Category: Movies

I’d had this film in the cabinet for quite some time, and I watched it instead of the growing selection of recent acquisitions spreading across the cabinets beside the television.

It has been a long time since I delved into Arthurian legend. I read Edna St. Vincent Millay’s The King’s Henchman in 2007. I saw The Sword of Lancelot with Cornel Wilde and his wife Jean Wallace sometime after the turn of the century but before I started relying on Movie Reports to provide content for my great advertising and affiliate marketing empire keep my mind straight as to what I’ve seen and when.

This 1981 film retells the legend of King Arthur from the time of his father Uther Pendragon–who receives Excalibur from the Lady in the Lake and unites England, but throws it all away and relies on Merlin to help him seduce the wife of his rival. The union produces a son, Arthur, whom Merlin raises. Arthur then reuinites England pretty much off stage, and then he meets a knight errant and bests him using the power of Excalibur inappropriately. The knight errant, Lancelot, falls in love with Guinevere but does not act on it until a drunken Gawain, put up to it by Morgana, Arthur’s half-sister, accuses them of adultery. Arthur orders a trial by combat, and Lancelot returns, and he and Guinivere consummate their shared love. Morgana comes to Arthur disguised as Guinivere and conceives a son, Mordred, whom she raises to supplant her half-brother. Arthur goes into a stupor and sends his knights out to find the Holy Grail which he hopes can restore him and England. So they all go out and look, falling into Morgana’s trap, except for Percival, who finds the Grail and restores Arthur just in time for a big battle where Arthur defeats Mordred but is mortally wounded, and Excalibur is returned to the Lady in the Lake for future distribution.

Sorry to ruin the story for you. Sadly, this is the 21st century, you know, and although school children will be exposed to many fine stories of today’s political mania, they won’t learn about the legend of King Arthur, and this would indeed be a spoiler alert for them.

The film is more ponderous than other sword-and-sorcery fare of the era, such as the Conan movies, but it is trying to be a serious film and a piece of art and not just entertainment and/or a blockbuster. The pacing is a tad slow for modern audiences, and of the films I might have caught bits of at my friends’ house, sponging off of their HBO and cable, this is definitely the one without the sword with three blades in it (The Sword and the Sorcerer, 1982, which now that I’m thinking of it, I’ll look for it).

Also, some of the anachronisms in the film kind of took me out of it–not a problem when dealing with the Hyborean Age, but still: the Knights of the Round Table ride around, alone, on horseback in full plate through the whole movie. If they’d cut more of those scenes, perhaps the pacing would have been better. But I think they might have been trying for the high-budget, good looking film, and shiny armor was that.

When I was reading up on the film for this post, I was stunned at the cast. Helen Mirren as Morgana–there’s a scene where Morgana, who had used magic to stay young, as the spell was broken ages into an old woman, and Helen Mirren clearly did not turn into a crone. Gabriel Byrne is Uther Pendragon. Liam Neeson is Gawain. Patrick Stewart is Leondegrance, one of the first to pledge to Arthur. I didn’t recognize any of them because they were so young.

I probably won’t watch this film over and over, and the previous owner did not, either, as the film still had cellaphane over most of it. Which meant the picture was amazingly clear.

It’s a bit of a shame, gentle reader, that I think of this 19-year-old film as the new The Punisher, but that’s because I am old enough to remember the 1989 Dolph Lundgren movie which was an earlier take on the character. I do not think I’ve seen that film en toto, but I remember that it was made. This rendition of The Punisher, only fifteen years later, might be the first with the Marvel Studios flipping comic pages with the main titles. Blade didn’t have it, did it? It’s been a while since I’ve reviewed the Blade trilogy, and I might want to revisit them since there’s another Blade movie in the works (and I might not bother seeing it).

This film opens with a couple of guys looking to facilitate an arms deal of some sort, but it goes bad and the police drop in, but in the ensuing shootout, one of them is killed. Turns out that he’s the son of a mafioso, Howard Saint, played by John Travolta. Saint (not the Saint, clearly) places a bounty on the man responsible, who turns out to be Frank Castle, played by Thomas Jane. Castle is a deep undercover government operative who vows this is his last job, and he goes to a family reunion in the Caribbean with his family. When Saint orders the hit in the Caribbean, his wife, played by Laura Harring, asks to have the whole family eliminated, and the bad men do just that, killing the whole Castle family but only leaving Frank for dead. When he is restored to health by a local juju man, Castle returns to the country with only one thing on his mind: revenge.

So Castle sets up shop in a rundown apartment building populated by some misfits, including Rebecca Romijn-Stamos (not painted blue). And he goes about destroying Saint’s business and setting him up to do violence to those closest to him before Castle kills him.

It’s a bit on the sadistic side, but I am starting to think casual sadism is a bit of a trope in the first part of this “21st” century. I mean, some people (in movies) just need killing, but some of the killings in this film include a little pain and realization before the final offing. I dunno. I don’t mind my heroes outside the law, and I can tolerate a bit of torture (in fiction) for vital information, but modern films just include cruelty for its sake or for the cinematic sake of it, and that bothers me (says the man who has read, what, a hundred Executioner novels?)

Speaking of which, I had a little problem at the beginning because they altered the origin story…. But then I realized I was comparing Castle’s story to Mack Bolan’s origin story, and then I was mollified a bit. I mean, the Punisher character was quite modeled on the Executioner–the comic with the first appearance of the Punisher also had an interview with Don Pendleton for cryin’ out loud (speaking of the greatest gap in my comic collection).

I had a harder time with thinking that Thomas Jane (I keep wanting to type “Hardy,” which means it must be closing in on time to actually read The Return of the Native) in this film looked an awful lot like a younger Herb Alpert.

A man seeking bloody vengeance	The best musical artist in recording history

Maybe I am still confused.

So I liked the film alright in spite of the unnecessary brutality in spots. But not enough that I won’t like the reboot, although I guess that was a streaming show, which means it has been fired into the ether never to be seen again.

The film did feature Laura Harring as Livia Saint, and it’s not too often that I say, “Wow!” about an actress. But, “Wow!”
Continue reading “Movie Report: The Punisher (2004)” →

This is a buddy cop film comedy with Will Ferrell as a forensic accountant and Markie Mark as a hothead. They never get the good cases because two hotshot cops, played briefly by Dewayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson, get all the good cases, the headlines, and the nookie. When the two hotshot cops die in a foolish jump during a chase that did not have their normal Hollywood ending, Gamble and Holtz think that they have a shot to make the big time. But even though they’re on the thread of something big–a permitting violation has focused them on a British celebrity businessman who is involved in a massive bit of fraud to cover the losses incurred on behalf of a client.

So the film has rather predictable shenanigans and a recurring gag that the geeky Gamble (Ferrell) has the attention of beautiful women, including his wife (played by Eva Mendes) and an ex-girlfriend (Natalie Zea), which Holtz cannot fathom.

Eventually, of course, they get their man and save the day.

Overall, I might have confused this film with The Nice Guys, the Gosling and Crowe period piece. Well, not that closely. But I suspect that The Nice Guys is better. When picking films to watch one evening, my oldest mentioned that he’d started to watch this on Netflix but abandoned it. Given that he’s a Will Ferrell fan, this commentary probably explains why this film really never entered the zeitgeist for me to remember it outside of a profligate movie buying incident.

Well, I guess I am on a Virginia Madsen kick. I mean, I posted the trailer of Electric Dreams for a twee post on AI, and then I watched Sideways. While researching her C.V., I discovered that she was the love interest in this film from back in the 1980s, and since I just watched Highlander in January, watching this film just seemed the thing to do. Also, note that since I picked up a second set of videos in the Highlander series, watching them again will mean that I’ve watched the series through within a span of five or seven years–more than the Conan series even. Make of that what you will.

So: Highlander purists deny this film from the canon, and it’s a strange thing that there are Highlander purists and Highlander has a canon. The film strays a bunch from the thin story set forth in the first movie and retcons some things in that make little sense in a continuing franchise, but this was the 80s, man (the film’s release date was 1991, but the zeitgeist was 80s). They weren’t thinking in terms of story arcs and trilogies and whatnot then–they were thinking “Hey, can we milk this almond one more time?” So when the third movie came along somehow, it ignored the events and stories set forth in this film. Rightly so.

At any rate: The film takes place in the far off future of 2024 (that is, next year). In 1999, Connor MacLeod, grieving the death of his wife Barbara (apparently, he married the woman from the first movie) due to–radiation sickness? Severe sunburn?–helps a scientific team to build an artificial “Shield” to replace the ozone layer which a decade after the first movie has broken down enough to threaten all life on Earth (remember that? No–we remember the artificially created panic around the possibility, but by the actual 1999 we’d moved onto the artificially induced panic of Y2K). The film takes place in 2024, 25 years later, when Connor has aged.

Here’s the retcon: MacLeod and Ramirez, Sean Connery’s character from the first film, were actually revolutionaries on a planet called Zeist where they rebelled against the rule of General Katana, played by Michael Ironside. When they’re captured, they’re exiled to Earth, where they’re immortal until they slay the other Zeistians(?), which I would guess includes all the other people who were killed in the first film and the Kurgan(?). Wouldn’t they have been fellow revolutionaries on Zeist? Ah, forget it, they’re just making stuff up and not planning beyond the end of this movie. Once Connor (I keep typing Duncan because that’s the Highlander from the television series) got the prize at the end of the first film, he could have chosen to go to Zeist (but he didn’t remember that part?) to be immortal there but chose to age on Earth (the alternative) with his wife. Who then died twenty-five years before the film takes place.

At any rate, for some reason, General Katana can no longer just wait for MacLeod to die of old age and sends two goofy assassins to kill him. Earth, meanwhile, under the shield is a miserable place, hot, humid, and without the chance of rain or the site of the sun and the stars. When the elderly MacLeod defeats the Zeistian assassins, the quickening from their deaths restores his youth and Zeistian immortality. He encounters the head of a resistance group, played by Virgina Madsen, who has learned that the Shield might not be necessary any more as the ozone layer appears to heal itself, and then General Katana comes to Earth himself to tackle MacLeod and so Michael Ironside can chew some scenery. Katana makes himself partner in the parent corporation (with a smarmy corporate leader Blake played by John C. McGinley, last seen hereabouts in The Animal. Sean Connery’s Ramirez is resurrected for some quick comic relief and to sacrifice himself to save MacLeod, and MacLeod defeats Katana and turns off the Shield to save mankind (I’d say “spoiler alert,” but, c’mon, man, we knew it would happen).

That is a lot of backstory and whatnot to make essentially a low budget B-movie about swordfights. It does not add the depth that the flashbacks do in the first movie, and they really don’t add anything at all. But it’s not bad for all that, although I don’t have an emotional stake in the Highlander canon to worry about the real serious issues you guys about this film in the whole mythos. Because it really wasn’t planned to be a mythos, and it doesn’t seem to have been planned much beyond getting the film done cheaply at all.

I have additional copies of the other two films in the to-watch library, so don’t be surprised to see a movie report about Sonny Spoons chewing the scenery in the near future.

This twenty-year-old Dennis Miller live comedy video from 2003 is mostly interesting as an artifact. I mean, I like Dennis Miller and all (I can’t believe that I’ve only reviewed Ranting Again during the lifetime of this blog, but I read The Rants in 1996 and I listened to other things as audiobooks before I started writing them up as well). But I think part of Dennis Miller’s appeal, at least to me, is a bit of snob appeal–he makes a lot of clever allusions to classical works, and I chuckle to hear them.

But his humor is very topical and based on contemporary events. This show was filmed in Chicago, and the biggest responses it got were about getting ready to invade Iraq and a joke about the child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic church. Twenty years on, though, they’re not as fresh.

I have to wonder if I would appreciate this standup routine better as a book, but I’m not sure a single standup routine is enough for a whole book.

I got this film in February, and I watched it when it was amongst the latest and greatest haul. However, the February haul has been supplanted by the box load from the Friends of the Springfield-Greene County Library Book Sale over the weekend, so I will likely start in on those before I finish the ones I bought in February.

At any rate, Sideways is a Paul Giamatti film. His name is above the title. I’ve always been a fan of Paul Giamatti–I remember him from The Truman Show and probably The Negotiator, but suddenly it seemed like he was in everything. But this is the only film I recall him in the starring role.

Giamatti plays Miles, a divorced man who is a writer and a wine and food enthusiast who takes his college roommate Jack on a week-long trip to wine country before Jack’s wedding. Jack is a philanderer and a scallawag, a bit shallow, but Miles is not an unblemished character either–his marriage collapsed due to his affair, and he starts the trip by visiting his mother to wish her happy birthday and to “borrow” (he probably thinks) some cash from her reserves. When they reach wine country, Jack sees that a waitress, played by Virginia Madsen, is into Miles, and he (Jack) arranges a double date when he picks up a winery pourer (played by Sandra Oh).

The relationships progress, but Miles learns that Jack has invited his ex-wife and her new man to the wedding, so he goes into a bit of a tailspin. Meanwhile, Jack’s relationship with Stephanie progresses as well even though Jack is supposed to be getting married in a couple of days–but he declares his love for Stephanie and their planned life together. One gets the sense that he means it, too, just like he means everything in the moment. When Miles lets slip they have to go to a rehearsal dinner, Maya tell Stephanie, and everything is off, but Jack has time for one last fling with another waitress before they return with a cover story explain his broken nose (having it broken by a jilted woman swinging a motorcycle helmet would not do).

The film is most notable for having damaged the merlot industry for a few years (and boosting the pinot noir varietal), but could be secondly noted for having two fully naked sex scenes in it. Miles walks in on both, and I’m sure this is a commentary on his lack of a relationship since his marriage and perhaps a comment on modern relationships as neither is a particularly Biblically sanctioned coupling. But give how few boobs one sees in action and comedy films these days, it was a little strange. Perhaps that’s because it’s a serious movie, where such things are allowed.

At any rate, a good film, a thoughtful film, and I am sure it would have hit me in a different chord if I’d watched it when I was 30 years old and fancied myself a struggling writer (about the time the film came out, I, too, was trying to place a book). But I’m twenty years older than that, and I’m a little calmer these days. So I did not identify with Miles as much as I might have.

Virginia Madsen appeared in this film. I mentioned Electric Dreams, a film that was an early role for her, last month. So perhaps I am on a Virginia Madsen kick.
Continue reading “Movie Report: Sideways (2004)” →

This is a 1988 film directed by Roman Polanski, filmed in France obvs because if he filmed in the United States he’d be arrested if he did. Harrison Ford stars as a doctor whose wife is murdered (sorry, wrong movie) disappears from their hotel room in Paris. She’d had trouble opening her suitcase, and when a call came in, she walked out while he was taking a shower. Did she leave willingly or was she taken? The search leads him to believe that it’s the latter. Then the doctor comes across a woman whose bag the wife mistakenly took from the airport. So it’s like 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag but in Paris, and ponderous because it’s directed by an auteur.

They discover that the woman whose bag the wife had taken was not smuggling drugs as she had thought but instead had a MacGuffin, and rival governments were after it. Once they get a hold of it, they exchange it for the wife, the government agents vying for the MacGuffin engage in a shootout, and all ends mostly well.

I don’t feel bad about giving a bit of a spoiler alert there because if you’re going to watch this film, you’re watching it because you’re a big fan of Harrison Ford even though some of his film choices are questionable and didn’t age well. Or you’re a fan of Roman Polanski. Or maybe just a fan of the Barenaked Ladies, who did their bit to keep this film’s cultural relevance in 1998.

But not high on my list of recommendations.

I watched the original film last month, and when I spotted this film in February at the antique mall, I picked it up. And popped watched it relatively quickly by Nogglestead standards.

Well, if you liked the first one (which I really didn’t as it’s more of a modern R-rated comedy and not to my taste) then you’ll like this one as it’s pretty much the same story. This time, the “wolf pack” travels to Thailand for Stu’s wedding (which is not to Heather Graham’s prostitute from the first film–ah, how fleeting is drunken love!). And this time, they don’t lose the groom: They lose the brother of the Lauren, the bride, played by Jamie Chung. And they again have to recreate the events of their blackout night. Which somehow again includes Mr. Chow, played by Ken Jeong, and an appearance by Mike Tyson.

Well, it wasn’t a terribly long movie, and it ended. I didn’t get much out of it. And it is unlikely that I will watch the third part of the film. Unless I can find a copy for fifty cents. After all, Heather Graham appears in it, and Jamie Chung reprises her role, presumably as the wife this time.

Continue reading “Movie Report: The Hangover Part II (2011)” →

You might remember hearing about this George Clooney football movie. I am not sure how many people saw it. When you come right down to it, you could say that about a lot of George Clooney movies: You’ve heard of it, but you’ve not seen it. He made some interesting selections at the peak of his movie bankability: Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Men Who Stare At Goats, Syriana, Solaris–sometime after 2000, he decided his name alone could bring people in, and I guess it did, but not many. Although, to be honest, I guess I have seen a number of those in the theater, so perhaps I am speaking here without data to back it up (a blogger, abstracting incorrectly? Heaven forfend!).

At any rate, it’s probably best to not think of this as a football movie or a football comedy but more around the drama of the logistics of having a professional football team in the early part of the 20th century. Clooney plays Dodge, a player/coach for a fictional Duluth professional football team struggling to remain solvent as they barnstorm the Midwest to play other teams in similar situations. When the team goes under, Dodge convinces a college star and recently returned World War I hero (Carter Rutherford, played by John Krasinski) to play for his team to draw people into the stands–even though the team doesn’t really exist. As they start attracting crowds, a female reporter played by Renée Zellweger is investigating whether Carter’s war exploits were oversold.

So the focus is not on the playing of the football but rather the off-field antics as Dodge woos Lexie, the reporter, and tries to keep the plates of running the football team spinning.

So although it’s a comedy, like The Men Who Stare At Goats and Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? (I admit twice I added the appropriate second comma to that title, but that would be [sic]), it’s amusing in spots at best and that’s about it. Perhaps Clooney would indicate it’s too sophisticated for me. Perhaps he would be correct.

The war story, though, I recognize that as based on Sergeant York’s story, which was believed initially and then doubted for a time as more skeptical generations arose but has more recently been sort of verified. Although Carter’s story of his battle differs–he awakens from a drunken stupor to find he’s behind a German advance and captures a bunch of them from there–one can see the influence. I guess I’m not sophisticated enough to celebrate tearing down icons, even fictional ones. (As a reminder, I watched Sergeant York with Gary Cooper in 2020 and read Sergeant York: His Own Life Story and War Diary last year).

At any rate, I don’t know if I will rewatch this DVD, but I can if I want. Which is unlike football comedies like Necessary Roughness and The Waterboy which are more comedic and more focused on the football qua football.

As a closing thought, I have to wonder if George Clooney got the sense that he was a modern Cary Grant–I know some press compared him to the black-and-white star back in the day. But Grant’s comedies, such as His Girl Friday and even The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer, are funny. Or maybe just funny to people steeped in the tropes of black-and-white. Who can laugh at the jokes at Shakespeare and Jonson without reading the footnotes first. By whom, I probably mean me. And, for the record, I have never considered going Clooney.

I popped in this film after I read somewhere–I forget where–I am sorry!–that they’re making a television series based on the A.J. Quinell book from which this movie is based. As I doubt modern movie makers actually read books, I assume they’re making it from the ideas expressed in this film. So I thought I would give it a watch. Which I can do now since it’s almost twenty years old and hence an old movie.

In it, Denzel Washington plays a disolute, dissipated mercenary with a drinking problem who travels to Mexico to visit a friend (played by Christopher Walken) and to interview for a position as a bodyguard for a wealthy family: the son who inherited the family business and an American woman. The bodyguard will mostly be responsible for keeping the daughter safe, as kidnapping wealthy children for ransom is a thriving business. When the girl is taken, he vows revenge on anyone involved and starts tracking the criminals and killing them.

So the plot moves along as Creasy, the mercenary, climbs up the ladder towards the mastermind behind it, the leader called The Voice because all he only communicates through the phone. The film has enough to keep you guessing, but relies a bit much on montages.

Not a bad action film. I’ve got the book around here somewhere, and maybe I’ll pick it up sometime.

This is an 1992 John Woo film from Hong Kong action genre. To be honest, I’m not that familiar with the genre, and I’m not enough of a poseur to get into it to impress others. I will pick them up here and there when I can find them for a buck or two, but as I mentioned when I bought this film in February, that’s becoming rare as DVD prices are starting to creep up.

At any rate, the film deals with a police inspector, “Tequila,” played by Chow Yun-fat, who is working to take down a big gangster and arms dealer in the city. He encounters an up-and-coming hardman who is manipulated into killing his boss and joining up with another up-and-coming mob boss. This fellow, played by Tony Leung Chiu-wai, turns out to be an undercover agent, and they work together to take down the arms dealer who hides his weapon cache in a hospital. Which leads to numerous almost cartoonish action sequences, although they were filmed with practical effects and not green-screened and then CGIed to death.

So it was an alright film, something I would expect to have seen on cable, and not a spectacle that it would have been in 1992 in Hong Kong, perhaps.

Speaking of spectacles, the film features a brief appearance by Hoi Shan-Lai as a librarian at the scene of a hit:

I am not sure of the actual translation, but I believe that is Mandarin for Velma.

She did not appear in many films, so I didn’t see many pictures of her on the Internet to make this a full beneath-the-fold feature.

ADDENDUM: I did not draw into stark relief something that I wanted to point out with this review: This film was produced in a free Hong Kong, and that might account for some of the thematic difference between this film and mainland Chinese and Hong Kong films after the handover–Kung Fu Yoga, Shanghai Knights (Hero, and Legend of the Fist come to mind. In this film, the bad guys are not Westerners trying to steal Chinese artifacts or treasure. This film has less propaganda in it and more universal themes where the protagonists and antagonists happen to be Chinese in extraction. I wonder if those kinds of films get made in China or Hong Kong today. They certainly haven’t hit the dollar DVD market in Springfield, Missouri, if they have.

Unfortunately, my beautiful wife was put off on watching films with me after The Green Hornet, so she missed the chance to see a superhero movie based on a DC property.

This film stars Josh Brolin as Jonah Hex, a former member of the Confederate army who has become a bounty hunter who can talk to the dead. After defying his commander (John Malkovich) who wanted Hex to kill a church full of innocents, he is forced to kill the commander’s son, his personal friend. In revenge, the commander kills Hex’s wife and son and forces Hex to watch them die. Years later, Hex is still protecting the innocent in his rough manner when he’s engaged by President Grant to find the commander, presumed dead, and to prevent him from assembling a super weapon that can re-ignite the Civil War–or perhaps win it quickly for the South.

Ya know, it’s not a bad film. The main character is sympathetic. The story is fanciful, but it’s a decent action film. The CGI effects are cartoonish, and the color palette is pretty dark. But I liked it okay.

I don’t have the DVD on the desk because I passed it onto my son, who has played a lot of Red Dead Redemption 2. I think he would like it. So I recommended it to my boy, and I’ll recommend it to you if you can find it on DVD for a couple of bucks. It’s the kind of film I would have watched over and over again in the trailer back in the day were the day not 25 years before this film was made.

This might be the first Seth Rogen film I’ve seen. But, no. Apparently, I saw him in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, You, Me, and Dupree, Donnie Darko, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and the video for Lonely Island’s “Like a Boss”. In most of those, he only had a small role, though, so technically, this is the first Seth Rogen above the title film I’ve seen. And I’m pleased to say between this and my recent viewing of The Hangover, I have cemented the difference between Rogen and Zach Galifanakis in my own mind. For what that’s worth.

I watched the film with my beautiful wife who joined me because the one kind of film she will watch with me is superhero films, but I’m afraid she mistakenly thought the Green Hornet was a DC property (it’s not–the character got a start in radio serials and films originally and has appeared in comics by Harvey, Dell Comics, NOW, and most recently Dynamite). Perhaps she thought I was popping in The Green Lantern which we have in the video cabinet as well. But it was an inadvertant bit of trickery that roped her into watching a film that wasn’t very good.

It’s an origin story, of course, which puts its own spin on the character. Seth Rogen plays a playboy wastrel whose father runs the big local paper in the city. When the father is killed, he inherits the paper. A family friend is the DA, and he wants favorable coverage from the paper. Meanwhile, the heir befriends the chauffeur Kato, and whilst decapitating the statue of the father, they foil a robbery/rape attempt and decide to fight crime. Later they decide to pose as criminals themselves who are taking over the city from an old school European mobster whose mobbery lacks flash. So you get the basics of the story with a modern comedy twist.

Which, unfortunately, doesn’t work. Rogen’s Reid is unlikeable–perhaps that was his goal, but one does not identify or empathize with him. The story itself is kind of stock, without much fresh in it.

So I did not like it much, and, unfortunately, the experience will lead my wife to think twice about sitting down to watch a movie with me again anytime in the near future.

There was a brief moment, gentle reader, when the stars of 1990s and early 2000s screwball comedies transitioned into more adult-themed comedies. Whereas films like Happy Gilmore, Wedding Crashers, and Starsky and Hutch dominated the box office, their stars (Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn) kind of grew up a little and made comedies that dealt with adult concerns: families, marriages, and that sort of thing (see also Grown-Ups). This film fits into that mold.

In it, four close friends and their spouses and children are celebrating a child’s birthday when one couple, Jason and Cynthia (Jason Bateman and Kristen Bell) announce that after the stress of trying to have a baby, are considering divorce. As a last ditch effort to save their marriage, they want to go to an exclusive couples retreat on a resort island, and they want their friends to come along as well so they can get a group rate. The other couples reluctantly agree, thinking that they can lie on the beach whilst Jason and Cynthia go through the therapy exercises, but they discover that everyone must participate. So they do under the tutelage of a hippy-dippy psychologist played by Jean Reno. And each couple confronts their own relationship faults brought to light by the therapy.

So, it is a comedy, but it touches on real relationships and how they can stagnate.

The film lacks the “we all take drugs and do something crazy” motif that you find in modern comedies because that’s not what adults do.

I wonder if the impulse to the adult comedy, or at least in the wide cinematic release adult comedy, faded around that time, or if they just moved to streaming platforms in recent years with smaller niche audiences. Maybe a little of both, but this movie and Grown-Ups had heart which most R-rated comedies lack.

Two of the wives are played by Kristen Bell and Kristin Davis, whom I recognized. But Vincent Vaughn’s Dave is married to Ronnie, played by Malin Akerman, and I was not familiar with her at all.

Continue reading “Movie Report: Couples Retreat (2009)” →

This is a Rob Schneider film. So if you know what that means, you know what you’re getting: Rob Schneider acting whacky in absurd situations. Which did not prove to be a particular winning formula at the box office–well, winning enough to get a Deuce Bigelow sequel, but not winning enough that most people know what a Rob Schneider film is like. Unlike, say, an Adam Sandler film, which most people will know involves a man-boy of some sort thrust into a position of adult responsibility and having to grow up. Everyone has seen at least one, although that one is probably not Little Nicky.

At any rate, Schneider plays a civilian employee of the police force who keeps trying to get into the police academy via a physical competition/obstacle course race, and every year he fails (and wets his pants, this being a Rob Schneider movie and all). But after an automobile accident in the wilderness leaves him close to death, a strange doctor heals him with the help of animal parts. The animal parts give him strength and abilities, but also tend to give him animal impulses that he struggles with (this being a Rob Schneider film and all). So he gets to become a police officer after an incident, and he woos a nature lover/animal shelter operator played by Colleen Haskell, a participant in the original Survivor who had a brief pop culture moment which was mostly starring in this film. But The Animal starts having blackout incidents that coincide with animal mutilations in the area which leads him to worry that perhaps he should be return to the scientist and live there away from others he can hurt.

It was amusing in that Rob Schneider film way–I even liked Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo. But it’s not for all tastes, for sure.

The film also had John C. McGinley as a police sargeant antagonist. McGinley has had a long career playing similar types (as well as one of the Bobs in Office Space against type). I’ve seen him here and there enough to recognize him, but for some reason, I sometimes confuse him with Tony Goodwyn. Maybe it’s because they’re often in those second banana roles or antagonist roles. I dunno. But there it is.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to check the video library to see if I actually own Deuce Bigelow or if I have to remember to watch for it.

This film comes from the 1990s, when the movie industry let Joe Pesci star in comedies (such as My Cousin Vinny). I mean, you could consider this an ensemble cast as it includes Dyan Cannon, George Hamilton, David Spade, and Todd Louiso (who was also in High Fidelity, so apparently I am on a Todd Louiso kick like my recent Wesley Snipes and Sandra Bullock kicks, but accidentally).

This film combines comedy with Pesci’s mob roles as he plays Tommy, a transporter who is commissioned to take the severed heads of 8 members of a gang from the east coast to the west coast as proof that a hit occurred. On the flight (in the 20th century, I suppose one could suspend disbelief that a man could carry on a duffel bag with heads in it), his duffel is mixed up with that of a college student on his way to go on vacation with his long-distance girlfriend’s parents. Hijinks ensue when he takes the duffel bag to a Mexican resort and discovers its contents. So the guy tries to keep anyone from discovering the grisly remains, to keep from getting arrested, and to dispose of them while Tommy tries to find where the kid has gone and to get them back.

So it had amusing moments, but underwhelmed me a bit.

But if you’re a Todd Louiso completeist, you must see it.

I picked this film up not long after I watched The Art of War with Wesley Snipes a couple of weeks ago. Like that film, this DVD was a little deeper in the archives–meaning I did not buy it this year–but I figured that I would not be quite so primed to watch a Snipes film, especially an obscure Snipes film, as I would be right after another Snipes film. Well, this is the third in relatively short succession as I did watch Demolition Man recently even though I did not report on it–because when I ordered it, it came as part of a four-pack of Sylvester Stallone films, and I didn’t move it to the review staging area because the set has three more films in it. Sorry, I have let you down.

Also, I guess this means that I am on a Sylvester Stallone kick since I also recently watched The Expendables. But that’s neither here nor there.

So: Wesley Snipes plays Painter, a spotter who identifies targets for precision bombing. He proves how good he is in an exercise, but he has a dark past: He mistakenly “painted” the wrong target, leading to his support team getting killed. He’s drawn into a mission to identify a decommissioned nuclear plant in Chechnya before terrorists can re-start the nuclear reaction and blow it up, creating devastation and killing hundreds of thousands. However, it becomes clear that some sort of double-cross has occurred, and it’s the American missiles that will destroy the already reactivated power plant. So it’s a race against time to rescue what scientists he and his team can and to rectify the errors–and he’s not sure whom he can trust from above.

So a better film than The Art of War, although in 2005, the Russians, or certain hardline elements of the Russians, were the bad guys, some where good guys I guess? Then, as now, the internal politics and policy goals of a foreign people are difficult to ascertain. The movie itself plays a lot like a good direct to cable movie or a B movie would have been back in the day. Better than, say, Hell Comes To Frogtown or Warlords, with a bigger budget, but the Internet says they recycled some film from higher budget spectacles outside the generic military-in-the-industrial-facility scenes.

Still, not bad.

Also, it has an older (but younger than I am now) Emma Samms as a, um, psychologist/handler/love interest for the Wesley Snipes character.

Continue reading “Movie Report: The Marksman (2005)” →

This film is based on a Philip K. Dick story, so you know that it deals with messed-up memories. Not to be too meta, I’d seen this film before–whether I’d rented it from the video store or recorded it on a DVR and watched it, I am not sure–I do know (or do I?) that it’s not in my current watched video library which I am getting familiar with as I am now actually dusting it semi-weekly instead of once every six months unless the DVD is behind others, as the video library at Nogglestead is also doublestacked (or because someone did not want me to see the film again). So I picked it up in February and watched it in late March.

And, gentle reader, in keeping with the spirit of it, I had forgotten the plot of the movie. Or had it been erased from my memory, by whom, and why?

At any rate, I will post it here so that I do not forget again as long as they let me keep this site active. Ben Affleck plays an engineer, Jennings, who does work for high tech firms under strict non-disclosure agreements which involve having his memory wiped for the period of the contract. He can only work eight weeks at a time, and as his friend Shorty (Paul Giamatti) wipes his mind after his latest job, Shorty notes that it’s getting harder to do and that it’s getting risky. But a long-time acquaintance and billionaire offers Jennings a job that will make him millions but will last two years. So he agrees, and only moments seem to pass for Jennings, but he’s done what they’ve asked, and he’s released from the secure facility. He checks the value of his stock options, which have grown to a value of $90 million dollars. When he goes to cash out, though, he finds that he himself had only a couple of weeks before surrendered his options and apparently replaced the personal belongings he brought with him to the facility with seemingly innocuous items.

So he has to figure out what’s going on. Clearly, a conspiracy of sorts, as he is hunted by Federal law enforcement for treason and by others who want him dead.

I won’t spoil it for you, gentle reader who is likely me in a decade or so when I have forgotten the details of the film. It’s a pretty good bit of paranoid fiction. Ben Affleck is not Harrison Ford or Arnold Schwarzenneggar, but he does a good job here. The film also features Uma Thurman as the love interest, so clearly I am on an Uma Thurman kick (having also recently watched My Super Ex-Girlfriend). But, as with that previous post, I am not posting pictures of Ms. Thurman, insisting instead that you refer to Kim du Toit’s post which is fading into the history of the Internet already.