The Ridiculous 6

Haha people are so dumb. Did you read THIS story? It says that Netflix has stated that 2015's The Ridiculous 6 got the most-ever views for a movie in its first 30-days upon its release. Hahaha why would you watch that crap? Ah, so, yeah, I watched that crap. Call it morbid curiosity, but I watched it. If this doesn't prove that I'll watch just about any western, I don't know what does. And away we go!

An orphan who has lived with the Apaches most of his life, Tommy (Adam Sandler), a.k.a. White Knife, has grown into a respected warrior who's a specialist with knives. One day, a famous bandit named Frank Stockburn (Nick Nolte) rides into the village claiming to be Tommy's father, and that his long-lost treasure is not too far away. Before they can go get it though, a vicious gang of killers swoops in and kidnaps Frank. Stunned at the revelation his father is alive, Tommy is in hot pursuit behind the bandits, but he's in for another surprise. Out on the trail, he keeps meeting the seeds of Frank's past. That's right, he meets five half-brothers, including Ramon (Rob Schneider), Little Pete (Taylor Lautner), Herm (Jorge Garcia), Chico (Terry Crews) and Danny (Luke Wilson). Working together, can the six brothers save their long-lost father from certain death?

To say this flick had a checkered production would be an understatement. Originally supposed to be released by Warner Bros., it was dropped. Netflix scooped it up and on things went! During production, 'Ridiculous' caused a stir when some of the Native Americans working on-set walked off, upset with the movie's portrayal of Indians. My thought there is 'Really? What did you think this was gonna be?' It all led to that point where I saw the trailer for the movie and thought "Oh, come on, that can't be good if Netflix had to showcase it rather than a theatrical run.' So what's to say of director Frank Coraci's straight-to-Netflix western? Well...

It's pretty awful. There are some laughs along the way -- genuine laughs -- but they're generally lost in a sea of recurring jokes that go nowhere, awful characters, and a story at 119 minutes that is a touch on the long side. I've mentioned my worries about comedic westerns early and often as I've written these reviews over the years, and the same issues are here. If you don't handle it right, it's just goofy to downright dumb. Coraci (a frequent Sandler director), Sandler and co-writer Tim Herlihy clearly know the western genre. They pick and choose some stereotypes here and some cliches there and mix it all together into one jumbled-up mess. Some of the end results pay off with laughs while others flop.

Two things ultimately got me through this flick. Okay, maybe 3. 1. I wanted to write a review. Look at all those movie stars! 2. I love westerns. 3. Okay, it was just 2. Adam Sandler's movies aren't meant to be classics. They're supposed to be fun. So what I did like here was the often very stupid dynamic among the actual Ridiculous 6. White Knife is the stoic anti-hero, Schneider's Ramon, the Mexican bandit, Little Pete, the mentally challenged idiot (a truly painful performance to watch), Garcia's Herm, the mute, mammoth mountain man, Crews' Chico the saloon piano player, Wilson's Danny the gunfighter looking for redemption. The group even...sings (so there's that) about finding their Dad. There are some good gags here, including Chico "revealing" to his brothers that he's actually black (gasp!). Same for a scene where they discuss their ridiculous skills and talents, The payoff is worth it.

Who else to watch out for? I liked Will Forte as the leader of the Left-Eye gang, bandits who have shown the commitment to the gang by tearing out their right eyes, including Clem (Steve Zahn), already down to one eye when he joins the gang. I won't give away all the surprises -- you can do that by looking at the full cast listing -- but it was cool to see guys like Harvey Keitel (a gunslinging saloon owner), Danny Trejo (bandit leader), Steve Buscemi (barber/doctor in a truly disgusting scene), and John Turturro (Abner Doubleday introducing baseball to Indians) pop up here and there. Plenty more familiar faces pop up here and there so keep your eyes peeled throughout for some good, some bad and some just plain dumb.

What's unfortunate I thought was that there actually was a fair share of potential for a western spoof/satire here. I did laugh here and there throughout. Unfortunately, most of that potential gets swept away in a sea of donkey diarrhea scenes (twice), one scene of bathroom humor after another, jokes about third nipples, odd special effects overdone sight gags and generally that feel that a 13-year old giggled his way through writing the screenplay. I'm not giving it a positive rating, but it isn't so awful that it's not worth a watch, at least to experience the mostly badness mixed with the at-times goodness.

Now what about a sequel...

The Ridiculous 6 (2015): * 1/2 /****

To Live and Die in L.A.

I don't know what to say sometimes. I watch a movie and hmm, I just don't know where to start. When facing that issue, it's usually a bad thing, a movie so awful, so horrifically bad the words or criticisms just ain't there. Other times....yeah, this is the other time. A weird, scary, off-beat, violent and overall, just a damn excellent flick, 1985's To Live and Die in L.A.

Working out of the Los Angeles field office, Secret Service agent Richard Chance (William Petersen) is about to be without a partner as his longtime fellow agent (Michael Greene) is only days away from retirement. The partner instead turns up dead at a remote desert warehouse, and Chance knows who he was investigating, a professional counterfeiter, Eric Masters (Willem Dafoe), who they have long been after. Swearing to put away his friend and partner's killer, Chance will stop at nothing -- NOTHING -- to get Masters who has proved very elusive when it comes to proving his guilt. Saddled with a new partner, the more button-down John Vukovich (John Pankow), Chance follows the evidence where it may lead, but Masters has some trouble of his own. Who can get to the other one first? How far will either man go to get what they want?

With 1971's The French Connection and 1973's The Exorcist, director William Friedkin had one of the most impressive one-two punches of back-to-back films...well, ever. He followed them up with a string of movies that struggled -- for whatever reason -- to get any footing to the point that this 1975 cop thriller/drama is considered by some as his comeback of sorts. What a comeback it is. It works because of all its moving pieces. Stylish and innovative, it is very 1980's. It is equal parts dark, gritty, brutally violent and uncomfortable at times. And then for good measure, 'Live and Die' has a little art-house in its story and characters. Quite the mix, ain't it? This is the sort of movie that shouldn't work, but does it ever, almost in spite of flaws that would cripple most other movies.

Through his previous movies, Friedkin had shown his ability not just as a director, but as an auteur. He made films, not always movies. He was willing to try something different, to reach for something difficult, to not settle for the status quo. 'Live and Die' is a case in point. It's like a procedural cop drama/thriller...on steroids and cocaine with some LSD thrown in. Friedkin freaking GOES FOR IT. The style is schizophrenic, the score from Wang Chung incredibly 1980's, the violence in your face, and even some frontal male nudity, not to mention a whole lot of guy butt. Stylized, computer title cards show the progression of time, and Los Angeles ends up becoming an additional character, a charged-up backdrop to the ever-crazy story developments. How far will it go? How far will Petersen's Chance go? Getting there is more than half the fun. It is the definition of an unpredictable movie, and that is rarely a bad thing.

I grew up and will always associate William Petersen with O-N-E part...that of CSI's Gil Grissom. This was his first starring role, starting a handful of late 80's/early 90's flicks that seemed to indicate Petersen was going to be a star, a big one. It never quite came together, but my goodness, what a starring debut.  The rogue cop who plays by his rules -- laws, procedures and protocol BE DAMNED -- is absolutely nothing new to the genre, but Petersen injects a ridiculous amount of energy to Agent Chance. He brings balls. He brings swagger. He brings uber-confidence. How good? At a certain point, you're not even rooting for him anymore to the point he's unlikable but you just can't look away. Chance is manipulative, intimidating, not above breaking the law, and callously disinterested in anything that doesn't affect the case.

Part of it is the look. It is the mid 1980's, and Peterson's Chance wears tight jeans at all times, badass sunglasses, badass boots, badass leather jacket and...well...badass. He reeks of cool. He's an adrenaline junkie. He pushes his partner too far. He basically blackmails a parolee/informant (Darlanne Fluegel) into a sexual relationship. He threatens lives left and right, some being claimed. I keep coming back to swagger. There is a physicality to the part, Petersen running like a maniac through chases scenes, brimming with energy in interrogations, intimidatingly subtle when he wants something. What a part. What a performance. Clearly impacted by those cop movies before him (French Connection, Bullitt, Dirty Harry) and clearly an impact on those still to come.



Dafoe is terrifying just because he's Willem Dafoe and looks and appears terrifying. He's a villain. That's it. No real background or motivation, his Masters is just a supremely talented counterfeiter looking to make one big payday after another. Quite the match-up of stars, quite the cat and mouse game (but who's who?). Along with Fluegel and Pankow (an excellent supporting part of a conscious-riddled cop), look for John Turturro, Debra Feuer, and Dean Stockwell as a high-class, scumbag lawyer in key supporting parts.

When filming the famous French Connection car chase, Friedkin apparently wanted to do bigger and better but simply ran out of time. The run-off falls to this flick, and it does not disappoint. Chase and his new partner kidnap someone for reasons because of a case (Just Watch It) and things go horribly wrong in a bullet-riddled chase and shootout through Los Angeles' backroads, highways and of course, the Los Angeles River. The capper is an incredible driving sequence as Chase drives into incoming traffic in hopes of getting away relatively unscathed. It is an absolutely insanely tension-packed extended sequence, expertly shot, cut and edited by Friedkin and his crew that belongs on the same level as similar chases in Bullitt, French Connection and so many more I'm forgetting. An amazing sequence to watch.

What a crazy movie. I have a picture of Friedkin filming and editing his film, basically flipping the bird to anyone and everyone in front of him. I kept thinking while watching this thriller that 'Live and Die' was Friedkin as a renegade director before Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez took over that notion in the 1990's. Friedkin is -- simply put -- at the top of his game here. It's days later, and I'm still thinking about this one. It keeps building and building to one of the most surprising, trippiest finales I've ever seen. Genuine shock value on several different levels. Can't recommend this one enough. Also, one movie kept popping into my head as I watched this 1985 film as having a huge, profound impact on said newer film. That movie? Drive with Ryan Gosling. Watch both and tell me they couldn't be impeccable companion pieces.

To Live and Die in L.A. (1985): *** 1/2 /****

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Like the western, the historical epic has seemingly gone the way of the dodo bird. The genre was at its most popular in the 1950s and 1960s, turning out gigantic epics like The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, El Cid, Spartacus, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and that's just some of the biblical epics. About a year ago, I was naturally curious when I read that director Ridley Scott was at the helm of a new epic about Moses and the Hebrews' escape from Egypt. Reviews were mixed to negative, but it managed to make decent money in theaters. So where does 2014's Exodus: Gods and Kings fall? Let's see.

In ancient Egypt, a new pharaoh, Ramses II (Joel Edgerton), has been appointed after his father dies. The fiery new pharaoh has help at his side in the form of his stepbrother, Moses (Christian Bale). Many years before, an orphaned infant Moses was picked up in the Nile River and taken into the home and temple of the then pharaoh, Ramses' father. The Hebrew man grew up somewhat knowing his past, his blood, but he's moved on...until now. Seeing his stepbrother as a potential threat to his throne, Ramses exiles his brother. Moses survives though, starts a family in a far-off, isolated village and moves on. Years pass though and he continues to hear the plight of the Hebrew people working as slaves under Egyptian rule, still the cruel Ramses. There has long been rumors and teachings that someone will save the Hebrews, and that man may just be Moses himself. Can he realize it? Can he go back to Egypt and convince his brother to peacefully let the slaves go?

So basically everyone knows the story of Moses, of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, the plagues one after another, the parting of the Red Sea and the eventual 40 years of wandering in the desert. I read about it a ton as a kid growing up, at home and in school, and then I saw the 1956 epic The Ten Commandments, still shown on ABC every Easter. That's both a good and bad thing for Scott's epic. It's familiar...but it's familiar. I liked it but didn't love it. There's the necessary spectacle and scale you need in a biblical/historical epic and a solid cast, but there are equal part flaws and misses that handicap the movie's potential.

There seems to be a trend going on in history books, on history documentaries, miniseries, all of the above. I think it's a good trend, one I've enjoyed watching as it develops. It's pretty simple. Look at history with a questioning eye. Did the Exodus story happen just as the Old Testament said it did? No, probably not, and that's where Scott steps in. In the movie's strongest moments, he's able to blend that Old Testament story with a fresh eye, a clean look at the story. In a different sense (and a necessary one), he tries to distance himself from The Ten Commandments, many viewers most familiar connection to the story. What was Moses like? What was Ramses like? What was the world they lived in throughout ancient Egypt? It provides a fascinating jumping off point into a dark, dirty, violent and particularly nasty world that we thought we knew.

Christian Bale is one of my favorites. I thought he was the best thing going by far in American Hustle, his Batman movies are great, and if he's in a cast, I'm pretty likely to at least give the movie a chance. In a cast that features quite a cast but not much in the term of characters, Bale is the one to get out unscathed and represent himself quite well. His Moses is a three-dimensional person, a man struggling with what may be his destiny, his fate, the thing he's supposed to do with his life. Is it going to be easy? Not in the least, and that's what he's grappling with. When it comes right down to it, will he make that difficult decision? Bale isn't great, but he's pretty good in a cool leading role. Edgerton too is one of my favorites, a budding star looking for those great roles that will propel him into stardom, but this isn't it. The script does him no favors, an old school, power-hungry villain who comes across as more cliched than a real person. Too bad because Bale and Edgerton's scenes together are a high point. I just wish there was more of them.

The rest of the cast is given little to nothing to do. The names are impressive but any sense of character development was left by the wayside. Look for John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul, Maria Valverde, Andrew Tarbet and Ben Kingsley in smaller parts. Two solid smaller parts go to Ben Mendelsohn as a cruel district commander who couldn't care less about the slaves he rules over and young Isaac Andrews as Malak, a child who is God's human representation on Earth, communicating with Moses about what's to come. A scary, intense performance from a talented young actor. I especially liked Bale and Andrews together in their scenes, especially when Paul's Joshua looks on, not seeing Bale talk to anything at all. What he sees is a man seemingly talking to himself in the middle of the desert. Uh-oh, here we go with some faith-based questions again!

 Now if the focus isn't on character development, it's gotta be somewhere else, right? You would be correct. 'Exodus' embraces the moment in terms of scale and gigantic qualities you'd come to expect from a historical and Biblical epic. The plaques and plights an angry, violent Old Testament God sends down upon Ramses and Egypt are a sight to behold from the locusts, frogs, blood in the water, to the diseases, and most frighteningly, the killing of all the first born sons of Egyptians, these scenes are the movie at its best, strongest and most comfortable. But by far, the most exhilarating scene is the chase across the Red Sea, Moses and thousands of fleeing Hebrews pursued by Ramses and his chariot army as the receding sea charges back at them, the waves growing ever-higher. An incredible sequence, one of those great uses of computer-generated imagery. So in epic terms, this movie is a huge success and well worth seeking out.

I just wish there was more heart somewhere mixed in with the scale and spectacle. It's a pretty decent movie with some great moments. Still worth recommending -- especially to fans of biblical and historical epics -- but it's good. It could have been much more.

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014): ** 1/2 /****

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Joel and Ethan Coen are the movie director equivalents of chameleons. They do a little bit of everything from a horrifically violent, dark crime thriller like No Country for Old Men to genuinely funny (and still horrifically dark) comedies like Burn After Reading with all sorts of classics and near-classics among their filmography from Fargo to Big Lebowski, Blood Simple to Raising Arizona. But how about a story based (even loosely) off of one of literature's greatest works? A daunting task for sure. That's 2000's O Brother, Where Art Thou?

It's 1937 in the deep South and three convicts, Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), Pete Hogwallop (John Turturro) and Delmar O'Donnell (Tim Blake Nelson), have managed a daring escape from their chain gang. Their reasoning? Everett told his fellow prisoners that he hid away a huge treasure from the robbery that ultimately landed him on the chain gang. He's only got a few days before the treasure's location is washed away, a valley being turned into a lake as part of a hydroelectric project. Chained together at their ankles, the fugitive trio is working against the clock, the road ahead of them full of obstacles both external and internal amidst a gubernatorial race as well. All sorts of people stand in their way, both those hoping to help them and those trying to stop them and in some cases, stop them. Time is running out, and Everett has a secret up his sleeve.

There just aren't too many directors out there with more visual and storytelling style than the Coen brothers. How many directors could pull off a transition from a poem from classic Greek mythology to a similar story in pre-WWII deep south with a heavy reliance on folk music, quirky characters and an episodic story that could be called downright random? Not too many as I sit here writing this review. The Coen Brothers on the other hand make it look pretty effortless. It is a fun movie from beginning to end, the generally random shifts in tone, humor and laughs moving things along at a brisk pace in a 107-minute movie. In other hands, things might have gotten bogged down but that certainly isn't the case here. A very solid, entertaining movie.

Through all the zaniness in the deep south, we follow our intrepid trio on their journey. The chemistry is pretty perfect, Clooney, Turturro and Nelson showing off that effortless chemistry that simply works. The Coen brothers also wrote the script, their quirky humor showing through in the three convicts. Clooney as the vain, motor-mouthed, ultra-confident Everett, the unofficial leader of the group. His preference for Dapper Dan hair pomade consistently gets him and his traveling companions in trouble, his insistence on looking his best (he wears a hair net to sleep to not muss his hair) providing some great moments. He uses $20 words when a $1 word would cut it. His long rambling monologues are pretty great, a man trying to show others how smart he is. Turturro as Pete is a bit of a wild card, prone to frustrating outbursts as their plan unravels. The best characterization goes to Blake Nelson as Delmar, the sweet, thoughtful and generally naive convict who simply has a nice, positive outlook on life.

These three out-there escaped convicts are searching for Everett's buried treasure from an armored car robbery. But naturally, what do they end up doing? They become renowned folk singers, Everett thinking quick on his feet to name themselves The Soggy Bottom Boys (based on The Foggy Mountain Boys, their hit song a cover of Man of Constant Sorrow. Whether it's the Soggy boys singing or T-Bone Burnett's folk-heavy soundtrack, the music is a hugely successful, essential ingredient to the movie's success. The music is always there, always catchy, driving the story forward, the score transitioning scene-to-scene. It's the music and style that works, the Coens using digital color correction to give 'Brother' an almost washed out, sepia look to the story. All those little things that add up to a really enjoyable movie.

We've got three crazy characters to follow across the south, but following Homer's footsteps in The Odyssey, our trio meets some odd characters on the road. Part of the fun is figuring out who's who in relation to the poem. We've got a loving-life bible salesman (John Goodman), a gubernatorial candidate (Charles Durning) seeking reelection, his hot-chasing opponent (Wayne Duvall), Everett's frustrated wife (Holly Hunter) and her new beau (Ray McKinnon), infamous gangster Baby Face Nelson (Michael Badalucco), down on his luck musician Tommy (musician Chris Thomas King), a blind radio programmer (Stephen Root), the sheriff (Daniel von Bargen) in hot pursuit, the blind seer (Lee Weaver) who warns the convicts of what awaits them and lastly, Pete's cousin (Frank Collison) who's curious why Pete just showed up...in chains.

When the Coens decide to do something, they commit to doing it right. From the set design and style to the script and the characters, their movies create these little worlds that are folksy and real and authentic. A very enjoyable movie with some great parts and a lot of laughs. An easy one to recommend.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000): ***/****

Quiz Show

Everyone loves a good game show, don't they? Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, Jeopardy, The Price is Right, Wheel of Fortune, Deal or No Deal, they're all entertaining, bringing millions of viewers in. There's always something shady though -- to me at least -- about a lot of game shows. Some seem far too easy, others just the opposite and far too difficult. Let the conspiracy theories fly when whopping amounts of money are involved. Based on a true story, 1994's Quiz Show jumps right into some backstage shenanigans.

Starring on one of 1950 TVs most popular shows, Twenty One, New Yorker Herb Stempel (John Turturro) is on a huge hot streak, having won the trivia show and advanced in six straight weeks with thousands of dollars of winnings. His ratings have plateaued though, and the studio wants a new winning contestant, forcing Herb to answer a question incorrectly as he faces personable, good-looking Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes). A very intelligent man and trivia whiz himself, Van Doren goes on a crazy streak, winning week after week and making the money to boot, American audiences falling for him instantly and catapulting him to stardom. Watching the show though, a Congressional lawyer/investigator Dick Goodwin (Rob Morrow) is suspicious of what's going on, smelling some sort of fix or conspiracy. He couldn't be right, could he?

From director Robert Redford, this 1994 film received almost unanimous support from critics and fans, even earning nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay (no wins). It is based off the true story of the game show Twenty One, a highly popular television game show that caused a scandal when it was revealed contestants were coached and/or given answers. The end result is a highly polished, well told story that features a great cast and a well-written script that is easy to appreciate. In the end unfortunately, something is missing that keeps it from being a classic. I liked it, but as the movie moves along I liked it a little less. More on that later.

With a deep cast assembled, the main focus nonetheless remains on three characters; Morrow's Goodwin, Fiennes' Van Doren and Turturro's Stempel. Three young, talented actors all bring these real life individuals to life, not just cardboard cutouts of real people. I thought Turturro should have gotten the Best Supporting Actor nod, but that instead went to screen vet Paul Scofield as Van Doren's father. Turtorro's Herb is quirky to say the least, a man with seemingly infinite knowledge who resents what was taken away from him and wants to gain some fame in the aftermath. As his replacement, Fiennes is smooth, suave and likable as Van Doren, the contestant who questions the morals of what they're doing but eventually goes along with it. The actor without much of a following, Morrow too does a fine job as Goodwin, a dogged investigator who stops at nothing to get truth and answers when he senses something amiss. It's a good trio to lead the way.

Along with Scofield as Van Doren's father, 'Quiz' is almost showing off with its talented cast. David Paymer and Hank Azaria are an excellent team together in their sliminess, Dan Enright and Albert Freedman, the Twenty One executive and his assistant who head the behind the scenes corruption on the show (with some higher studio "encouragement"). Christopher McDonald is good in a smaller part as Jack Barry, the smooth, popular host of Twenty One. Also look for Mira Sorvino as Goodwin's wife, and director turned actor Martin Scorsese as an advertising executive who more than has his say in how contestants perform (i.e. = who advances and who doesn't). As well, there's a handful of parts for actors who would become recognizable faces on film and television in the coming years. Check out the cast listing or give it a watch and see who you can spot.

One other aspect worth mentioning is the attention to detail. Everything from the clothes and wardrobe to the haircuts and cars, furniture and decor, sets to dialogue, it feels like we've been transported to the 1950s. Everyone almost always seems to be smoking a cigarette/cigar in a nice little touch too. More than the look though, we get a sense of what 1950s America and television was like. We see families surrounding TVs to catch the latest installment of their favorite shows. Quite a departure from the 6,000 channels available to most viewers now, huh? We see news spreading at a different pace -- no Twitter, Facebook, e-mail -- and an innocence balancing out with a more sinister reasoning with dollars as the bottom line. It's the little things.

So enough with the positives. It clocks in at 133 minutes, and from the 60-minute mark on, it feels long. Very long. Movies almost solely dependent on talking, dialogue and a script are tricky. The dialogue and acting is all good here with a lot of talent putting it all together, but it feels repetitive, even slow-moving in long stretches. I won't say self indulgent, but it's awful close. When the tension and drama should be ratcheted up during the Congressional hearings, I'd already lost interest. So much time is spent on the relationship between Goodwin and Van Doren that it takes away from the natural drama of the situation. It's still a good movie, but the issues here definitely affected the final ranking, tearing it down a notch.

Quiz Show (1994): ** 1/2 /****

He Got Game

As a director, producer, New York Knicks fan, and writer, Spike Lee is one of the most dividing names currently working in films. Just about everyone has an opinion on Lee -- for good or bad -- but somewhere in there around the strong opinions and controversial comments is a very talented director. One of his best was obviously an important film for the diehard basketball fan, 1998's He Got Game.

A high school senior living in Brooklyn and caring for his sister (Zelda Harris), Jesus Shuttlesworth (NBA star Ray Allen) is a basketball star and the No. 1 recruit in the country. The world is smothering Jesus as he makes his future plans. Does he forgo his college eligibility and declare for the NBA Draft or does he decide on a university to attend? It's a decision that could cost or produce millions depending on how it works out. It's a decision that the Governor -- an alum of Big State University -- is interested in. He cuts a deal with Jesus' father, Jake (Denzel Washington), currently wasting away in Attica. Jake will be "released" for a week with one goal; get Jesus to commit to Big State, and his sentence will be severely shortened. 

I'm a fan of Spike Lee, not a diehard fan, but his films are always interesting. Now whether you take them as good or bad interesting, that's a different story, but I typically enjoy his films. However you feel about Lee, I think this is a film where you have to give him credit. 'Game' tries to accomplish a lot in its storytelling, and for the most part, it accomplishes that. It's frightening in Lee's ability to make a film that so accurately predicts the future, in this case the business of sports. Jesus' decision in theory just effects him, but that's a naive way to look at it. Everyone in the world and business of sports will be dramatically affected by his plans. Look at 'Game' in 2012, and the things we see are familiar, normal, everyday things we'd see on ESPN. Not so much in 1998. Think LeBron James, and you've got this movie.

One of Lee's trademarks as a director is his style, and that's evident here. The opening montage shows basketball (and sports on a bigger level) at its purest, kids and teenagers playing from a wide variety of backgrounds and locations. They play out of love because they want to. Watch it HERE starting at :30.  A monologue later from one shady guy (Roger Guenveur Smith) who claims to have Jesus' best intentions at heart is frightening in its accuracy. Everyone Jesus has ever met is about to become his best friend. What should be a pure, innocent and personal decision -- a 17, 18 year old kid picking his college choice -- becomes something dirty. Everyone involved starts to see the $ all over Jesus. It's sad that this is where sports has gone, but it's the truth of the business.

When this movie is clicking on all cylinders, it's that cynical nature that works. The most effective dramatic, emotional moments come from the interaction and completely shattered relationship between Jake and Jesus. We learn why Jake is in Attica, and more importantly why Jesus despises him. The performances from Washington and Allen are the best things going for 'Game.' When has Washington ever not delivered a worthy performance? None I can think of. His Jake is not an easy character to like, but that's the beauty of it. He knows he made mistakes, but he also did certain things the right way. The best thing going is we're not sure of his intentions. Does he want Jesus to go to Big State because it's what is best for him or because it will get him a reduced sentence? Playing Jesus, Allen (a Milwaukee Bucks star at the time) delivers a natural, heartfelt performance, better than just about 99% of all athletes' performances in a movie. Oh, and his jump shot is disgustingly beautiful to watch.

There are moments of perfection in this father-son relationship. The movie is at its strongest when focusing on this reconnecting, but certain scenes ring truer than others. The best scenes are those of Jake and Jesus on a basketball court. In quick, little snippets, we see Jake pushing Jesus as a little boy to get better. Later, we see an encounter where maybe Jake pushes too far, and a 12-year old Jesus responding with frustration like a 12-year old should. The best scene -- and one of my all-time favorites -- is a one-on-one game between Jake and Jesus as time runs out on Jake's "mission." Jesus is a significantly more skilled player now, but it's still a battle, Jake giving him nothing. Watch it in its entirety HERE. Stylized, message, story, I think it's one of those rare perfect scenes.

Before I forget, there are some other halfway decent actors/actresses around. Milla Jovovich plays Dakota, a prostitute Jake meets, while Rosario Dawson is particularly memorable as LaLa, Jesus' girlfriend who is up to something. 32-year old Hill Harper is effective playing Booger, Jesus' cousin and teammate. Jim Brown and Joseph Lyle Taylor have some fun as Jake's ever-present parole officers with Ned Beatty playing the warden at Attica cutting a deal with Jake. Bill Nunn is a slimy scene-stealer as Jesus' money-grubbing uncle with Michelle Shay as his more thoughtful aunt. Also look for Lee favorite John Turturro as a coach pulling out all the stops to recruit Jesus. Sports fans should also look for countless cameos from Michael Jordan to Shaq to Reggie Miller with countless coaches and TV personalities making an appearance.

Say what you want about Spike Lee, but he's a talented director, and this is one of his best. Give it a shot. I don't know how long this link will stay up there, but check out the full movie HERE at Youtube.

He Got Game <---trailer (1998): *** 1/2 /****  

Miller's Crossing

Quirky, darkly funny, extremely violent, all trademarks of the films of the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan. You basically know what you're getting yourself into when you head into a Coen brothers film. While I've liked all their movies -- some more than others -- I've noticed a recurring trend. The movies? They're entertaining and technically? Pretty much perfect. But they often keep you at arm's length, forcing you to watch a story develop without having a huge interest or personal investment in the characters. Win-lose? That was my first thought on 1990's Miller's Crossing.

It's the Prohibition and in an unnamed city, Irish gangster Leo (Albert Finney) rules with an iron fist, his right-hand man, Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne), at his side. Leo's power is hanging in the balance though, Tom seeing that things can change with the snap of a finger. The hard-drinking, gambling Tom is caught in the middle and not helping matters by sleeping with Verna (Marcia Gay Harden), Leo's girl. While Leo tries to hold onto his power, an Italian gangster, Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito), is moving quickly to step into what he hopes will be a power void. Able to think things through easily, Tom concocts a plan to get out cleanly, but with so much on the line, nothing is going to be easy, and it's going to come at a bloody price.

In his 1990 review, Roger Ebert pointed out that 'Crossing' is the best of two worlds; a gangster pic with a film noir setting. At its best, it succeeds because of that. Made on a relatively small budget, it wreaks of authenticity (I mean that in the positive sense by the way) from the 1920s period authentic suits and hats to the classic cars to the weaponry. It feels like we've been dropped into a 1920s city about to be torn apart by a mob war. The look of the movie is incredible, dark colors and backgrounds, shadows everywhere hiding things as needed only to reveal secrets suddenly and shockingly. The heavily Irish-themed score  (listen HERE) from Carter Burwell is hit or miss, but when it works, it really works. I get it. 'Crossing' is a great movie to watch and revel in, enjoying it for all the elements that help make a movie a classic.

Yeah, that's right. Here comes the curveball. Why then do I feel so apathetic to the movie? It was a good movie, but it is missing that special something. The cast -- more on that later -- is immensely talented, the script full of witty banter, surprising, startling violence, and a twisting, turning story that only comes together late. But many reviews I read simply said "You should like this movie if not love it." Not many actually say why so in my head? I'm thinking people like this movie simply because they're told to. Yes, I know there's more to it than that. It's a cold movie, one that I enjoyed but didn't jump into head first. I wasn't particularly interested in any of the characters so as the story threw twists and turns at me, I wasn't surprised, shocked or even that interested. I hear reviewers say "It gets better on repeated viewings." To me, that sounds like a huge cop-out.

Now just because the characters aren't likable doesn't mean the performances aren't worth mentioning. A self-identified 'son of a bitch,' Byrne's Tom is the perfect anti-hero. He's a lead character who is nearly impossible to read, much less completely figure him out. I especially liked the brotherly, even father-son relationship, between Byrne and Finney's Leo. It's the longtime partner and the veteran crime boss, both very talented in their unique fields. Polito is a surprising scene-stealer as Caspar, the Italian (eye-talian according to the Irish) gangster caught up in a developing mob war, and Harden is an out of left field but dead-on pick for Verna, the femme fatale. John Turturro is appropriately slimy as Bernie, Verna's conniving brother, J.E. Freeman as Dane, Caspar's enforcer of sorts, Steve Buscemi as the weaselly Mink, and Mike Starr and Al Mancini as Caspar's on-the-street enforcers. Frances McDormand (the Mrs. Joel Coen) also has a small part as the Mayor's secretary.

Many of the usual Coen brothers touches are there. The violence isn't graphic, but it certainly jumps off the screen. A hit attempt gone wrong on Finney's Leo is a gem, the experienced Irish gangster blazing away with a stolen tommy gun, seemingly never reloading despite firing hundreds of rounds. The sound and visual is indescribable in this extended scene. For the most part, the touches are a little off though. Attempts at that very dark, even sinister, humor felt incredibly out of place and even forced at other times. Other scenes are just plain weird, like Caspar slapping his son for telling him what he had for lunch or a schlub boxer screaming like a little girl while someone else gets beaten. The story is pointed and knows where it wants to go so these outlandish attempts at the dark humor fell short for me.

I'll give credit where it's due though. Emotionally investing? Maybe not, but 'Crossing' is definitely an interesting movie. Many parts felt like the script was trying to tell us something, deliver a profound message. Symbolism is everywhere, leading many fans/viewers to make all sorts of crazy conclusions, many of them oddly related to whether all the male characters were gay. Tom's hat comes to take on a deeper meaning, but what exactly? I can't say I even have the vaguest notion. Maybe this is a movie that would drastically improve with repeat viewings, but while I moderately enjoyed it the first time, I don't see myself revisiting it very soon. I feel like I've been writing this a lot lately, but here it is again. Lots of potential, didn't quite live up to it for me.

Miller's Crossing <---trailer (1990): ** 1/2 /****

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

I'm not quite sure why I went to the midnight showing of Transformers: Dark of the Moon late last night/early this morning. It still seems ridiculous to pay $11 to see a movie regardless of how much I actually like going and seeing new movies (a lot by the way). The first Transformers movie was tolerable even if I didn't love it, and the sequel -- Revenge of the Fallen -- has to be one of the most painful experiences I've ever had in a movie theater. But here I sit having watched the third one, and who would have thought of this? I liked it.

No, I didn't love it, and I probably don't ever need to see it again, but for a one-time viewing I can admit it. I....actually....enjoyed.....a.....Transformers....movie. Wooo, it's almost therapeutic admitting that. Each movie in this trilogy at its best is a disposable summer blockbuster and epic that is supposed to entertain, excite and dazzle.  The master of everything extravagant, over the top and needlessly ridiculous, director Michael Bay actually tightens his final movie. Yes, some of the humor is still a little much, and as cool as the finale is, it does goes on for far too long. Compared to Revenge of the Fallen though, it's a masterpiece in filmmaking.

After teaming with Optimus Prime (voice of Peter Cullen) and the rest of the Autobots to save the world twice, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is struggling to adjust to adult life. He's living in Washington DC with his new girlfriend, Carly (Victoria Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), but he can't manage to find a decent job. He's thrust back into the battle between the Autobots and the Decepticons once again when Megatron (voice of Hugo Weaving) unleashes a plan that threatens to destroy the Earth. Dating back to the original Moon landing in 1969, the government has managed to keep a secret about this battle between factions. But now it threatens to tear the world apart. Trying to save Carly and teaming up with Bumblebee and the NEST team, Sam joins the fight in hopes of finding some way to defeat the seemingly impregnable Decepticons.

I'll say this now, and get it out of the way. This review is going to ramble some, but I'll do my best to keep it on point and somewhat focused....unlike the movie. At 157 very long minutes, this movie is just too long however you cut it. The first 90 minutes are surprisingly un-Michael Bay like with a minimum of action. To his credit, Bay pulls back the reins on the humor department, actually turning to some character development and surprise, surprise, some decent dialogue. Who would have thought of that? Still, there's too many characters, far too much going on at all times, and flaws galore, but I still found myself liking the movie in spite of its flaws.

Maybe the biggest surprise is how far LaBeouf has come from the first movie. By this second sequel, I found myself actually liking the character and rooting for him. The early parts of the movie actually humanize him a bit so you feel like rooting for him. Some of LaBeouf's acting eccentricities are still there, but they just work better here.  Whether it is his relationship with Carly or his feeling of loss not seeing Bumblebee, there is actual emotion in the script. It sounds so simple, but after the generally organized chaos of the first two movies, I'm stunned. Set the bar low enough and see what happens? Good things! He has a solid chemistry with the very beautiful, Barbie doll-like Huntington-Whiteley and manages to provide some of the movie's funnier moments as he copes with being an adult.

I can't explain it, but Bay is able to assemble some serious talent for his scripts that typically have 800 or 900 speaking parts. The best and newest additions to the trilogy were Frances McDormand as a CIA defense agent and John Malkovich as Sam's eccentric, partially crazy boss. Neither part requires either actor to do any heavy lifting, but both consumate professionals look to be having a lot of fun -- especially Malkovich. Patrick Dempsey joins the cast as Dylan, an extraordinarily rich businessman working with the Decepticons. Those are the best additions, but a majority of the cast returns too.  Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson return as Colonel Lennox -- leader of NEST -- and Epps, since retired from the unit but back to join the fight with Sam when needed. John Turturro gets to ham it up as since-retired special agent Simmons, but in a slightly more subdued way than 'Revenge.' A small part for Hangover star Ken Jeong is everything that's wrong with Bay, his sense of humor and his lowest common denominator for laughs while Alan Tudyk is a scene-stealer as Dutch, Simmon's assistant. Also a bonus, Sam's parents (Kevin Dunn and Julie White) are relegated to much smaller parts.    

Living in Chicago the last couple years, it was hard to miss Michael Bay and his production descend on the Windy City. News and media covered it extensively, and as a Chicagoan I was definitely looking forward to seeing how the city looked on the big screen.  It was worth the wait. I wasn't checking my watch, but I'm guessing at least the last hour takes place exclusively in downtown Chicago on Wacker Drive along the Chicago River. It is an orgy of action and CGI (superbly well-done by the way) that doesn't know when to quit, but it is something else to watch. Seeing the city torn to pieces was more than a little odd, but the combination of all these gigantic robots duking it out with Sam, Carly, Lennox, Epps and their teams maneuvering through the city is great. The action is top-notch that could have easily been edited/shortened, but I don't think either of those words is in Michael Bay's lexicon.

The movie certainly starts off on a high note as some history is explained, tying the first Moon landing in 1969 into the battle between the Autobots and Decepticons. It's that type of conspiracy theory that's absolutely ridiculous but is still a lot of fun to watch and just go along for the ride. 

Comparing the three movies there isn't/wasn't a huge difference among them so I'm struggling to put my finger on why I liked this movie. Some of it has to do with the on-location shooting in Chicago, some of it Bay actually toning things down, and even the cast making the most of an average script. Composer Steve Jablonsky turns in a solid, exciting and action-driven score, and Linkin Park adds their new song -- Iridescent -- to the soundtrack. The action is crazy, the CGI amazingly real, and even when I'd felt like I'd been sitting in the theaters for days watching the movie, I still enjoyed it. A classic it is not, but it is the definition of a summer blockbuster flick that goes perfect with a jug of popcorn. That's all I was looking for.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Where do you even start with a movie like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? I'm not one to pass up a midnight movie so I went and saw this last night with a sellout crowd. You know going in what you're getting, lots of action, explosions, crazy CGI, all the makeups of the classic summer blockbuster. I mildly liked the first movie so I went in with modest expectations at best for the sequel. Somehow though, it didn't even live up those low expectations, and I'm not even sure where to start.

A plot for a movie like this is about as unnecessary as it gets. It needs something to push the action forward and let the CGI take over from there. Here, even getting to that point is slow-going. Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is off to college after saving the world from the Decepticons in the first movie with Optimus Prime and the Autobots. Life's pretty good for young Sam, he's got a gorgeous girlfriend, Mikaela (Megan Fox), and things have settled in nicely. But as he's moving, Sam finds a piece of the cube from the 1st movie with the little splinter giving him these crazy hallucinations with weird symbols.

Things develop and next thing you know new Decepticon leader Starscream is leading a rescue effort for Megatron, buried deep in an ocean trench, all in the hopes of helping the Fallen, a disgraced Decepticon, get back to Earth and take over the planet. There's more going on there, but it doesn't matter. The story bounces along and around so much it's hard to keep track of what's going on. Suffice it to say, most moviegoers aren't plopping down $11 to see Transformers for its well-written script.

So where to start? Just like the first movie, I enjoyed parts of the sequel and hated others. I'll get the negatives out of the way first. At 147 minutes, it's way too long. The Sam-to-college intro takes far too long to develop and tries too hard to get laughs including Sam's extremely annoying mother buying 'special' brownies and downing a whole bag. It's the type of college that never really exists, frat parties with strobe lights, pounding bass, beautiful girls dancing on tabletops and of course...cake with a serving knife. Uh, yeah, right.

In general, the humor is just too much from start to finish. Some good one-liners are needed in a movie like this, but not every other line of dialogue. Sam's parents, Kevin Dunn and Julie White, serve no purpose at all and provide many of the more groan-inducing lines, the Mom more than the Dad. Two new Autobots have been added, Mudflap and Skids, and might be the two most stereotypically offensive, annoying characters ever. SPOILER I hope they died in the battle with the sand-eating Decepticon, but I couldn't tell for sure.

Now for the action, what people pay to see right? Some criticisms of the 1st movie said there wasn't enough robot vs. robot action. Well, Bay took that too heart and overdoes it here. I'll give props when they're due. The CGI in both movies is so ridiculously good that at times I believe there's actually an Optimus Prime fighting Megatron. It rarely looks fake like so many other big budget blockbusters. But the problem for me is that when it comes down to it, it's still 2 nameless robots beating the crap out of each other. They're so detailed it's hard to even tell what's happening until one or the other rips his opponent's arm or head off. The finale in Egypt goes on far too long as robots go to town on each other.

To the casting now, both the good and the bad. I didn't care for LaBeouf much in the first movie, thought his character almost ruined Indiana Jones 4, but came around some when I saw Eagle Eye. He's actually pretty good here, toning down some of his eccentricities from the first one. He still yells too much just to yell, but it was his storyline that kept me at least somewhat interested. That storyline is with smoking girlfriend Mikaela, the babely Megan Fox. By no means a great actor, she's believable here as Sam's girlfriend, their relationship in general is pretty believable. Bay of course know his audience and has Fox running in slow motion in a ton of shots as you can see above, I lost track after 7, and changing and undressing and posing on motorcycles. I am that audience so I'm not complaining, just pointing it out.

My favorite part of the first one was the soldiers, Josh Duhamel and Tyrese, dealing with the appearance of the Decepticons in the Middle East. It didn't seem as forced as the rest of the movie. Two years later in the sequel, they've been upgraded to the NEST program, a joint operation betwen U.S. forces and the Autobots to protect the Earth. Their characters aren't given much to do, but they're cool characters even if they talk in overused, well-known movie cliches like "This isn't going to end well" and "What the hell is that?"

John Turturro returns as Agent Simms and with new arrival Ramon Rodriguez as Leo, Sam's roommate, a conspiracy theorist, provide the most annoying pairing in the movie. Turturro, almost always dead on in his parts, provides most of the comic relief or at least attempts at it but is just too overdone to be enjoyed. Rodriguez is required to scream every few minutes and look worried before saying something stupid. Other than that, no big casting changes although Australian beauty Isabel Lucas is good in a small part as Alice, a fellow freshman with the hots for Sam.

That's the movie in a nutshell, well a big nutshell I guess. I realize that with summer blockbusters we're not looking for all-time classics, but I do want to be entertained. By the last 40 minutes or so, I was bored to tears hoping all the robots would just kill each other and be done with it. It felt to me like Michael Bay came up with all these great ideas, threw them in a blender and started filming. The movie's all over the place with no real sense of direction other than crazy, stupid action, and even Megan Fox's hotness can't save it although she tries her best. And brace yourself, there's a third one coming! GASP! Keep it in mind when we're supposed to think Sam's dead. Ooops, spoiler alert.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Asking movie fans about remakes can be a touchy subject. I tend to agree most of the time that remakes aren't necessary depending on the movie and studios should just come up with new, creative ideas instead of going back to the well repeatedly. On the other hand, I don't get it when fans are against ANY remake. If you don't want to see it, don't. I've rarely gone into a remake thinking, "Hey, I bet this is better than the original." I'm usually looking for an entertaining story with some alterations to the story, casting, whatever. I got that with the new The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.

The original Pelham One Two Three is a cult classic in its own right with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw as the two leads with one big claim to fame, providing inspiration for Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. So the remake, with bigger names headlining, still had some pretty big shoes to fill. Is it as good as the original? I'll have to think about that, but gut reaction, close but not as good.

The story is the same with a few slight changes. On a New York subway train, Pelham 123, four men led by Ryder (John Travolta) hijack a single car with its 18 passengers. Getting in contact with the Metro Transit Authority headquarters, they make their demands. They want $10 million in one hour or else they will start shooting a passenger for every minute they're late. At the other end of the radio at MTA HQ is Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), a former supervisor demoted to a desk job while under investigation for supposedly taking a bribe. What follows is a cat and mouse game as Ryder and Garber talk back and forth while NY desperately tries to put together the $10 million ransom.

The heist-like premise is a good one that quickly brings up interesting questions. They've hijacked a train, but how will they escape once they get the money? They're underground after all. It's a tense movie as Ryder, either the sanest villain ever or the craziest, I just can't decide, plays mind games with Garber and hostage negotiator Camonetti (John Turturro, good as always). A SWAT team waits at either end of the single car waiting for the order to take down the hijackers while inside the quartet are one push away from blowing away the hostages.

Enough has been changed that director Tony Scott left his mark on the movie to set it apart from the original. There's an element of technology added to the heist as Ryder has a wireless connection to Google his counterpart on the other end of the radio, and the aspect of the stock market comes up. The heist isn't as straightforward as the original with bigger plans at work, but with a reveal of Ryder's identity late in the movie the additions work. Scott's movies are often more known for their style and flash than story, and that's true here to a point, lots of slow motion blurry shots, quick cuts that can be hard to keep up with, but the director doesn't go too far with it.

There's a natural tension in the story that would be hard to mess up from the director's chair. An hour is not a long time, especially when talking about getting $10 million from a bank and then driving it through NY traffic with the time remaining. The mayor (James Gandolfini in a great part) does question at some point, "Why didn't we just use a helicopter?" Because Mr. Mayor, then we couldn't have the cool race through Manhattan as a squad car with motorcycle escort weaves through traffic.

Working with Scott for the fourth time, Washington is the heart of the movie. His Garber character is an everyman, John Smith trying to care for his family, go to work and pay his mortgage and his kids' tuition. It's the type of part that Washington could do with his eyes closed, and he doesn't disappoint. Most of the running time, all Garber can do is talk, desperately trying to stop Ryder or at least slow him down. There's a twist that works to a fault and does come as a surprise because well....he's Denzel Washington. Hamming it up as the villain, Travolta goes too far at times, but for the character his theatrics are appropriate. He's the bad guy you love to hate but can laugh at too with how off the wall some of his comments can be.

'Pelham' is Washington's and Travolta's movie. The rest of the cast makes the most of smaller parts, especially Turturro and Gandolfini, but other than those two parts no one stands out. One of my favorite character actors Luis Guzman is criminally underused in his part as Ramos, one of the four hijackers. The other two hijackers, Victor Gojcaj and Robert Vataj, are intimidating, but I don't even recall hearing their names. The two are characters with automatic weapons, and that's it, but I guess that is what the script called for. Michael Rispoli and Ramon Rodriguez are good in smaller roles as two members of MTA headquarters.

I didn't love the remake like I wanted to, but I did enjoy it. I can chalk up a lot of that to the trailer which really convinced me to see it. The ending is forced a little too much for me, but the build-up makes up for that. So overall, it lived up to my expectations of a remake. Good but not great, and worth a watch. I do recommend seeing the original, if for nothing else than to compare the two. Go see the Pelham remake, if for nothing else than Washington in a great part going toe to toe with villainous Travolta.