JFK

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was traveling by motorcade in Dallas when he was shot and killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Or so some think at least. One of the most tragic events in U.S. history, Kennedy's assassination has sparked hundreds and thousands of theories. Was Oswald working alone? Was it a government conspiracy to kill Kennedy? Maybe no one will ever know for sure, but the conspiracy theories abound. Enter stage right, 1991's JFK.

The district attorney in New Orleans, Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) is stunned like so many Americans when news of President Kennedy's death hits the airwaves. He watches with morbid curiosity and a desire for answers as Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) is arrested for the murder and summarily shot by Jack Ruby two days later. Several years pass, but by 1966, Garrison is bothered more and more by the details of the assassination. With help from his staff, Garrison begins to do his own investigation, and the results are startling. What exactly happened in the days and months leading up to Nov. 22, 1963? More importantly, what happened after? The more they find out, the more Garrison smells a government cover-up.

From director Oliver Stone, this is quite the ambitious project. For starters, because it involves such a touchy subject as the JFK assassination, everyone has at least somewhat of an opinion on the subject. More than just viewer opinions, the amount of info, theories and evidence involving the assassination is endless. Type in 'JFK Conspiracy' at Google, and see how many results you get. So walking through a virtual filming minefield, Stone takes on a gargantuan task. The end result is a thought-provoking, somewhat meandering (at 206 minutes) story that throws a lot at the viewer, but if you pay attention, it's not a difficult movie to keep up with.

The goal from the beginning is simple; Stone intends to put that bug in your head that the lone shooter theory -- Oswald shooting Kennedy -- just isn't the way it happened. Recent studies show that some 60% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy involving the shooting. Stone has always had an aggressive shooting style, but it's a positive here. The entire movie is basically one interview after another -- quick cuts, fast editing, flashbacks galore -- as one piece of evidence piles up one on top of the other through Garrison and Co.'s investigation. The story is based on the true-to-life efforts of Garrison and his staff (with some tweaks here and there), but it plays like All the President's Men or any number of other films detailing an investigative report.

Ready to be impressed? This is one doozy of a cast, starting with Costner who delivers a likable, human performance as the D.A. driven to obsession to find out the truth. The subplot with his family (including wife Sissy Spacek) is one of the few weak points the movie has. Seeing him only in flashback, Oldman is frighteningly good as Oswald, and a dead ringer physically to boot. Garrison's investigative staff includes Jay O. Sanders, Laurie Metcalf, Wayne Knight, Michael Rooker and Gary Grubbs. Don't go anywhere. I'm not to the halfway point yet. There's also Ed Asner, Jack Lemmon, Brian Doyle-Murray (as Jack Ruby), Walther Matthau, John Candy, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Joe Pesci, and Tomas Milian. Some are nothing more than a scene or two cameo, but their presence alone legitimizes their scenes. Jones, Sutherland, Bacon and Pesci are the most memorable of the group.

Presenting all sorts of what ifs and could bes, the movie builds to a courtroom scene where Garrison puts someone on trial for conspiring to kill JFK. The scene is a gem, capping off all we've heard, sene and learned through their investigation. Costner is highly effective in this scene, both pointing out the flaws in the lone shooter theory (later referenced famously in Seinfeld with the Magic Loogie, watch HERE) but also addressing the jury for what they should do. It shows one man's frustration at what he believes the government has been up to, doing something for extraordinary amounts of money rather than what's good for the country. The whole movie is enjoyable and extremely polished, but the court scene (about 35 minutes at the end) is the best thing going.

So did Oswald shoot Kennedy? Were there other shooters? We'll probably never know. But I have to give Stone's film credit. Say what you want about your own thoughts on the assassination, but Stone cleanly lays out the potential for at least one possibility. Maybe Oswald was a patsy, one man set up by larger forces at work. It's something you will have to think about yourself, but as a director, Stone does an admirable job at least making us question what really happened.

JFK (1991): ***/****

Lethal Weapon 2

So a movie that easily stands on its own is a huge success in theaters, audiences coming out in droves to theaters to see what's going on.  It has a good cast, has some fun with a known genre while adding something new to it, but in reality just doesn't need to keep on going.  That first movie is good enough on its own.  So how should we proceed?  Why, that's easy. Let's make sequels!

I use that as an introduction only because I get sick of seeing more and more unnecessary sequels being released in theaters.  As I reviewed in February, I very much enjoyed 1987's Lethal Weapon, a fresh take on the buddy cop movie.  Not surprisingly, it was a movie that would have sufficed on its own.  In theaters in the late 80s, the original made over $120 million so it was only a matter of time before a sequel(s) was released. There would be three more sequels, but I shouldn't get ahead of myself.  Let's start with the first sequel, the one considered the best of the three, 1989's Lethal Weapon 2.

During a high speed car chase through Los Angeles, LAPD officers Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) and Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) stumble across a car trunk full of Krugerrands, South African gold pieces. Because of the damage caused in the chase, Riggs and Murtaugh are pulled from the case and reassigned to a witness protection job, looking after Leo Genz (Joe Pesci), a money launderer who cleaned millions of dollars for drug dealers, skimming some off the top for himself. With some help from Leo, the officers stumble into a drug case involving South African officials citing diplomatic immunity. It's obvious the diplomats are using their immunity for all sorts of illegal activities, but what can Riggs and Murtaugh do?  They put pressure on the diplomats, but with millions of dollars involved, it's only a matter of time before the South African "diplomats" push back with force.

My concern with any series that keeps going back to the well is that things will get boring, tedious, monotonous, and repetitive.  Just two years removed from the first Lethal Weapon, '2' isn't to that point yet, not by a long shot.  Director Richard Donner keeps things interesting throughout this 114-minute long buddy cop movie, leaning more on action sequences than story and character development.  Not a criticism, just an observation.  On the whole, it doesn't even touch the first one which still has something appealing about it that is hard to explain. It's a familiar angle -- two very different cops forced to partner up -- with a fresh edge. I get the feeling with '2' there was an assumption that if you're watching the sequel, you must have liked the first one so let's not waste time developing things. Instead, let's just have some fun.

The lone exception to this is Mel Gibson as Martin Riggs, the at-times off his hinges officer prone to bits of lunacy.  We do get to know Riggs a little better this time around as his backstory involving his deceased wife is explained.  Gibson's off-screen issues over the last few years have overshadowed the fact that he is a supremely talented actor, especially here with one of his most iconic, recognizable characters.  As the straight man to most of the shenanigans, Glover as Murtaugh matches Gibson scene for scene.  Some acting duos just have chemistry, and these two pros certainly have it. There is an ease to their scenes together that can't be explained. They're close friends, willing to always help the other one in need, but they'll also bullshit each other, rip each other whenever the opportunity arises, and generally make their partner's life a living hell.  A great pairing no matter the quality of the movie.

Not that the first movie was any slouch in the action department, but Donner's movie certainly takes it up a notch...or two or 10.  The opening car chase sequence is a mess, an orgy of explosions and crashes that gets the action going from 0 to 60 miles per hour in about four seconds.  There's plenty more though, including another chase on a mountain road that plays out like a Rube Goldberg device with a rather unique capper courtesy of an airborne surf board.  Also, a memorably tense scene in the bathroom ratchets up the nerves with a bomb strapped to Murtaugh's toilet. The best is saved for last though, Riggs and Murtaugh leaving their badges behind and going vigilante.  They go gunning for the conniving South African officials at a heavily guarded shipyard in a bloody, chaotic finale.  Speaking of, how many movies over the last 20 years have used a shipyard as an action set piece? I thought of maybe eight different movies just sitting through Lethal Weapon 2's credits. Still, done to death or not, the ending is a winner.

Hamming it up as the unbelievably evil baddies are Joss Ackland as Arjen Rudd and Derrick O'Connor as his enforcer, Pieter. They are the type of villains who probably laugh at the notion of a redeeming quality in a bad guy. You know from the second they're introduced that they will be dispatched in some gruesome fashion...and they are.  The best addition to the cast though is Pesci as fast-talking Leo, a welcome presence who works well with and fits in seamlessly with Gibson and Glover.  Just one more thing Donner did to keep his Lethal Weapon series fresh. Not on the same level as the original, but still an entertaining movie.

Lethal Weapon 2 <---trailer (1989): ***/****

Gone Fishin'

Why do we remember some movies so much more clearly than others? I’ve watched classic movies, movies I should fall in love with, and within a day or so of watching said movie I can’t remember much about it.  And that’s not even considering if I did actually like the movie. On the other hand, I can remember awful, godforsaken movies and every little detail about them. So goes 1997’s Gone Fishin’.

Of all the things I remember from growing up, I typically remember strange little details about meeting people, about major events, and in this case…why I love Gone Fishin’. On a day off from school when I was in 7^th or 8^th grade, my Mom rented two or three movies for my sister and I to watch so hopefully we would stay out of trouble at home with no adult supervision. Dun-dun-duh! Gone Fishin’ was one of those classics, and even now I remember my sister bailing on it about 20 or 30 minutes in. Me? I stuck through it until the end. It became a running joke with my cousin since about how great a movie it is. Is it? Nope, not at all. It’s actually a really bad movie with two otherwise great actors slumming it. And through it all, I love every minute.

Next door neighbors who have been friends since childhood, Gus (Danny Glover) and Joe (Joe Pesci) have won a contest with the grand prize being a tricked out fishing trip in the Florida Everglades. Amateur fishermen that they are, the duo heads to Florida excited for what awaits. Instead almost upon arrival, Joe’s classic Blue Barracuda is stolen, and they’re left stranded with nothing but their small fishing boat. They quickly find out that the man who stole the car is actually a con man and a killer (Nick Brimble), rumored to have millions of dollars in cash and jewels hidden away somewhere in the Everglades. All they wanted to do was go fishing and relax, but now Gus and Joe – bumbling fishermen that they are – get wrapped up in this crazy predicament where anything could happen.

Doesn’t really sound like a comedy, does it? The story is beyond ridiculous right from the get-go and ends up playing like an extended episode of I Love Lucy with Gus and Joe replacing Lucy and Ethel.  What crazy situations won’t these two childhood friends get into? Pilot a runaway boat on a highway? Check. Have one be a sleep-walker and accidentally light their hotel room on fire? You bet. Get in a brawl with a vengeful alligator? Comic gold, and it’s all here.  It builds to an appropriately insane ending with Gus, Joe and the killer (NAME) chasing each other across the swamps on airboats. Subtle humor this is not. We’re talking lowest common denominator in terms of humor here, but it still manages to work. Gone Fishin’ is not trying to be a classic comedy. It’s just funny.

Having worked together a couple times already in the Lethal Weapon series, Glover and Pesci team up again here as Gus and Joe.  My first reaction upon revisiting this movie was that someone had some dirt on these two and blackmailed them into taking the movie. What could have prompted them to take this movie? Without stars like them, this would have been a straight to DVD/VHS movie that would be even more forgotten than it already is with them involved. But you know what? The duo – ever the professionals – commit to the story and characters. They have a great chemistry together that carries the movie through all its ridiculousness. They are funny together, setting each other up nicely in each scene. And if Pesci repeatedly lisping ‘Hey…Gussh’ doesn’t put a smile on your face, this ain’t your movie. 

As if seeing these two typically solid actors slumming it here wasn't enough, Gone Fishin' includes a couple other actors making appearances that similarly question what made them take this movie.  Rosanna Arquette and  Lynn Whitfield play Rita and Angie, two women who pick up Gus and Joe on the road and coincidentally enough also have an interest in getting their hands on the killer.  The point of these characters is never really explained although it does give Glover and Pesci a chance to use their "killer" look on the two women in hopes of impressing them.  Also in the pointless cameo department, country singer Willie Nelson makes an appearance as legendary fisherman Billy "Catch" Pooler, saving the boys from certain doom and receding into the background as quickly as he appeared.

You watch a movie like this and can't believe you're watching such a horrible movie.  Is it intentionally stupid, or did all the talent involved think this was a legitimately good flick?  None of that is even relevant though. Yes, it's awful and downright stupid right from the start. Somehow it gets worse as the story moves along. At one point, Glover and Pesci even fight with an alligator.  But through it all, it's a funny (if stupid) movie.  I laughed a ton, and even acting well below their ability, Glover and Pesci have a great chemistry together. Just know you won't be watching a modern classic, and wallow in the badness that is Gone Fishin'.

Gone Fishin' (1997): ***/****

Raging Bull

When Martin Scorsese won the best director Oscar in 2007 for The Departed, I don't think anybody thought he did not deserve the award. But was it his best movie really? Probably not, with the Oscar serving as more of a lifetime achievement for his previous five nominations in the category which he lost. So what was his best? There's a long list to choose from that includes Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, Mean Streets, and my new personal favorite, 1980's Raging Bull.

Too often biographical movies take the easy way out and only show the positive aspects of the character so Scorsese goes down the complete opposite path. His portrayal of middleweight boxer Jake LaMotta is brutally honest that doesn't shy away from showing the man as he truly was and is, he's still chugging along at almost 90 years old. There are scenes so honest and real that it can be difficult to watch as LaMotta self-sabotages everything that is good in his life.

The story starts in 1941 as a young LaMotta (Robert De Niro) is tearing through the boxing circuit on his eventual climb to the middleweight crown. But with his brother/manager Joey (Joe Pesci) at his side through the ups and downs, Jake decides to get to the top on his own without accepting a helping hand along the way. His decision ends up both hurting and helping his effort. Along the way, he marries a young woman, Vickie (Cathy Moriarty), and starts a family. But through the years, both in the ring and in his personal life, Jake's demons -- especially his paranoid, overly aggressive personality -- start to get the best of him, throwing detour after detour on his path.

The sign of a good sports movie -- with Raging Bull certainly qualifying -- is that you don't have to be a sports fan to enjoy it. And while the boxing scenes are incredibly well-done and beautifully shot, it is the story of Jake LaMotta more than anything. His fights are quick, never dragging on, but always brutal in their execution. Like Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, there is a horrible beauty to the fight. With Scorsese's decision to film in black and white (an incredibly brave but brilliant choice), Jake's story has a feel of the time it is set in, predominantly the 1940s and 1950s and gets off on a positive note from the beautiful opening, filmed in slow motion in a smokey boxing arena.

No slouch in the Oscars department himself with two wins and four other nominations, De Niro becomes Jake LaMotta for this part. He underwent months of training to make the boxing scenes look realistic -- they do -- and then packed on 60 lbs. for the scenes of a retired, post-boxing Jake. It's an incredible performance that earned him his second Best Actor Oscar, and a role that shows LaMotta for what he was...a deeply flawed individual who had problems in his personal life that ended up taking everything good from his life. Two scenes in particular stand out, both late in the movie (so beware of SPOILERS) as Jake realizes what he's done to himself. One, Jake's been thrown into prison and realizes he has hit rock-bottom. Two, the final scene as he recites Brando's famous monologue from On the Waterfront in one of the most moving last scenes I can think of, and all handled with just one extended shot.

Working with Scorsese and De Niro for the first time, Pesci hits his first major Hollywood role out of the ballpart with his performance as Joey, Jake's brother and manager. It's a more subdued Pesci -- although he does have his outbursts -- but one that counters De Niro so perfectly that it is easy to imagine the two men being brothers. They have such a strong chemistry, especially in this classic scene, that it helps make this already great movie even better. As Jake's long-suffering wife Vickie, Moriarty gives a performance that makes you question why she didn't go on to become a bigger star, and this was just her first part! Frank Vincent and Nicholas Colasanto are also good in supporting parts, but De Niro, Pesci and Moriarty are the standouts.

Lost amidst all the shuffle of great performances is that Scorsese was a great director at not only getting those performances out of the actors, but making a story that could have blah or boring incredibly visual. The black and white filming is inspired, and with cinematographer Michael Chapman, Scorsese brings his story to life. His ability is top-notch, like this impressive tracking shot, but also this family montage that shows the heart of the story. One of those movies that makes you glad movies are around. Don't know how I let this one slip by for so many years but I'm glad I caught up with it.

Raging Bull <----trailer (1980): ****/****

Goodfellas

If there is one thing director Martin Scorsese knows -- and I'd say he knows a lot more than that one thing but just go with me -- it is the gangster/mobster movie, a theme he has gone back to the well for several times, starting as far back a 1973's Mean Streets and continuing through 2006's The Departed with a few ventures spread through the years in between. With other successful movies like Gangs of New York, Raging Bull, The Aviator and Taxi Driver, Scorsese is shown he is more than just a one-trick pony, but for many fans he will always be associated with gangsters and mobsters.

Is it really a bad thing to be known for success with one type of movie? Scorsese is far from being typecast, and he can make any movie he wants at any time he wants to so I wouldn't say he's been typecast. What sets all his gangster movies apart from your average mobster flick is that he brings the underworld to life in a way where the viewer can appreciate all aspects of the life. One, there's the bond, the camaraderie that develops among these crooks, making the life almost seem glamorous, Second, the not so nice end, the betrayals, double crosses, murders left and right. Nowhere are both aspects handled better than 1990's Goodfellas.

Growing up in 1955 New York, half-Italian, half-Jewish teenager Henry Hill wants nothing more than to be a mobster. Living with his family across the street from a mobster's hangout, Henry sees the life and knows he wants to be a part of it. So he gets a job working for the local boss, Paul Cicero (Paul Sorvino), and starts working his way up the ladder. Fast forward seven years and a 20-something Henry (Ray Liotta) is a powerful member of Cicero's crew and showing no signs of slowing down. Working with Irish hitman Jimmy Conway (Robert De Niro) and livewire psycho Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci), Henry continues to make a name for himself.

He marries a Jewish girl, Karen (Lorraine Bracco), and starts a family with the nice suburban house. Everything seems to be in Henry's favor as the money from all his *cough* business ventures continues to roll in. But how many times have we seen this story? For every meteoric rise to the top, there's also the inevitable downfall. Based on a book called Wiseguy, Goodfellas brings you into the life of a mobster like few other movies have -- sometimes to the detriment of the story, but more later on that. Henry serves as the narrator (Karen gets a few voiceovers too), explaining and illustrating background in a few sentences that would have taken whole scenes to describe.

And working with a true story as a source, Scorsese nails the scenes with these underworld personalities. The dialogue crackles with energy, the banter between these guys is unbelievable, blunt, in your face, filthy, and generally as politically incorrect as possible. These scenes also serve to show the tight-knit bond and culture these guys share -- sometimes for good, sometimes for bad -- having chosen a "job" that will most likely end with a jail sentence or a bullet in your head.

For years, all I heard were positively glowing reviews for this movie, and I'm not disagreeing but parts are both sluggish and too fast-paced at the same time. In 145 minutes, Scorsese covers 25 years of story with some parts going by too quickly and then the whole last 30 minutes devoted to a single day. And as good as Bracco is as long-suffering wife Karen, the segments dealing with Henry's family don't have the same energy as the rest of the movie. That's not to say these scenes aren't good, but it never feels like I'm watching anything I haven't seen before.

The scenes that are on par with everything Godfather I and II offers are with Henry, Jimmy and Tommy. It's the type of role for Liotta that makes me question why he never became a bigger star. He might not have the most glamorous part here, but don't fool yourself...this is his movie, and he's the star. De Niro and Pesci (who won a best supporting Oscar) have parts that don't require them to be in every scene so their characters drift in and out of the story. But when they are on-screen, it's some of the best scenery-chewing (thank you Netflix for the description) you'll ever see. Pesci is a lunatic (watch this classic scene), ready to blow somebody away for insulting him, and De Niro isn't too far behind. Great parts here for two great actors.

Picking this movie on my Netflix queue, I wanted to love it but only ended up really liking it. All the Scorsese touches are there, the great rock soundtrack used to perfection, the amazing script, and that dark humor that works so well in stories like this, like THIS scene where all the mobsters are introduced. All the positives definitely outweigh the negatives, and I'm definitely recommending this one, but I'm a little disappointed I didn't like it more.

Goodfellas <----trailer (1990): ***/****