Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘1990’ Category

bonfireBoy I must have really done something to Benn to make me watch this film. I mean sure I asked him to do an essay on the Cinema de Stephen Segal, but he never did it.  And I didn’t make him because that is a hell that no one should have to deal with.  But then makes me watch this film, and when I text him and say that he finally has shown me a Tom Hanks movie worse than Joe Versus the Volcano, he laughs and says, yeah I watched and knew it was bad.  Well then why the hell make me watch it then?  Ok, so you just wait until I find something terrible for you to watch, Mr. Farrell.

Sherman McCoy, played by Tom Hanks (Nothing In Common,) is a Wall Street Bond trader who is also married with a kid.  Sherman also has a mistress Maria Ruskin, played by Melanie Griffith (Working Girl,) accidentally runs over a black teenager in the South Bronx while driving his car while in the car.  This sets off a chain of events that causes his life to unravel under the scrutiny of a minister, a district attorney running for mayor, an assistant district attorney trying to score points with his boss, and a down on his luck reporter, named Peter Fallow, played by Bruce Willis (Sin City,) looking for a story.  As Fallow starts to uncover the facts he begins to realize that Sherman is being railroaded by everyone and looks to help him out.

So to begin with we have to talk about the elephant in the room.  What in God’s name is Melanie Griffith doing in this movie?  Better yet, who the hell cast her to act in this film?  Her Southern accent is absolutely atrocious.  She hasn’t got a great voice to begin with because it seems like to me her regular voice is barely above a whisper.  Then you add an uneven and almost unpracticed sounding accent and every time she is on screen I am hating every second of it.  I know at this point in time she was coming off her Academy Award nomination for Working Girl, but that clearly was an anomaly on a otherwise unspectacular career and even Benn said in his review of Working Girl, click here to read it, she wasn’t all that good.  There is only one reason why, in my eyes, she was cast for this role and it can be seen in this picture here.

bonfiremg

While I was watching Tom Hanks in this film I was thinking of his performance in the movie The Man with the One Red Shoe.  For large parts of the film Hanks was playing this part very stiff and by the look in his eyes he wasn’t enjoying participating in this film.  There was nothing to like about his character in the film.  He is cheating on his wife and he is an arrogant tool.  So it’s hard to feel sorry for him when he discovers that everyone has decided to either betray him or frame him or use his situation for political gain.   And I really want to cheer for him because he is Tom Hanks!  Plus the writing was poor in this film, for many reasons, but one of the big ones is that it fails in showing how Hanks’s character Sherman has become estranged from his parents.  We get one back handed compliment from his wife Judy, played by Kim Cattrall (Crossroads,) about how he isn’t his dad, and we get one lunch at the beginning that shows that his father, played by Donald Moffit (Clear and Present Danger,) and his mother are concerned about him.  So this makes one of the final scenes anti-climatic when Sherman’s dad shows up in his empty apartment to tell him he loves him and supports him.  It would have been great if we had seen that they were angry with each other but that wasn’t the case so the reconciliation seemed unnecessary and pointless other than to feel good about the moment.   I will say that because it was Tom Hanks I was at least a little bit happier, so it did work, but only because I like Tom Hanks.

The other main star in this film, Bruce Willis, is also playing an unlikeable character.  He is a drunk and he writes the article based the lies of the people who have the agenda against Sherman.  So when he suddenly realizes the truth that Maria was the one driving, not Sherman, and he is helping to destroy an innocent man, it seems a little out of character for him and also self-serving.  In fact the whole point of the film is to show how one man can fall but still have everything and how a man can come from nothing and have everything, but still have nothing.  Bruce Willis also played the character of Peter Fallow in the same way he played his character on the TV show Moonlighting with one difference in that unlike the character of David Addison on the TV show, Peter Fallon has no “character” what so ever.  He is just a robotic reporter who is unable to convey emotion.

Like the three main characters, the rest of the cast, save one person, are all horrible people and impossible to cheer for in any capacity.  They are all crooked and corrupt and are just not good people and therefore I don’t care about them.  Now I am guessing that this is the point of the movie, as is I would guess the point of the book that it is based on.  The book was written during the 80’s where all the supposed evil in the country was centered in Wall Street and the people who worked in it.  So why a make a movie where you have to try and make one of these likeable?  I don’t get it.  But I did say there was one character who was likeable and that was the Judge in the Brooklyn court, Judge Leonard White, played by Morgan Freeman (Batman Begins.)  He is the one that is constantly yelling at all those who are corrupted and putting them in order, especially at Sherman’s trial.  He has a great speech about telling everyone to be decent.  Of course to me, the only other actor in this movie that has the credibility that Tom Hanks does would be Morgan Freeman.  He is an amazing actor and he had the only decent character in this movie.

This movie has no real redeeming quality because it has no one that you really want to cheer for as a hero.  Then you throw in the incredibly annoying voice and bad acting ability of Melanie Griffith and you have a recipe for disaster.  For some odd reason I remember the hype surrounding this movie back in 1990 before it came out and then the horrid reviews and box office failure of it.  I didn’t see it because of all that and now that I have seen it part of me wants to see some harm befall Benn Farrell.  It’ll pass because I don’t want it to happen, but making me watch movies like this makes me want to think it.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Oh, my God, did “Lionheart” just plain suck. Message to Jean-Claude Van Damme: “If you do the same stupid movie over and over, and yet give it different names with different characters, the public will soon tire of this kind of movie.” Maybe that’s why all of your newer movies have been direct to video. Because they, like you, suck. How many times do you have to get your ass kicked for 1 hour and 20 minutes, only for you to win it in the end? I would think once is enough for me.

Let’s see. Before this movie, you did “Bloodsport”–your only good one may I add, “Black Eagle,” “Cyborg” and “Kickboxer.” After “Lionheart,” you proceeded to do “Death Warrant,” “Double Impact,” “Universal Soldier,” “No Where to Run” and “Hard Target.” Let me count–10. That’s ten movies with the same plot, action and ending. The only reason why “Timecop” isn’t on this list, it was the first watchable movie after “Bloodsport.” That is not good.

To quote the great Benn Farrell, I suggest you all go to your local video store, find this movie, take into the bathroom, p**s on it and mail it to Jean-Clod. Maybe then, he will stop making these P.O.S.’s.

Read Full Post »

This review was a challenge from Benn to Brian.

jacobs ladderI love liberal hippies and their conspiracy theories. It allows them to blame the government, or some other entity, for their actions instead of taking responsibility. Which is what this movie is all about, government conspiracy in the Vietnam War, wow, how original. Oh, and the ending doesn’t make since and should have been re-written.

Tim Robbins (Mystic River) stars as Jacob Singer, postal worker who is a Vietnam War veteran who is seeing demons and aliens in his world as they try to capture him. He is also having nightmares about the battle in which he was wounded in Vietnam, as well as talking to his son who was killed in an accident before the War. Kind a confusing, isn’t it?

The beginning of the story is quite engaging. Obviously this guy has war issues and seeing the demons that he does would suggest a connection. For the first half of the movie, before the conspiracy theory comes to light, I found the movie very enjoyable because of this conflict. It appeared to be a man who saw something that has caused him to lose sight on reality when forced into a pressure situation, which working for the post office, would seem to be a 24 hour stressful job.

Tim Robbins performance is very steady. I guess it is easier to say that it was a very Tim Robbins performance, good but not great, conservative in his approach. Does the man know how to take a risk? I am not bagging on him, because he is a good actor, but has his performance ever changed? From Bull Durham to Shawshank Redemption his performance never changes.

The real problem is that the story just plain sucks. After the halfway point we discover that there is a possible government/army cover-up that involved his unit and the night he was wounded. This is the point where the story starts to unravel. If there is a cover-up, why did they rescue the injured men? Why not leave them to die in the jungle, dead man can tell no tales. However, writer Bruce Joel Rubin, leaves the best for the last. After Jacob learns all of these horror’s of evil government involvement, he goes back home, walks with his dead child upstairs and the movie fades into brilliant light. From the light we are moved back to Vietnam, where Jacob is lying on the table and he dies. The doctors covered him up and leave, the end. Let me be the first to say what the f*ck? He dies on the operating table in Vietnam and everything since that time is some kind of pot induced hallucination while his body fades away? Doesn’t that nullify everything that Jacob discovered? Why does he discover it when there is nothing he can do about it? This is all just very bad writing to try to prove a point that isn’t necessary.

I am sure that there are/were a lot of messed up men that came home from the war. The combination of the horror of war, and the drugs that some of them used probably made for a bad after war life. But dreaming up of conspiracy theories to justify the use of drugs or the mindless waste of men demeans the loss of men and what they died for. You are a bad man Mr. Rubin, and by the looks of your career since this movie it looks like you have been and will continue to be punished for your writing. Avoid this movie unless you like Michael Moore, then you will probably love it.

Brian – the Naked Gun

Read Full Post »