave good looks and demeanor. However, long story short, when things go south, Fine is assassinated by a Bulgarian arms dealer named Rayna Boyanov (Rose Byrn). Having such strong feelings for her friend, partner and potential love interest, Susan eventually manages to get her first undercover assignment from her boss, Elaine Crocker (Allison Janney), to help with the capture of Boyanov. The running gag is that every time her identity changes, it's never anything flattering, and the disguises kinda just keep getting lamer but funnier. In the meantime, Susan has to go undercover due to the agency's top agent's names being revealed, and becoming easily identifiable. The two top agents in question are the seemingly fake-friendly Karen Walker (Morena Baccarin), whose confidence lets her get away with far too much, and Rick Ford (Jason Statham) who puts that cherry on top of this wonderful spy sundae. His running gag is bragging about various stunts he's done, and more often than not, I'm pretty sure they turn out to be something you may have seen him do in another movie at some point. The gag is that to hear these situations out loud is laughable, even if it all looks incredibly badass on screen. So it takes its jabs at typical Hollywood action with a modern "It" guy for the genre. Beyond having a great cast, this film is just really well written for a spy spoof. It seems abundantly clear by the way things unfold that writer/director Paul Feig has an appreciation for spy movies. For as much of a comedy/action that this is, it's a bit surprising, and a breath of fresh air, not to see it go too off the rails at any point. It's oddly believable as an actual spy movie with comedic situations as opposed to just a spy spoof like 'Spy Hard' or 'Austin Powers'. Yet as you get the gags going through the film, it's easy to tell that it's something that doesn't take itself too seriously either. It's kinda "just right" as far as a spy comedy/spoof goes. So, if you're anything like me and find Melissa McCarthy a little too typecast as a goofy character, you might find the trailer for this giving you pause. It just looks like Melissa McCarthy is gonna play Melissa McCarthy again, on the surface. But trust me when I say there is much more to this movie than meets the eye. But don't take my word for it either. Rotten Tomatoes balances the critic/audience rating on an average of 86.5%, with the critics liking it more! If you haven't seen it yet, and you appreciate a good spy movie, and are any kind of fan of Jason Stathom, this was made for you. Check it out. It's awesome! 5/5  Today, we begin another month of reader suggestions. This is where friends, family, coworkers, and even maybe a few fans throw a title out there that they would suggest I watch. The main reason is to catch up on great movies that I've missed over the years, and I had a good time with it a few months ago, so I figure this is going to be a relatively regular thing. No names will be mentioned throughout the process, but you'll know your suggestion when it pops up. This one is for a lifelong friend of mine, and huge supporter of the site.
For a "movie guy", it's actually pretty amazing how much I've missed out on over the years. Some titles falling under that category are titles I surprise myself with, and 'The Warriors' has been under that category for quite some time. Truth be told, the only, and I mean only thing I ever knew about this movie was that it was a street gang related story where some guy clinks beer bottles and utters the famous sing-song line of "Waarrioors, come out to plaayaay". It's a creepy-ass scene, but it was never enough to draw me in completely, without knowing the rest. But now that I have finally seen it, I just regret holding off for so damn long. Our story centers on gangs of New York City in 1979, that really seem to reflect the gritty side of New York street life in the 80s (it was like they knew what they had). Leader of the Gramercy Riffs, Cyrus (Roger Hill) calls a midnight summit, requesting nine unarmed representatives from each gang. He proposes a city-wide truce among the gangs, as together, they outnumber the cops by a significant amount. Together, they could take back the streets, and most of the gangs cheer. But when Luthor, leader of the Rogues, shoots Cyrus, he pegs the murder on Cleon, leader of the Warriors. Chaos ensues, and most of the Warriors escape, but a hit on the Warriors is put out over the radio, and soon it turns into survival for them. Although the film came out to critical ridicule upon its release, it has since become a cult classic reflection of the times. Some of the cult draw may have to do with the idea of it being a rare film with a violent history upon its release. Our version of that might be 'The Dark Knight Rises', which involved a massive theatrical shooting in Aurora, Colorado. 'The Warriors' was linked to acts of vandalism and three murders between showings the week following its release. Paramount pulled all advertising, theater owners were allowed out of their contractual obligation to show it, and security personnel were added to at least 200 theaters across America. That doesn't sound like a lot now, but in 1979, that was pretty significant. Getting back to the movie itself, however, we really just wanna know if I thought it was any good. Well, this movie does what a lot of movies struggle to do, and I admire it every time I see it - well-rounded characters. We have a full gang of main characters here, and the film does a good job at letting us know that while we're routing for them, they're still a tough street gang of New York, and at points you kinda second guess your liking of them. In actuality, they're just the unlikely gang that got framed. There was nothing particularly special about any of them, but in a weird roundabout way, that's what's so good about it. They stay true to who they are supposed to be representing. At no point do you get characters like the goody-goody who says "gee whiz, you guys, I think this is wrong." In short, the movie has balls. This is one of those "made for men" kinda movies; 1979's version of something like '300' or 'The Expendables', but less about action and more about survival, and holding your turf. There are some relatively uncomfortable moments, but nothing too extreme. It gets as intense as it needs to when it comes to them facing off against other gangs, and you can't really help but get into how original some of the gang ideas are. This is actually quite a creative movie, despite its overall simple plot. And speaking of creative, I did NOT know that Joe Walsh's 'In the City' was written for this movie! Most would know it as being performed by The Eagles, but it's totally Walsh's song. Anyway, it gets bonus points for that, as I am an Eagles fan, and that's a great tune. 4/5  Every once in a while, a movie comes out that passes me by at the time, and it sort of fades into obscurity. But thanks to friends who know how my mind works, I'm eventually lead to such titles. 'Fracture' is what I'm gonna round out the month of reader suggestions with, as a suggestion from a friend who clearly understands my interest in not just good characters, but a good villain.
The film starts out with the wealthy Ted Crawford (Anthony Hopkins) seemingly committing the murder of his wife, Jennifer (Embeth Davidtz) with a gunshot to the head. LAPD Detective Robert Nunally (Billy Burke) leads a squad to investigate the overheard gunfire, only to find Ted holding a gun, and confessing to Jennifer's murder. As police take Ted into custody, however, other first-responders report that Jennifer is alive, but in a coma and on life support. The attempted murder case is assigned to the ambitious Deputy District Attorney, Willy Beachum (Ryan Gosling). Willy has built quite a resume for himself with a 97% conviction rate, often achieved by handing unwinnable cases over to other DDAs. He's offered this case as his last in the DA's office, having recently been hired by the prestigious private firm, Wooton Sims. With Ted having made verbal and written confessions, and acting as his own lawyer, it's easy for Willy to see this as an open and shut case. But there's one important piece of the puzzle missing - the murder weapon. Willy soon learns that Ted may very well have the upper hand in his case when Nunally gets brought into the picture. But not willing to throw in the towel, and considering himself challenged by Ted, how far is Willy willing to go to solve and close the case? Losing could not only threaten his future with Wooton Sims, but his career as a lawyer altogether. Just how personal is he willing to make it? I'm not usually one for courtroom dramas,but there's certainly the odd exception, and this is definitely one of them. It's not quite as overly complicated as others, so that helps, but what really does it for me are the two lead characters. Ryan Gosling reminded me a bit of Brad Pitt in 'Seven' here. Although he's not quite as jokey, it's a similar personality, and he just wants to get his man. I enjoyed how determined he was to try to get justice for who, to him, was a complete stranger. It's another one I can say is a personal favorite of Goslings - somewhere in a Top 5 list. The star of the show, though, was definitely Anthony Hopkins, who pretty much reprises that super intelligent and manipulative persona he had with Hannibal Lecter. The only difference is that he's got things dialed back here. He's far less intense, a little more casual, but all of that nonchalant persona is still there, and it just solidifies the fact that Hopkins can play the villain extremely well. Often it comes across as a little too similar, but it's not a role he's been typecast to do, either. It's not something that I roll my eyes at, saying "here we go again". Other than performances (probably the best reason to check it out), I can give this one credit for being a decently gritty courtroom drama that kept my attention. Generally speaking, movies with a whole lot of talking aren't my cup of tea unless the characters are engaging, and the atmosphere feels threatening, and this movie nailed both pretty accurately. The only real downside was that some it it felt pretty implausible, but with that said, I don't know a whole lot about how law works, so some of the technicalities offered up here made me scratch my head a bit. But for what the film is, I found myself pleasantly surprised, and would definitely watch it through again to try to pick up on more. 4/5  Let it be known far and wide that I'm a huge fan of coming of age movies. It's one of my favorite sub-genres, but for me ranges from fun adventures like 'The Goonies' to deeper character studies like 'The Breakfast Club', or even just a deep look at friendships, like 'The Sandlot'. And they are still alive and well today, with great titles like 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower', 'Easy A', or if you want something from last year, 'Good Boys' was a lot of fun. But here's what happens when famed director Francis Ford Coppola gets his hands on the genre.
The main focus, Ponyboy (C. Thomas Howell) is a 14-year-old boy, orphaned, living in a rough situation on the wrong side of the tracks, with his two older brothers, Sodapop (Rob Lowe) and Darrel (Patrick Swayze). Darrel is constantly on Ponyboy's case, since becoming the primary caregiver of the household, while Sodapop gets caught between their opposing sides. They are all Greasers, a north side gang, often from broken homes. Among them, Two-Bit Matthews (Emilio Estevez), Steve Randall (Tom Cruise), and Ponyboy's best friend, Johnny (Ralph Macchio). Ponyboy often worries that with their gang activities, the authorities will eventually split the family apart. This increases when the volatile Dallas (Matt Dillon), head of the Greasers, is released from prison, carrying his short fuse with him. Even though the other guys in the gang aren't nearly as bad, people generally see the whole gang as Dallas, with his nasty exterior. He's too often looking in the direction of their rivals, the Socials (or Socs), who are more or less the polar opposite; rich, entitled, see themselves above everyone else, and represent the south side of town. A chance encounter between Ponyboy and a girl named Cherry Valance (Diane Lane), who happens to be a Soc named Bob's (Leif Garrett) girlfriend. This results in Ponyboy and Johnny getting into a brutal fight with some Socs, in which a real tragedy occurs, amping up the rival gangs, and amping up Ponyboy's concerns for his family and friends. This one definitely lies more on the deep, dark side of things, focusing primarily on Ponyboy and Johnny, who are just teenagers, struggling to grow up in such rough conditions. We get sort of an inside look here with these two, and it's actually pretty scary. They are easily empathized with, because all they want is something better for themselves, as opposed to this gang life. What more can I say? The long list of talented young actors, and the director kinda speak for themselves, saying "this is something you need to see", at least, if you're like me and enjoy these kinds of movies. Unfortunately, however, review-wise it doesn't usually tend to do great. It's fine, passable, but not necessarily great. If I have one criticism of my own, it's that it kinda gets melodramatic at points. But it was never enough to ruin it for me. Personally, I'd say it's one of the most interesting titles to look back on, if you haven't seen it yet. The main reason being that this was a lot of early career work for these actors, so in a way, it's a bit of a time capsule. Check it out if you have a couple of hours to kill. I actually really enjoyed it. 4/5  It's probably safe to say that in the grand scheme of things, for the most part, SNL-based movies don't exactly hit home runs. However, there are still a few great titles among them, and for most people's money, it would probably be a toss-up between 'Wayne's World' and this; a title that I was altogether familiar with, but have only seen all the way through a couple of times. So this is a revisit to see how well things hold up.
Elwood Blues (Dan Aykroyd) picks up his brother Jake from prison, being paroled on good behavior after three years of a five year sentence. A visit to the orphanage where they grew up reveals that the orphanage owes $5,000 in back taxes. In order to help their old orphanage out, the brothers head out on the town to try to get their old band back together and raise the money. So what we have here is the combination "save the rec center"/"get the band back together" story. There's also a musical twist here, which adds to the film's whole theme. The good news is that when I speak of a musical twist, it's nothing but talent from the time, including names like Cab Calloway, James Brown, Chaka Khan, Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles and more. The film is very musically representative of the time, and it does a good job these days of pulling on those nostalgic strings. The first couple of times, the musical outbreaks can be a bit jarring, but over time, one can get into it. Aside from the music, however, what really fuels this movie is its sense of humor. The brothers are ever-casual and cool, and the whole time we have an angry Carrie Fisher trying to dispose of them. We never really find out why until the end, and that gives us a great gag. Through the movie, her kill attempts are so over the top, they're downright cartoonish - but that's what makes them so funny. This one is often considered a downright classic from the 80's era, and it's pretty easy to understand why. There was a certain "all-outness" to the 80's, and this film was no exception. I can almost see this as a fairly typical Disney animated muiscal film, but for adults. Even today, there's still plenty of edge to the exploits of these two characters, most famously perhaps a drive through a shopping mall while outrunning cops. I forgot to mention that this also serves as a crime movie in that the brothers find themselves on the run from cops as well as "Chicago-Nazis", which adds to the thrill ride of things. The cops start really chasing due to Elwood driving with a suspended license, and the "Nazis", well, they're a smaller part of the whole thing. They're kinda just meant to be an extra thing for them to deal with, knowing that because they represent Nazis, we're all good with the brothers causing them grief. While it's not all the way up my alley, I can't deny that it harkens back to how fun the 80's were with film. This is one of those "everything" movies that has a little something for everyone, be it humor, good songs, action, or more humor. All in all, it's just a lot of fun, nothing to take seriously, and it's a great flick to watch for those of you born in 2000-something who are somehow into 80's material. 4/5 |
RSS Feed