Eddie the Eagle

Sports and underdog movies go together like peanut butter and jelly, like salt and pepper. As a sports fan and a moviegoer, there's something warm and inspiring about those stories of people who just shouldn't be able to do what they do. Are they box office gold? Not usually, but they often enough find their niche with audiences sooner rather than later. The latest entry into the underdog genre is a good one, 2016's Eddie the Eagle.

Eddie Edwards (Taron Egerton) is a 22-year Brit who's always had one dream; he's long wanted to be an Olympic athlete. He's overcome some physical ailments growing up and has bounced from hoping for the Summer Olympics and then doing an about-face for the Winter Olympics. After narrowly missing out on making the British team as a skier, Eddie decides to go for it as a ski jumper...except he's never worked as a ski jumper...at all. Eddie moves to a training site in Germany and starts from the ground-up. After some painful but affirming jumps, Eddie seeks out the help of Bronson Peary (Hugh Jackman), a former US champion who's fallen on some hard times. Bronson thinks Eddie is nuts to continue with the training but when he sees his stubborn new student just isn't going to quit, he gets on-board, hoping to help Eddie from not dying on the slopes. Their biggest goal? Getting Eddie to qualify for the 1988 Calgary Olympics.

One piece of advice if you're going to see this sports-themed story. Don't read too much about Eddie 'The Eagle' Edwards and his story/background. If you feel like ignoring my advice, check it out HERE. I wanted to go in fresh, go in clean, and I enjoyed it that much more because of it. Even if it is a familiar story of an underdog, not knowing exactly where it's going pays off some big dividends.

Have you seen Rudy? Rocky? Cool Runnings? Hoosiers? Countless other flicks I'm missing? If you answered 'Yes,' then you know exactly what you're getting into with 'Eagle.' That's not a bad thing. If you liked those movies, you'll like/love this story from actor-turned-director Dexter Fletcher. There is simply something charming and reaffirming about underdog sports stories. You can call it cliched, stereotyped or cheesy, but as a sports and/or movie fan, it will always be fun to see those stories, especially when they're based on true stories, like here. The story sticks to the truth -- mostly -- and does condense some parts of Eddie's life and training for the sake of a streamlined movie. The gist of it is there though, a strong-willed athlete who doesn't grasp the concept of 'You can't' or 'You shouldn't' because he wants nothing more than to obtain his goal of being an Olympic athlete. Can't we all get on-board with that?

Last seen saving the world from a diabolical mastermind -- in Kingsman: The Secret Service -- Taron Egerton jumps head-first into the titular role of Eddie the Eagle. In a meatier role than Kingsman, he gets to show off his range a bit and doesn't disappoint. For one, he did some work to get Eddie's look down. Egerton is a good-looking kid but with some poofy hair, a goofy mustache, his glasses, you buy him as a pretty close dead-ringer for the real-life Eddie. Go ahead. Google it. The physical mannerisms, the face scrunch, the physical ticks, the squint, Egerton does a heck of a job. Just as a performance, it's excellent. It's likable. It's sympathetic. 'Eagle' hits a home run in the most necessary part of the sports underdog story. You need to like him as a viewer. You need to root for him to achieve his goals. Double-check in that department! Looking forward to what's next for Egerton, a very talented young actor.

What does a good underdog need the most? A tough-talking coach who won't take no crap! In steps Wolverine himself, Hugh Jackman. His Bronson Pearcy is a combination of Eddie's real-life coaches so don't check the history books (or Wikipedia) for his name. Jackman does what he does best, throwing his crazy amounts of energy into the role, providing a great counter to Egerton's Eddie. His falling out in the ski jumping community left a nasty taste in his mouth but now he has his surprising chance to return. Egerton and Jackman have a pretty perfect chemistry, easy-going, believable and always entertaining together. They play well off each other in a relationship that has its fair share of ups and downs through their training. Pointless but cool tidbit? Egerton and Jackman filmed a greeting that aired before the movie which I thought was a nice touch. Didn't look scripted or overdone, just two friends talking about a movie they're proud of being a part of. Pretty cool.

Not a huge cast overall, but a good one just the same. Jo Hartley and Keith Allen are excellent as Eddie's parents, equal parts supportive and frustration as Eddie continues to chase his dream. Christopher Walken has a small part -- but a welcome one -- as a former coach of Bronson's who's a figurehead of sorts in the skiing community. Also look for Tim McInnerny, Edvin Endre, Iris Berben and the then the always welcome as always Jim Broadbent as a BBC TV commentator.

'Eagle' follows the familiar formula of the underdog rising to the occasion. We get some fun training montages set to a fun 1980's themed soundtrack -- the score itself sounds like a cheesy 80's electronic score -- and all those nice little touches. My suggestion is simple. Go along for the ride. The ski jump footage is obviously CGI at points, but it is fun. Fun. There's some great moments, especially in the final act as Eddie runs through roadblock after roadblock, one person after another trying to stop him. No spoilers here, but it's pretty unnecessary. The movie wouldn't be here if there wasn't a happy ending. But just because you know where it's going doesn't mean you can't enjoy that ride. That's what works so well, what works so well in all sports underdog stories. You know what the end game will be and you still enjoy it.

An easy movie to recommend. Give it a shot!

Eddie the Eagle (2016): ***/****

Stand Up Guys

Oh, how the time flies. Think back to movies of the late 1960s and into the 1970s -- a huge turning point in film history -- and think of all the actors who became huge stars during that stretch. Well, it's been over 30 years since that period, as many as 40 depending on the film/star, and those actors are now in their 60s, 70s and even 80s. Screen icons can't age, can they? If not leading men anymore in huge blockbusters, there's certainly roles out there for actors of such high caliber, like 2013's Stand Up Guys.

Released from prison after serving a 28-year sentence, an aging man named Val (Al Pacino) is met on his parole day by old friend and partner Doc (Christopher Walken). Having spent so much time away from any normal sort of life, Val wants to make up for lost time, drinking, partying, even visiting a brothel, but Doc isn't telling him anything at first. Val of course knows what awaits him...he must answer for the crime that put him away in prison for such a long sentence, even if the crime wasn't his fault. Doc has orders from a small-time aging mobster (Mark Margolis) to kill Val, and he's only got a few hours to do it. Old friends though, Doc is no rush to dispatch his friend, thinking he can at least give him a few hours more. They find another old friend, Hirsch (Alan Arkin), now wasting away in a nursing home, the intention to live up their last few hours together.

If you're a movie fan and can't figure out the appeal here, well....how can't you? In Pacino, Walken and Arkin, you've got three living legends from one of the most interesting periods in Hollywood history. One or two of them working together in a movie would be enough, but all three? Sign me up. From director/actor Fisher Stevens, 'Guys' is a solid comedy-drama with a familiar crook/mob background. It has touches of a film noir -- the story taking place almost entirely at night and all its shadows -- with an unnamed city serving as the backdrop. It's not an action-packed shoot-out, instead a movie content to be a good story that relies heavily on the star power to carry the heaviest load. There's some pretty low-brow humor with some Viagra jokes and multiple trips to a brothel that aren't necessary, but as a whole, the movie is solid.

If you have made it to the fourth paragraph of this review, I'm guessing it's because you're a fan of either one or all of Pacino, Walken and Arkin. This isn't groundbreaking stuff, nothing you haven't seen before if you're a fan of crime or mob movies, but in their capable hands it feels worthwhile throughout. Pacino's Val is the showiest of the parts, a crook who did time rather than give up his accomplices in a previous crime. He knows his time is up, just doesn't know for sure who will do the deed. Walken as Doc is perfect, understated and gentlemanly because he's had years to prep for this unpleasant task. He's tired, world-weary and dreads what awaits. Arkin's is the smallest part as Hirsch, the former getaway driver of the trio.

There is an effortless chemistry and charm to their scenes. An important aspect of the story is in the title. Stand up guys are those who do what the job dictates regardless of the unpleasant consequences. They do it because it's the job. Men do their jobs. As the story develops we see this code of honor among crooks. We learn more about Val, Doc and Hirsch's past, about their younger years when they were a team of low-level but highly effective mob crooks and henchmen. Their scenes among the group talking about the good old days offer some of the movie's high points. It works because these guys are so talented, so good at what they do. As Val's time runs out, Doc must decide what he's going to do. Kill one of his only friends? Don't kill him and risk his own life in the process? It additionally works because it's easy to imagine these three actors making a prequel in the early 1970s, starring as themselves.

Following the trio around, we meet a handful of characters in their misadventures. Julianna Margulies plays Nina, Hirsch's daughter who works as a nurse at a hospital Val and Doc visit. Ooohhh, ER reference! Margolis is his typical intimidating self as Claphands, a ridiculously vengeful mobster with Bill Burr as one of his ineffective henchmen. Lucy Punch is memorable as Wendy, the nerdy-looking owner of the brothel they visit while Addison Timlin is Alex, a waitress at an all-night diner who has befriended Doc over the years. Vanessa Ferlito has a good if odd part as Syliva, a beaten-up and raped woman who the trio rescues and helps exact revenge.

So how then should one end a movie like this? That is where the film struggles to find its footing. It has the right idea with a perfect scene that provides the ideal ending for these characters. It's what they deserve. It's what they should do......and then Stevens has the camera pull away so we don't actually see the ending. There's no resolution, too many things left hanging up in the air. For me, this ending feels a little too smarmy, a little condescending, too self-assured. The idea is right, and the thought is there but this is an ending that needed more closure. I still liked the movie on the whole, but the ending could have been significantly better. Still worth watching. It is difficult to pass up a movie starring the likes of Pacino, Walken and Arkin.

Stand Up Guys (2013): ***/****

Seven Psychopaths

Directing 2008's In Bruges, Martin McDonagh made quite the debut behind the film camera. As an audience, we've had to wait four years for his follow-up, but it was worth it....I think. The follow-up is 2012's Seven Psychopaths, a truly odd, truly entertaining flick that defies just about any description I can come up with.

Working in Los Angeles, Marty (Colin Farrell) is struggling to complete his screenplay for a film he calls 'Seven Psychopaths.' His biggest issue is coming up with the actual psychopaths for which he has actually one. As he tries to come up with the characters, Marty gets mixed up with a predicament his friend, Billy Bickle (Sam Rockwell), has fallen into. With his highly religious partner, Hans (Christopher Walken), Billy kidnaps dogs and then has Hans return them to their owners for the reward. Billy's picked the wrong target this time though, stealing a dog named Bonny from its owner, Charlie (Woody Harrelson), who just happens to be a real-life psychopath and rather unpredictable gangster. Right in the mix of it all, Marty may have found all the inspiration he'll need for his screenplay....if he can survive that is.

I loved In Bruges when I first saw it, and I loved it even more on follow-up viewings. So when I saw McDonagh was directing a similarly themed ultra-dark, ultra-violent flick, I was psyched. Several days since watching the movie, I can say I did like it even though I'm still processing it. I watch some movies, and I know exactly what I want to say. Then there's movies like this where any description doesn't seem perfectly appropriate. It bounces among countless different descriptions from dark humor to gut-wrenching drama to graphic violence to a buddy flick. Somewhere among all those at-times appropriate descriptions is a really good movie. Putting those all together into a non-rambling review? Well, let's see what I can come up with.

McDonagh deserves a lot of credit for this one. Bringing all these seemingly disparate things together with the cast he's assembled could cripple many directors. And while there are times the movie seems to have lost its way, it always rights the ship. It is about Marty and his struggles. It is about Billy and Hans' dog kidnapping operation. It is about Charlie's hunt for his dog. At the same time, it's more than that. We meet plenty of other characters in a variety of storytelling techniques. We also hear about the Jack of Diamonds killer who may or may not be involved with the kidnappings. We also delve into Marty's screenplay, meeting two of his psychopaths, a Quaker father (Harry Dean Stanton) seeking revenge for his daughter's murder and a former Vietcong soldier turned priest (Long Nguyen) planning an ultimate revenge. These asides come through Marty's narration, and they're great.

This ability to craft such a stylish, twisting and turning story is a testament to McDonagh's ability. It is a script that weaves among all these stories, flashbacks and what-ifs, never staying in one place too long or settling. The weird thing is; all those asides are both real and fake. The Quaker father actually has a very real connection to Marty, Billy and Hans' story. The Jack of Diamonds killer similarly has a connection, and the Vietnamese priest becomes real as Hans tries to come up with a suitable ending for a story that Marty is struggling to come up with. At one point, Billy -- desperately trying to help Marty finish his screenplay -- comes up with a ridiculously over the top action finale sequence full of explosions, dismemberments, and action cliches that a 1980s movie would appreciate. The what-if sequence blends all the characters we've met -- real, fake and written in a script -- in an inspired sequence that stands out from the rest of an already very enjoyable movie.

What stood out for me most was the buddy aspect that works so well in 'Psychopaths.' It's reminiscent of the relationship between Farrell and Brendan Gleason in McDonagh's In Bruges. Marty, Billy and Hans are three very different people but there's an odd friendship that just works among them. Marty is a worrier, especially about his screenplay and girlfriend (Abbie Cornish), Billy wants to help him out wherever and whenever possible, and Hans is looking out for wife (Linda Bright Clay) fighting through cancer treatments. Much of the second half of the movie is the trio sitting around a campfire in the desert talking, coming up with ideas for the screenplay, busting each other's balls, smoking peyote and drinking. Directing and writing the script, McDonagh has a knack and talent for creating believable, funny and even emotional relationships among male friends. I loved the scenes with these three amidst all the chaos around them, bringing the movie down to a more personal level.

The rest of the cast is similarly spot-on. Replacing Mickey Rourke (who dropped out during filming), Harrelson is perfectly nuts as Charlie. We don't know why he's nuts. He just simply is....NUTS. Tom Waits is a scene-stealer as Zachariah, a potential psychopath for Marty with quite the checkered past. The image alone of a weathered Waits sitting on Billy's doorstep petting a white rabbit is surreal and perfect. His phone call with Marty is surprisingly funny too in an effective emotional scene. Also look for Michael Stuhlbarg and Michael Pitt (great in the opening scene), Olga Kurylenko, Kevin Corrigan, Gabourey Sidibe, and Zeljko Ivanek as Paulo, Charie's enforcer.

A weird, weird movie, but one I liked. It's a flick that is really all over the place and would probably benefit from a repeat viewing. For now though, I'll still give it a high rating. Beware of some at times shocking violence to go with a truly dark sense of humor. Probably not for everyone, but still highly recommended.    
Seven Psychopaths (2012): ***/**** 

The Maiden Heist

Originally intended for a theatrical release, 2009's The Maiden Heist had no such luck. Its studio went bankrupt before it could actually be released and never saw the light of day in theaters. Thankfully, it eventually found an audience (however small) on DVD. The end result? An enjoyable, pretty harmless comedy caper aided by a very talented cast.

Working as a security guard for a Boston art museum, Roger (Christopher Walken) has a bit of an obsession. He loves, loves a painting titled The Lonely Maiden, a picture of a woman looking off into the distance on a sandy beach. Now though, he's got a problem. Many pieces from the museum have been sold to another museum in Denmark, including The Lonely Maiden. Roger can't bear to imagine life without it, but he's not alone. Two other security guards, Charles (Morgan Freeman) and George (William H. Macy), similarly have fallen hard for two other pieces of art and don't want to see them go. What to do then? These three men who have always lived on the straight and narrow decide there's only one thing to do....steal the paintings for themselves. Can these three amateur crooks pull off the job?

This is a movie that's best watched on a rainy weekend afternoon when there's nothing better to do. It's funny but it isn't hilarious. It's goofy but not stupid...thankfully. The story takes some odd jumps in sequence that reflect a quasi-cheap feeling, making me think 'Heist' was a straight-to-DVD flick at first. It's apparent from the start how things will go. These three middle-aged to older men are all a little nuts, all a lot obsessed with paintings that strike them right down to their cores. How could three amateur crooks pull off the job? In the real world, no chance in hell. But it's a movie! In other words, you know they'll get away with it, overcoming all sorts of goofiness, misunderstandings, and general wackiness. Just sit back and enjoy. You won't strain yourself.

There's got to be a reason to see this flick though, and that's the cast. Surprising, huh? It would be very hard to put Walken, Freeman and Macy together in a movie and for it to not be worthwhile even a little. Walken is Walken, that kinda offbeat, schizo acting style highlighted by his especially unique speech patterns. Macy hams it up as George, the former Marine and veteran of the Grenada campaign. His art obsession? A sculpture of a nude Greek warrior. George strips down naked and poses next to it. Creepy? A little, but it's oddly funny. Middle-aged guy nudity played for a laugh too with some Macy butt scenes. I know, what Hollywood has been craving all these years! The best part is Freeman as Charles, a gay (I think?) security guard who can paint/draw/scribble his favorite painting with his eyes closed. It's his mannerisms, his speech, they all add up to some really funny lines and scenes as the trio of amateur crooks work together to pull off the job.

It is a heist movie -- however tame -- and that ends up being the best part of the movie. The build-up and intro takes about 45 minutes, and then we're off to the heist. The trio decides to pull the job during the move, replacing the originals with forgeries. Naturally, not everything goes as expected or planned, one thing after another coming up to throw them off their plan. There is a good twist late, but it doesn't come as a huge surprise by any means.

The laughs are there too, especially the opening scene as Walken's Roger daydreams about defending his painting from a heavily-armed team of mercenaries. Watch it HERE. A running gag about signing off a walky-talky with 'Roger...Roger' is funny if used too much, and a hypothetical walk-through of the museum (Charles constructs a scale version with a chess set and cereal boxes) produces some laughs. There's some odd moments too, like Breckin Meyer's one-scene appearance as a starving artist (maybe 90 seconds all told), and Marcia Gay Harden as Roger's shrill wife who wants a Florida vacation and accidentally threatens the heist. Pretty forgettable but still enjoyable enough. Worth a watch if nothing else, just don't expect a classic.

The Maiden Heist (2009): ** 1/2 /****

The Dogs of War

With almost 20 books to his name, author Frederick Forsyth has carved out quite a little niche for himself in the world of thrillers and espionage. His characters are killers, mercenaries, hard-edged cops, all the dirty jobs that no one wants to talk about but know exist nonetheless.  His realistic, detail-oriented stories translate well to film, including The Day of the Jackal, The Odessa File, and also 1980's The Dogs of War, based off a 1974 Forsyth novel.

The book is a quality example of Forsyth's style as an author.  His talent isn't coming under fire here, anything but. His stories of killers, hired guns, and mercenaries are flashy or Hollywood.  They're based in the darkness of those people's lives, the constant fear and battle with death. 'Dogs' as a novel is more a day-to-day description of how to mount a mercenary operation than a shoot 'em up, action-packed story. If anything, it gets somewhat tedious in its ridiculous amount of detail and description. Reading it, you can't help but wonder how a movie version would translate, all the while wondering, how would they make this work? Easier said than done, but the movie is certainly enjoyable, if flawed.

A mercenary who has fought all over the world, James Shannon (Christopher Walken) returns home to New York City after doing a job in Central America. He is approached to do a recon job in a tiny west African country, Zangaro, just a quick job where he sees what the country's military forces have to offer. Shannon agrees, taking the long trip to the poverty-stricken, desolate country ruled by a blood-thirsty dictator. During his visit, he is arrested and beaten within an inch of his life, only to be rescued by a British journalist, North (Colin Blakely). Returning home, he delivers his report and is offered another job by the mysterious Endean (Hugh Milais). For a large sum of money, Shannon must lead a mercenary outfit into Zangaro and topple the government. Looking for revenge, he agrees, starting from the ground up, recruiting a small team of mercenaries to help in the effort.

If the story sounds somewhat familiar, it should. With a few tweaks here and there, 2010's The Expendables borrowed heavily from the basic storyline.  That movie was more fun overall, but The Dogs of War is the better movie. Forsyth doesn't portray his mercenary warriors as anything but what they are, hired killers, working for whoever will pay them, ideals and principles long since thrown out.  This is a story interested in the details, the things many movies would brush to the side. Where do you get guns? Where do you acquire uniforms? How do you sneak into a country? It may not sound too exciting, but there's an interesting angle of the mercenary movie -- the background -- that you just don't see that often.  'Dogs' isn't as good as Dark of the Sun or The Wild Geese, but it certainly belongs in the conversation.

Intending this in the most positive sense, I think Christopher Walken is one of the weirdest, oddest, and ultimately, coolest actors to ever star in a movie.  Watching him, you can't pull your eyes off of him. He's quirky, eccentric, different and rarely goes where you think he will with a character.  Reading the book, Walken was nothing like what I imagined the Shannon character to be like.  But the joke was on me because above all else, this movie works because of Walken.  He carries this movie. Jamie Shannon is a veteran mercenary with countless battles, firefights and wars behind him. He's alone in the world (JoBeth Williams is his ex-wife) and doesn't particularly like what he does, but he's good at it, and the pay is good. A great main character, and a sympathetic one.

One of the cooler aspects of the book was Forsyth's assembling of this multi-national team of mercenaries Shannon works with in hopefully leading the coup d'etat.  The movie drops the ball in that respect. Tom Berenger plays Drew, Shannon's best friend and right hand man, a mercenary who loves fighting, getting some sick enjoyment out of it. Also joining the team are Paul Freeman as Derek and Jean-Francois Stevenin as Michel. Eddie Tagoe plays Jinga, leader of the exiled African fighters working as Shannon's attack force. Other than Berenger's Drew, we're given no character development or any kind of personal background on either man. They're more cardboard cutouts of characters, ideas of what and who they should be. The team is still cool because they are the steely-eyed, cold-blooded mercenary, but so much more could have been done with the team as the book proved.

Interested in the little things, the background details, the movie (directed by John Irvin) saves up all its action for the finale, a nighttime assault on the Zangaro dictator's heavily guarded compound. Irvin spends a long scene showing Shannon's team (along with 24 exiled African fighters) moving into position, moving through the empty streets of Clarence, the capitol city.  It builds the tension to a boiling point so when the action does start, it is like a release of anxiety.  The attack is loud and chaotic, but still a little short.  It doesn't feel rushed, but like so much more concerning the movie, I felt like more could have been done.  The finale does deliver a solid twist, one that stays true to the Forsyth novel, neither a downer nor a happy ending. Just an ending.

Still, I can't help but feel disappointed after watching the movie.  The book is a hefty if very readable 400 pages, and the movie does an admirable job trying to stick to the novel. Too much gets left out though, like an actual reason for why the government needs to be toppled. It is hinted at, but never explained, left to be unexplained by those who haven't read the book.  The ending is a particularly dour note, a sudden ending and a moving one, but not as moving as it could have been. Other than Shannon, you don't feel much for the other characters. That's the main problem. 'Dogs' keeps you at a distance from the start.

The Dogs of War <---trailer (1980): ** 1/2 /**** 

Pulp Fiction

When I reviewed Inglorious Basterds over a year ago, I said that there isn't as divisive a director as Quentin Tarantino currently working in Hollywood.  I stand by that statement still.  Is he immensely talented, an eccentric movie lover? Or is he a hack, taking here and there from previously successful movies and making them his own?  Is it a bad thing that it seems he falls somewhere in between?  I think he's both. Of course, if you're not a fan of his, it's going to take more than that to appreciate the man's films.  To each his own.  Like anything with movies, it comes down to personal preference.

What's impressive about Tarantino and the love-hate relationship moviegoers have with him is that the man just doesn't have a lot of films to his name.  He picks projects that appeal to him, not just taking anything that comes down the road.  Of the 15 directorial claims IMDB makes, only eight are feature length projects.  In their own right, each can be called in a classic (okay, a minor classic in some cases), and fans have their own individual favorites.  For many, it's an easy decision, and the movie that always seems to come up is 1994's Pulp Fiction, Tarantino's first movie after the surprising success of 1992's Reservoir Dogs.

I don't put much stock in the IMDB's fan rating system which allows fan voting to show how good/bad a movie is.  Pulp Fiction currently sits at No. 5 all-time.  I don't think it's close to being one of the top five greatest movies of all-time, but then again, IMDB voters have The Shawshank Redemption as No. 1 so take that for what's it worth.  This is a good intro to Tarantino for fans not familiar with him.  Long scenes of uninterrupted dialogue broken up by brief but extreme moments of graphic violence, style to spare, and a cast that any movie fan should be able to appreciate.  Here goes an attempt to give some sort of plot synopsis, however muddled it may be. Interweaving storylines, characters in and out of the story, and a non-linear plot certainly keep you on your toes.

Two low-level enforcer/hit men, Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), have been dispatched on a mission from their boss, Marsellus Graham (Ving Rhames). Someone owes him money, and Vincent and Jules intend to get it back.  Vincent's also been assigned an unusual task, go on a date with Marsellus' wife, Mia (Uma Thurman) while the boss is out of town. Also going on, Marsellus has arranged for aging boxer, Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), to throw a fight for big money, but Butch has other plans that only he knows about.  On top of that, two bottom-tier thieves (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer) are planning their next job, and everyone is involved whether they know it or not.

Where to start, where to start? Tarantino uses his usual chapters storytelling device, breaking up the 153-minute movie into smaller segments that aren't told in chronological order. For example, we see someone get killed in one chapter, but they're alive in the next.  Gimmicky, yes, but when handled right, it's a home run, and Tarantino brings it full circle, ending the movie exactly where it started. The soundtrack is full of classic rock songs, and really runs the gamut across genres.  Style-wise, Tarantino tells a story with his camera, blending long unedited takes with quick in your face editing at other times.  Question if you will what the director is showing, but just in terms of pure movie-making skill, it's hard to beat this guy.

By 1994, John Travolta's career was all but mainlining when he accepted this part to play hitman Vincent Vega.  It was the part that put him back in the limelight and earned him an Oscar nomination in the process.  For me personally, Travolta (and his interactions with Jackson) are what makes this movie special.  It's the little things that make it work.  I couldn't place Vince's accent if I tried, but it adds something to the character.  He's a little off, maybe a little crazy, but at the same time perfectly sane.  His dance scene with Uma Thurman (watch it HERE) is about as iconic, as memorable as anything to hit theaters in the last 20 years and is so sublimely perfect it's not even worth trying to explain. I loved this character and wish there was more of him.

With a story that bounces around as much as Pulp Fiction does, some characters/storylines get more in-depth than others.  On top of all those names mentioned above, there's also parts for Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Steve Buscemi as a smarmy waiter, Tarantino stepping in front of the camera for a quick appearance, and two perfect parts for Christopher Walken and Harvey Keitel. Walken is on-screen for no more than two minutes but delivers one of the most movingly effective and equally funny monologues I've ever seen (watch it HERE).  Keitel nails his part as 'the Wolf,' a cleaner who fixes other people's messes.  Check out Keitel's entrance HERE. These are two small parts that Tarantino clearly loved writing, stylish and unnecessary but nonetheless giving a movie those little touches that can bring it up a notch.

As much as I loved certain parts of the movie, others just fell flat.  The Bruce Willis boxer subplot didn't work as well for me as the rest of the movie -- with the exception of the Walken scene -- and I found myself fast-forwarding through it.  Tarantino can be too self-indulgent at times, and the dialogue goes on too long at times.  That said, the positives make the negatives a minor problem.  Travolta, Jackson, Rhames, Walken, Keitel, Thurman, deliver amazingly memorable performances.  For all the dialogue that never stops, there's monologues (like Jackson's in the finale SPOILERS, HERE) that make you appreciate what good writing really is.  Flawed as a movie overall, yes, but one of the best flawed movies I've seen in awhile.

Pulp Fiction <---trailer (1994): *** 1/2 /****   

The Anderson Tapes

In a little over two years writing reviews here, I've watched my fair share of heist movies (11 if I've got the tags right).  It's that perfect blend of action, suspense and drama all wrapped up into one as -- typically -- a group of specialists work together to steal something thought unattainable.  Inception had dreams, Goldfinger was Fort knox, and Heat was piles of money.  It's almost always one specific thing.  That's not the case with 1971's The Anderson Tapes where the target isn't one thing, but one apartment building and everything in it.

To say director Sidney Lumet is slumming here isn't fair, but I'll admit it was the first thing I thought when his name popped up in the opening credits.  This is the man who directed 12 Angry Men, Network, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, and so many more classic movies, and now he's directing a good old-fashioned heist movie?  With a director of his caliber, I don't know if you can call it slumming, but it's a hell of a lot of fun to see someone like Lumet try a more mainstream movie dead set on entertaining more than delivering a message.  It is a movie that isn't particularly unique compared to most heist movies, but it is solid all around and very entertaining.

After 10 years in prison for a burglary charge, master thief Duke Anderson (Sean Connery) visits an old girlfriend, Ingrid (Dyan Cannon), who lives in a posh apartment in New York City. Duke is looking for a job to pull off -- any job at all -- and realizes it's staring him dead in the face. Ingrid's building has 12 separate apartments owned by doctors and lawyers and all of society's best (translation = richest).  Duke goes about putting together a motley crew of crooks and ex-cons to pull off the job, even going to the mob and kingpin, Angelo (Alan King) for backing. But as he goes about planning the elaborate heist of 12 apartments at one time, Duke realizes security has changed since he went into jail?  Security cameras are everywhere, and it seems someone is watching him.

Released in 1971, this is a movie that at the time must have felt like a futuristic look at security with all its high-tech equipment.  Now in 2011, it seems very dated that a team of crooks would be even slowed up by a security camera here and there.  Composer Quincy Jones' score even plays that up with a robotic, electronic sound which is more distracting than necessary. The subplot with Anderson being constantly videotaped (hence the title of the movie) is disappointing though, not really going anywhere.  It is the type of story where all these unknown elements feel like they're building to a huge, twist ending, but it never comes.  The final scene is disappointing in that way as so many different elements and unanswered questions don't gel in the end.

That complaint aside, I really enjoyed this movie.  This was one of Connery's movies in between James Bond roles, and before he returned to the part in Diamonds are Forever later in 1971.  He is one of my all-time favorite actors so seeing him in a well-made heist movie is a cinch for me.  His Duke Anderson is tough, intelligent and after 10 years in jail...desperate.  He wants and needs to pull of a job.  It's as high risk as they come, but the potential for payout at the end is huge so he puts it all on the line.  I would have liked a little more resolution late in the movie with his character, but it does make it pretty clear what happens to him.  Connery has a good chemistry too with Cannon in their few scenes together (he plays up his sexy, hairy Bond angle). If nothing else, 'Anderson' is worth seeing to get a glimpse of Connery without his toupee, just his thinning hair here.

So in the action equivalent of a men on a mission movie, Connery's Anderson must assemble a team of specialists to help him pull off the job.  This is where 'Anderson' is better than most, the supporting cast.  Martin Balsam is a scene-stealer and downright hilarious as Haskins, a gay interior decorator along to pick out what's valuable and what isn't worth stealing in the building.  Stereotypical and a little politically incorrect? You bet, but it's funny. In one of his first featured roles, a young Christopher Walken plays the Kid, a young ex-con who's an expert in safecracking and dismantling alarms. There's also Val Avery as Parelli, the mob muscle, Dick Anthony Williams as Spencer, the getaway driver, Stan Gottlieb as Pop, an ex-con struggling to adjust to life outside prison, and Paul Benjamin as Spencer's former partner in crime along to help. With smaller parts, Anderson's crew makes the most of it, helping each character leave a lasting impression even with their limited screen-time.

Prior to the heist, there is little in the way of explanation of how Duke and Co. are going to pull this off so not surprisingly, the 40-minute heist sequence to close the movie out is a high point.  Lumet films in it a unique way, showing the team get into an apartment, flash to the occupants later being interviewed by the police explaining what happened, and then bouncing back to inside the apartment during the job.  It's a cool technique that keeps you guessing because if you pay attention in the background, you see clues of how the job went and if it was successful or not.  In the heist, look for Ralph Meeker as a police commander brought in to deal with the crooks, and future SNL star Garrett Morris as a leader of a SWAT team. Nothing new, nothing flashy here, just a solid, exciting heist movie with a good cast.

The Anderson Tapes <---trailer (1971): ***/****       

Heaven's Gate

After winning Best Picture and Best Director for 1978's The Deer Hunter, Michael Cimino spent the next two years working on his next project.  It was an epic that would debunk many of the myths about the west in the latter half of the 1800s that many people took as an absolute truth.  Titled Heaven's Gate, it infamously became known as the movie that derailed Cimino's career and destroyed United Artists in the process.  The production did create one of my all-time favorite lines when the studio wanted to know how far behind schedule Cimino was on the sixth day of filming.  The answer?  'We're five days behind schedule.'

Released in 1980, Heaven's Gate has its fair share of similarities with The Deer Hunter.  How to put this nicely?  Cimino loved a very natural style (i.e.: slow, very slow) with stories that were in no rush getting to their destination.  And if they didn't get to that destination?  No worries.  Working with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond, Cimino creates a beautiful movie that completely utilizes the beauty of Montana.  But at a cost because the story is thrown by the wayside.  Long, lllllllong scenes of a rider approaching a cabin in a mountain valley drag on. For me, it got to the point where I got sick of looking at nature.  Just tell the damn story! 

After visiting St. Louis, Wyoming marshal Jim Averill (Kris Kristofferson) returns home to find a conflict brewing. The wealthy landowners/cattle barons are fed up with the poor farmers and settlers -- most of them immigrants trying to start a life -- who keep stealing their cattle and destroying the land.  One man, Nate Champion (Christopher Walken), serves as their enforcer, killing anyone believed of stealing cattle. At first, Jim doesn't seem interested in the problem.  He tries to convince his girlfriend Ella (Isabelle Huppert), the local owner of a brothel, to leave with him, but she refuses.  Champion is also interested in Ella, leaving her conflicted as what to do.  Her problem is solved when the landowners (led by an evil Sam Waterston) go the government for help and a list is circulated of 125 farmers who will be killed.  A small army of gunmen descend on the county ready to wipe out anyone who stands in their way.

This is now the longest movie I've ever seen at 219 minutes, replacing The Seven Samurai, and at times it felt longer.  God forbid, there's rumors of a 5-hour version out there somewhere.  It's easier to judge this movie in two segments; pre and post intermission.  Pre-intermission is awful and a painful experience.  Two scenes rival Deer Hunter's wedding scene, a Harvard graduation in 1870 that serves no purpose, and a dance scene that goes on and on.  Cimino is one of the most self-indulgent directors I've come across, seemingly wanting to show off what a great director he was. His budget was around $11 million, but it went $30 million beyond that.  Apparently, he shot almost 200 hours of footage.  He clearly went all out to show the reality of the developing west whether it be sets or costumes, but its almost overkill by the 2nd hour or so.

These scenes could have served a purpose in a shorter way, but instead they bring the already stagnant story to a halt.  That's the whole movie too, long, extended shots that don't do anything other than look good.  I'm curious about the 149-minute version because in a condensed form, the movie might be worth watching.  On the other hand, I have little interest in seeing this one again.

The one slight saving grace of the movie is post-intermission when Waterston's army of gunfighters goes on the hunt.  Parts are still too slow, but this nameless, faceless villain is a great choice.  Walken's Champion has a change of heart when he sees the tactics being used and goes out in a blaze of glory.  The farmers/settlers finally decide to do something and in a bloody battle take on the gunfighters.  Both sides take heavy casualties, but we know nothing about these people.  In several scenes, these foreign settlers yell at each other at meetings and then the battle comes along and they get blown away.  It's a remarkably well-done sequence (start HERE with SPOILERS of course) but on an emotional level does nothing, and isn't that the point of an epic scene like that?  To make any sort of emotional connection with the viewer, but that's this movie in a nutshell.

Filling out his cast, Cimino assembles an incredible list of actors including the already mentioned Kristofferson, Walken, Waterston, and Huppert.  There's also Jeff Bridges, Mickey Rourke, John Hurt, Brad Dourif, Geoffrey Lewis, Joseph Cotten, and Terry O'Quinn.  But with all that talent assembled, Walken and Huppert are the only ones to really distinguish themselves.  Kristofferson mumbles his way through all his lines, Hurt is required to be drunk, Rourke and Lewis show up, get introduced and are killed, and Cotten has a one-scene cameo.  I'll add Bridges to the list, he's solid as a saloon owner working with the farmers.  It seems like such a waste to bring all these talented actors together and then not give them much development.

I think I gave this movie a pretty fair shot from the start.  But my objections from The Deer Hunter rolled over to Heaven's Gate.  There are just too many plotholes you could drive an 18-wheeler through that are never resolved.  Like how/why did Kristofferson move west, apparently leaving a wife behind?  It's confusing at times, boring at other times, and generally a mess of a movie.  Tons of potential, TONS, but it just isn't a very good movie. 

Heaven's Gate <----trailer (1980): * 1/2 /****

A View to a Kill

Well,l it took me awhile as I rationed out the post-Connery James Bond movies, but with A View to a Kill I've now watched all the Bond movies through the Roger Moore years. I'll write a post ranking just the Moore entries in the next couple of weeks hopefully, but here goes with AVTAK.

Reading critics' reviews and the message boards at IMDB, always good for a laugh, I was caught off guard by how much hate this movie has gotten since its release. It's in that middle ground of Bond movies, not great/classic like Goldfinger but not horrible like Moonraker or Die Another Day, it's average but still entertaining. The complaints are all over the place on this one, some I couldn't help but notice while watching the movie. Here's just a few; Roger Moore at 57 is too old for the part, partially agree, Grace Jones is one of the worst Bond girls/henchmen in the series (agreed), Tanya Roberts is annoying (yeah, but did you look at her?), and the general feel of the movie is too jokey.

The Moore Bond movies wasted no time setting a different tone than the Connery ones. Sometimes they did go for the joke instead of just making a good movie. In 'A View' there's a couple examples. In the bland already seen this pre-credit sequence, Bond escapes Russian ski troops, improvising a piece of shrapnel as a snowboard. Cue a 'California Girls' cover which is too much and distracts from the impressive stuntwork. They couldn't just leave well enough alone.

In his 7th outing, Moore is probably too old for the part, but he knows the character pretty well by now so it's not distracting. Maybe he didn't do his own stunts, which does provide some very obvious back projection shots, but all the Bond actors at some point used stunt men. That's part of the fun. Does anyone really think Moore, even in his early 40s would have completed the firetruck chase through San Francisco hanging off the ladder? I lean toward 'no' on that. What is a problem with the character and not specifically Moore is that the wit and one-liners have almost completely been done away with. As much as I enjoyed the movie, it's those omissions that generally feel like this is any number of 80s action movies and not a James Bond adventure.

The diabolical plan here is a timely one as Christopher Walken's Max Zorin tries to destroy Sillicon Valley with a man-made earthquake. With Silicon Valley out of the way, Zorin Industry can monopolize the world's microchip production, making billions of dollars. Walken is the best thing about the movie. He's the perfect actor for the part of a Bond villain, a quirky actor already, his Zorin is the result of Nazi steroid testing on pregnant women. The only side effect? The babies grow up into psychotics. It's a great part for Walken, and hops right into my top 5 all-time Bond villains.

Unfortunately, the supporting cast leaves much to be desired. Grace Jones is downright scary as May Day, Zorin's trainer/bodyguard/hired killer/girlfriend. The character reminded me of Famke Janssen in Goldeneye, but Janssen had some femininity to her, a lot of it come to think of it. Jones looks like a muscular dude and really doesn't bring much to the character. Tanya Roberts, while quite the looker, was not the best actress around. It looks like Denise Richards studied this part before her role in The World Is Not Enough.

Some other positives include one of the better themes after a couple of forgettable songs, this time around with Duran Duran handling the duty. The song as is is a good one, but it's even better as an instrumental with John Barry contributing one of his best scores. Good action here too, including a Parisian car chase that ends with an unnecessary joke with the car, a good shootout in an abandoned mine, and the finale on the Golden Gate Bridge.

So like I said, not a classic and not a dud. A View to A Kill is somewhere in between, an average to above average Bond movie. Of course, if you ask me, an average Bond movie is better than most action/adventure movies. Next up? I'm looking at you Timothy Dalton.