Heist (2015)

I've realized something these last few years as I've headed head first into old age. Yep, I'm 30 now. It's all downhill, huh? I went through a long phase where I was always looking for critical darlings, movies -- check that, films -- that were blah blah blah. I want to be entertained. Plain and simple. Therefore....2015's Heist is pretty dumb and even pretty bad, but 30-year old me was entertained and enjoyed it from beginning to end, dumb twists and all.

A dealer at a riverboat casino in the South, Luke Vaughn (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is in trouble. His young daughter is sick and wasting away in a hospital, desperately waiting a surgery he can't afford. He has nowhere to turn other than his brutally efficient boss, Frank Pope (Robert De Niro), the owner of the casino, he has a history with...but is turned down. With nowhere left to turn, Luke agrees to work with a pit boss, Jason Cox (Dave Bautista), to take down the casino and remove some of its dirty money. It's a desperate plan that comes together quickly, but Luke has no other options and Cox wants and needs that cash (because he's greedy...nothing more sinister). The job itself goes awry almost immediately after they get their hands on the money, forcing Luke, Cox and two men Cox is working with to improvise under heavy gunfire. What to do? Where to go?

I love going to the movies. I love watching movies. What I'm still getting used to with that love? There are a lot of movies out there that never got a theatrical release and went straight to DVD/Blu-Ray, like this action thriller from director Scott Mann. Were they meant to be released in theaters only to see a studio back out? I'm still working on it. Seriously, check out Redbox or Netflix and see all these like-minded flicks. Usually some cool casts, interesting premises and...a dud of a movie!

This movie has a lot of potential, much of it coming from a very cool cast. The premise is pretty cool even if it doesn't always take advantage of that premise. There are plotholes so freaking big you could probably drive a semi-truck through them without any collateral damage. It's fairly predictable though it tries to reveal its big twists as HUGE REVEALS. The status quo for these straight-to-DVD flicks seems to be stories that fall apart in the finale, but hopefully by then you're at least partially invested enough that you don't audibly groan. Okay, I did a little bit here but that's my twist with the big reveal. Yes, 'Heist' is cliched, predictable and quite familiar if you've seen any -- ANY -- previous heist thrillers, but I did enjoy it. All those above descriptions aren't necessarily a movie killer as long as things stay entertaining.

Most of my enjoyment came from the casting. I wish Jeffrey Dean Morgan did more action movies that let him play these kinda roguish anti-heroes. I loved him in The Losers, liked him a lot back in '15 in Texas Rising, and he's good here as an unlikely crook who turns to a casino robbery to save his daughter. A little hammy (okay, very hammy, aiming right at the heartstrings), but it works with all the other craziness. As for that De Niro fella, maybe you've heard of him. He's a decent actor. Even when the script is nothing crazy and does him no favors, De Niro looks to be having fun, especially with the villainous Pope, a casino owner who watches over his money like a murdering mama bear. Likable stars can make just about anything worthwhile, and that's the case here. Well, at least the start of something.

There's a fun cast overall here, most of them playing characters that are either cliched stereotypes or cardboard cutouts, but it's fun to see the parts just the same. A former wrestler who's burst onto the movie scene with roles in Guardians of the Galaxy and Spectre, Bautista is quite an intimidating presences as the brutal co-conspirator. Also look for former MMA fighter Gina Carano as a police officer thrust into the situation, Mark-Paul Gosselaar as a fast-talking, no-nonsense detective, Kate Bosworth appearing in one scene as Pope's estranged daughter, and then D.B. Sweeney and Lydia Hull as unwilling participants in the post-heist aftermath. And last but not least, having some fun as a sadistic enforcer of Pope's and his casino heir, Morris Chestnut plays Derrick 'The Dog' Prince.' A fun cast with some cool faces to see pop up.

Not an especially good movie, but definitely an entertaining one. Don't go in with too high of expectations, and I think you'll get a kick out of it too.

Heist (2015): ** 1/2 /****

Backdraft

I grew up in Chicago, several classmates in grammar school with parents working as police officers and firefighters. I imagine there's a respect and admiration for police forces and fire stations in all cities, but even as a kid it was easy to see the regard in which many were held for putting their lives on their line for their jobs. Released in 1991, Backdraft delves into the lives of Chicago firefighters with some familiar family drama to keep things going.

Just seven years old, Brian McCaffrey is a frequent guest at his father's fire station along with his older brother, Stephen. On one fire call though, their dad is killed in a blast. Some 20 years later, Stephen (Kurt Russell, who also plays the Dad...albeit briefly) has followed in his dad's footsteps, becoming a respected lieutenant at one of Chicago's most respected stations. Station 17 has a couple new fireman to fit into the mix, Stephen's brother, Brian (William Baldwin), who did his best to avoid a firefighting career for years only to return to what his family knows best. The brothers have drifted apart over the years, both of them holding grudges that go back for years to when their dad died. With a career that hinges on life and death moments every single day, they have to learn to work together and put their differences aside. Meanwhile, an arsonist is starting fires all over Chicago with two dead already. Who is the arsonist? Does he have a different intention?

I was just six when this movie came out back in 1991. I remember my parents watching it at some point, and enjoying it. For me, there's a period in the late 1980s and early 1990s where because of my age, I just didn't see a lot of movies and never really caught up with them. From director Ron Howard, 'Backdraft' is a big one on that list. A box office success that picked up positive reviews while becoming a fan favorite, it's a solid, entertaining movie. It was filmed on location in Chicago -- never a bad thing -- and gives the developing story an authentic aura hanging in the air. It's not always familiar locations, "known" spots, but that works too in creating a grittier, more authentic feel. In the end, it is a good movie, even really good, that isn't quite great. Nothing wrong with that, but I didn't come away completely blown away like some reviews made it out to be.

The strongest aspect of the movie is one that treads a fine line. This is a film interested in showing the heroic actions of not only Chicago firefighters, but firefighters in general. It also delves into their personal lives, how the threat of horrific burns and wounds -- not to mention death -- hangs in the air with each passing fire. At times, the story gets a little too soap opera-esque, a little too familiar in terms of family issues and brotherly conflict. Still, the firefighting sequences are pretty insane. Firefighters watching the movie criticized Howard's film because these scenes were too clear, things too easily seen, but for the sake of making a movie, you can't criticize Howard there. You feel the fire, the heat, the warmth, the scorching flames nipping at your heels, blazing away at your face, with each passing sequence. Kudos in the reality department, transporting us into the fire with our firefighters. As a viewer, we get a sense of the hell that is these individuals' day jobs, avoiding too much hero worship.

A film archetype across all genres, the warring brothers formula is brought to life by Kurt Russell and Billy Baldwin. Both characters are a little too familiar, one rising above, the other not so much. Russell as Stephen gets the showier part, the gung-ho firefighter following in his father's footsteps. He's the best at what he does and isn't interested in too much career advancement. He puts out fires, wants to put out fires, and looks out for his crew. Look for Rebecca De Mornay as his wife, struggling to cope with the increasing dangers of his job, for her and for her son. Baldwin is okay as Brian, but the character just isn't interesting enough to merit much sympathy. His romantic subplot with Jennifer Jason Leigh's government assistant (a past fling/relationship) goes nowhere as well to the point their scenes become painful, especially the makeout session on a fire truck.....when the alarm goes off. Who saw that coming?!? 

Two supporting parts are truly worthy of mentioning. Along with Russell's Stephen, I thought Robert De Niro has the strongest part here, playing Shadow Rimgale, a fire inspector who helps determine if fires were accidental or the works of arsonists. It's that perfectly underplayed, more low-key part that De Niro could probably do in his sleep. Donald Sutherland is perfectly creepy too as Ronald Bartel as Bartel, an imprisoned arsonist who knows Rimgale all too well and may know what's going on around the city.  Also look for Scott Glenn and Jason Gedrick as fellow firefighters, J.T. Walsh playing a Chicago alderman who always has reelection on his mind.

A good, not great movie. I think it is a tad long in the tooth at 132 minutes, drifting along a little too much in the midsection before getting back to business for the finale. It is a tad cliched, too many slow motion 'Noooooooooooooo!' moments dotting the firefighting sequences. Composer Hans Zimmer's score is as solid as ever...in most scenes, sometimes reverting back to the hero worship that brings the movie down a notch. Big picture though, Backdraft has a lot going for it. An interesting story that did keep me guessing, a very solid cast, and a reveal that certainly caught me by surprise. An excellent look into the lives of Chicago firemen.

Backdraft (1991): ***/****

Grudge Match

Raging Bull and Rocky, two of the greatest movies about boxing ever, and sports in general really. Both films have stood the test of time and both deserve the status they have earned as true classics. As for the stars, yeah, I guess Robert De Niro and Sylvester Stallone are pretty cool. So 30-plus years after those movies hit theaters, the two stars are united in an interesting quasi-follow-up, 2013's Grudge Match. What's the verdict?

In the mid 1980s, boxers Billy 'The Kid' McDonnen (De Niro) and Henry 'Razor' Sharp (Stallone) become huge fan favorites with their ever-growing rivalry. McDonnen wins the first fight, Sharp winning the rematch soon after. When a third fight is brought up, Sharp decides to retire instead, leaving the potential for a grudge match just hanging in the air. Sharp retires to work in a factory while McDonnen continues to fight, becoming a spokesman and product pitchman while opening up his own bar in Pittsburgh. Some 30 years later though, that decisive third match is a distinct possibility as Dante Slate Jr. (Kevin Hart), the son of the promoter who worked with both fighters in the 80s, offers them a handsome payday if they agree to fight once more. This isn't just a rivalry anymore though. These two guys hate each other to the point they can't even be in the same room together. Can they hold it together long enough to train for the fight?

My first response when I saw this trailer last fall was simply "No.....just no." I didn't think it looked good in the least. It looked cheesy, cliched and just trying too hard to reclaim past magic from both stars. You know what? I was right on all accounts. You know what else? I was right, and I don't care in the least. Going in with pretty low expectations basically across the board, I ended up liking this sports comedy from director Peter Segal a whole lot. It is cheesy and cliched, but it embraces those aspects rather than trying to avoid them (or worse, trying to avoid them but actually embracing them). 'Grudge' struggled in theaters last Christmas, recouping its 40-plus million budget and little else, as waves of negative reviews convinced people to stay away. Familiar -- maybe too familiar -- it is, but I liked this one as a harmless entertaining sports flick that offers some good laughs.

Come on now, it's Robert De Niro and Sylvester Stallone. With their respective roles in Raging Bull and Rocky, both actors deserve an all-time space in the Sports Movie Hall of Fame (Look it up, it exists. I swear). Now obviously the drama just isn't as big here. The lead parts aren't so dramatically heavy. People forget sometimes, but Stallone can freaking act when he wants to. De Niro has done more fun movies over recent years than heavy dramatic parts, those choices earning him some hate on any number of message boards. What's wrong with two legendary movie stars and actors having some fun? Of the two, De Niro represents himself well. It's a goofy, over the top story with goofy, over the top characters, and De Niro commits to the part. Stallone looks to be sleepwalking at times, but their scenes together have an enjoyable, funny chemistry. Their bitching and moaning at each other provides some great one-liners in the movie's best moments.

It can't all be old guys busting each other though, can it? Unfortunately not. We get some family drama thrown into the mix, some of it providing some good moments, but mostly, it's just too familiar and cliched. Much of the drama comes from Kim Basinger as Sally, Razor's girlfriend who slept with Billy years before right in the midst of their boxing rivalry. The result of that hook-up? Billy has an estranged son, B.J. (Jon Bernthal), who will now help train the old man while also introducing him to his grandson, the type of movie kid that speaks like no kid ever. Alan Arkin gets the fun, flashy supporting part as Razor's former manager and trainer, "Lightning" Conlon, now relegated to a nursing home. Hart too is pretty funny, his scenes with Arkin offering some memorable lines. Even LL Cool J makes an appearance as a gym owner and trainer. Good cast, decent parts.

Nothing too out of the ordinary here with an enjoyable, familiar formula. We get a couple sports training montages as our two 50-something out of shape fighters get back into shape, editing that in with the less interesting personal drama. The best moments come from Stallone and De Niro reigniting their rivalry with one whackier situation after another. The stop-motion video game capture scene goes especially well, Razor and Kid beating the crap out of each other. I also liked their skydiving gimmick gone horrifically wrong.

Is this especially smart humor? No, not by a long shot, but it is fun. The final fight is nothing too flashy, going for a safe ending. The end credits have some good cameos too from boxing personalities, fighters, on-air commentators and some ESPN sportscasters. An entertaining movie, one that's easy to sit back and watch for a couple hours. Nothing more, nothing less. If you're looking for something more, go watch Raging Bull and Rocky again. And how about that poster, not enhanced at all?

Grudge Match (2013): ***/****

The Family

If movies have taught me anything about the Mafia, one thing rises above all else. Don't turn on the Family. They will get you for it and make you pay for it. What about those who do and get away with it? Well, kinda get away it. Let's get going with 2013's The Family.

It's the middle of the night in Normandy and the Blake family has arrived, their furniture, clothes and possessions waiting for them in a quiet, corner house. They move in glumly, unpacking and getting ready to set up their new lives. There's a problem though. This isn't really the Blake family. This is the Manzoni family, including patriarch Giovanni (Robert De Niro), a former Mafia family from New York City now in the Witness Protection program. Giovanni and his wife, Maggie (Michelle Pfeiffer), and their kids, Belle (Dianna Agron) and Warren (John D'Leo), keep getting in trouble though, forcing them to move from town to town all over Europe with the FBI's help and surveillance. They keep reverting to their old ways, forcing the FBI to keep moving them. Their idyllic lives (of sorts) could be in trouble though. Giovanni testified against his former mob boss (Stan Carp) after a failed hit, and wasting away in jail, he's enlisted the help of a hitman to find the Manzonis and kill them.

There sure are a lot of movies out there, huh? Great lead-in, right? I mean it though. This dark Mafia comedy was released in theaters last summer without much in the way of fanfare or positive reviews, but it did okay in theaters, earning over $68 million. It's one of many movies I was aware of, knew what it was about and had some interest in seeing. But getting to the theaters proves to be kinda difficult at times so here we sit courtesy of Netflix. The complaints in negative reviews were pretty much across the board from too violent to too schizophrenic to too goofy. I'm not saying this was a classic movie by any means, but I was entertained throughout, a talented cast and an interesting premise rising above some of its flaws. I find myself saying it more and more as I defend movies, but is it so wrong to just be entertained by a movie?

For starters, 'Family' is very stylish and very dark. It wastes no time revealing its darkness, the lead hit man, Rocco (Jon Freda), blowing away a whole family in the opening scene, an innocent family at that as he suspects they're the Manzonis. That's the whole tone of the movie, the moments where that schizo nature works well. The line "You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy" kept coming up for me. You can move this Mafia family to France, but they're still a tough, hard-edged, take no prisoners family. Giovanni still resorts to strong arm tactics to get what he needs (including drastic measures to get clear water, not brown water from the faucet), Maggie doesn't appreciate the American hate and takes out a grocery store, Belle fights off the "charms" of the locals and young Warren sets up a crime ring within days. It's these moments that are the most fun. Even better? Giovanni's mental asides as we see what he'd like to do to those who come up against him for any number of reasons.

I didn't understand the hate some reviews had, mostly because of the cast. The last couple years have been up and down for De Niro with some of his roles, but he shows off here that he as good a dramatic actor as he is, he's also a really funny actor. He doesn't try too hard. He just is funny, getting the laugh from playing a ridiculously brutal straight man. His facial expressions are priceless, his deadpan deliveries even better. He's got an excellent chemistry with Pfeiffer as his wife, a similarly dark, funny part. Her highlight? Her confession to the village priest is so startling (we don't hear it) that the priest wants nothing to do with her. The kids have their moments too, virginal Belle turning back advances from some less than smooth village boys, turning her attention to a dreamy college student/teacher while Warren gets beat up badly the first day at school and goes to work setting up his own little crime ring. As bizarre and dark and goofy as this group is, I liked them all.

There's more though, starting with Tommy Lee Jones as Agent Robert Stansfield, the FBI agent placed in charge of the Manzonis as they move from one place to another in Witness Protection. Jimmy Palumbo and Domenick Lombardozzi have some fun too as the two surveillance agents assigned as security over the Manzonis in their cozy French house.

It all builds to an inevitable showdown, the Mafia finally tracking them down in their new French home. A squad of Italian hit men descend on the village, the Manzonis forced to improvise as they come under attack. There's some cool action in this finale, even if it is more than a little ridiculous in the end results. That's the movie in itself. It is all over the place, struggling to find that one tone that works and sticking with it. The script at times in director Luc Besson's film depends far too much on coincidence -- like how the Mafia finds Giovanni and Co., not to mention finding the house -- for my liking, but the moments that work, really work. How about Giovanni (posing as a writer) asked to be a guest speaker at a film screening, originally intended to be Some Came Running but it ends up being....Goodfellas. Yes, it's a self-conscious script/movie decision (De Niro starred in said movie) but it works and the payoff is excellent.

Good movie, not great, with some very funny, very dark moments.

The Family (2013): ***/****

American Hustle

Although he worked semi-regularly in Hollywood since the late 1990s, director David O. Russell has definitely put his name on the map over the last few years, starting with 2010's The Fighter. He followed it up with the halfway decent Silver Linings Playbook, picking up an Oscar nomination while not winning, and if the buzz is right, he'll pick up another nomination for 2013's American Hustle. Will he? Will he win this time around? Only time will tell.

A self-made businessman, Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) owns a string of dry cleaners in New Jersey, but that's just a front for his far more lucrative job. Working as a con artist, he sells forged art, pulls shady deals, but mostly he embezzles money from desperate men who can't do a thing because they're so desperate when they realize they've been fleeced. One day at a Christmas party he meets Sydney (Amy Adams), a goal-oriented young woman without the means to reach those goals. Polar opposites, they hit it off immediately, Sydney becoming an involved part of Irving's running cons, the money rolling in in piles. Well, it does for quite awhile at least. They've caught the eye of an FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper), who rather than have them serve a jail sentence, enlists them in helping him run his own operation, taking down corrupt politicians looking to take bribes. Irving and Sydney know the plan isn't so simple, but they're left with no other alternatives. None of them know how far this plan could really go.

Two things came to mind when watching this Russell-directed flick, working off a script written by Russell and Eric Singer. One, it pays tributes to films like it from the past, embracing a throwback, retro style that plays well from the opening credits. Those credits are the old studio credits that a movie from the 1970s would have used, not the polished ones greeting audiences now in 2013. The style is everywhere, the big hair, the ridiculously awesome-looking suits as style changed in a big way between the 1970s and 1980s, the giant, spacious cars, the great soundtrack featuring everything from folk rock to soft jazz and everything in between, just the general look of 'Hustle.' It's like a modern period piece, if a quick trip to the past in the 70s/80s. It feels like we're in that fun to watch, visual and a very fun trip in a time capsule. Russell clearly spared no expense, and it shows, the atmosphere, the look (even in the background) all adding another layer to the story.

As for that second thing, it's the casting, a very talented cast from top to bottom. Having worked with Russell last year in 'Playbook,' both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence return here, both of them leaving their mark. Lawrence plays Irving's wife, Rosalyn, more than a little kooky in her conversations, beliefs and generally....yeah, everything she does. With Adams (vamping it up), Bale (chubbing it up), Lawrence (crazying it up) and Cooper (perming it up with an awesome hairdo), you've got an ensemble that should be able to carry any and all movies. And don't be fooled, this is the definition of an ensemble cast. Each of those actors are more than capable of carrying a movie on their shoulders, and they have so seeing their ample talents together in a single movie, it's a treat. Oh, and there's more. Also look for Jeremy Renner, comedian Louis C.K., Michael Pena, Shea Whigham, Anthony Zerbe, Elisabeth Rohm, Jack Huston, Alessandro Nivola and some actor named Robert De Niro appearing in a brutally efficient, uncredited one-scene cameo. Yeah, I guess that's a decent cast.

Heading into this movie, I had a general idea of what the story was about, an ever-moving story based somewhat loosely on a true story, dubbed Abscam. I don't want to give too much away, Russell's film covering a ton of ground in its 138-minute running time. It is a smart, well-written script that gives the cast a chance to show off their talents. Why does it work so well? It's simple; that story. Too often movies have to be about a gimmick, a message, about explosions, violence or sex. 'Hustle' instead chooses to focus on a crazy situation that keeps on getting crazy, all the cast getting their opportunities to step into the spotlight. It was refreshing to see a movie that's content to be just that; a good movie. The humor is never overdone, and there's a lot of it. I was surprised how funny the movie actually is, one laugh after another as this blackmail/entrapment scheme gets more and more complicated.

I can't pinpoint a weak acting performance in Russell's film, but for me, it's more than easy to identity the strongest performance here, and that goes to Christian Bale. Having already won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his part in Russell's The Fighter (also co-starring Adams), Bale leaves another lasting impression with his most recent part. First of all, physically he put on a fair amount of weight, giving himself a nice little gut, while also favoring a truly amazing combover. In a weird way, Bale just commits to his Irving's goofy, gentlemanly style, but it's more than that. He makes Irving a real flesh and blood character, and oddly enough, one of the more sympathetic characters around because he's such an accomplished con man. Backed into a corner, Irving is worrying about maybe 13 different plates spinning all around him, also planning 15 or 16 moves ahead so he's always in control, even if it doesn't seem that way. It isn't necessarily a showy role, but that's what I liked it. Subtle in his delivery, letting his physical appearance add some laughs. It could be a busy Oscar season, but I'm betting money that Bale gets a Best Acting nomination. I hope he does.

If there is a weakness, it's that Russell's film covers so much ground with so many characters that by the end, it drags in parts. They all know what the ending will be, what it will offer and how it affects all the characters, but there are stretches getting to that point that slow things down needlessly. By no means is any of that complaint a dealbreaker. 'Hustle' is still an incredibly easy film to recommend. Could it use some tightening up? Probably, but you'll no doubt enjoy this one. Lots of talent, lots of fun.

American Hustle (2013): ***/****

Last Vegas

Everyone liked The Hangover, right? Yeah, we don't have to go into the entertaining, but completely unnecessary sequels, but that original was pretty good, huh?!? When I saw the trailer for this movie, my first thought was "Oh, that sounds cool, The Hangover for older people...and with an A-list cast!" How can you go wrong? I submit that you cannot. Here we go with 2013's Last Vegas.

In his late 60s and a successful businessman, Billy (Michael Douglas) is getting married for the first time, proposing to his 32-year old girlfriend (Bre Blair). To celebrate the upcoming wedding, Billy calls his childhood friends, Archie (Morgan Freeman) and Sam (Kevin Kline), who agree that they need to do a bachelor party right...in Las Vegas. There's a problem though, the fourth member of the group of friends, Paddy (Robert De Niro), refuses to go, holding a grudge against Billy for an incident from the past. Archie and Sam manage to convince a less than excited Paddy to go with to the bachelor party and fly to Las Vegas to meet up with Billy. Each of the four friends is looking for something out of the weekend, and maybe they'll be able to mend the fences from all their past issues. Maybe, just maybe, they'll have some fun doing it too.

This drama-comedy from director Jon Turteltaub is an easy one to figure out if audiences will like it. Watch the trailer and you'll know immediately if this is the movie for you. It's The Hangover with less partying, drinking and drugs, replaced with jokes for an older audience about health problems, aging quicker than ever, and plenty of jokes about the prostate, having to pee a lot, and all your friends passing away or getting sick. I'm making it sound far more negative than it was -- I laughed a lot during the movie -- but come on. It's Douglas, De Niro, Freeman and Kline in a movie together, a story about rekindling old friendships. It's familiar, like home cooking, and funny throughout. This isn't a comedy that rewrites the genre or throws anything new your way. Sit back and watch some very talented actors have a lot of fun together. That's it.

Movies like this are supposed to be just that, a hell of a lot of fun. So what's a good recipe for making that happen? Put four actors together with the caliber of Michael Douglas, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Kline and Robert De Niro and.....nope, that's it. I would watch this quartet hang out at a bar shooting the breeze. That's it. These guys are four Hollywood legends and working off a script from Dan Fogelman, they are having a hell of a lot of fun. The four friends grew up together in New York City, dubbing themselves the Flatbush Four. They're grown up, started families, become grandparents, drifted apart some, but they keep in touch as much as possible. Given a chance to reunite, they're able to put past differences aside (mostly). This is a very talented quartet working together, all getting a chance to show off their comedic timing -- Freeman and Kline are especially funny -- as they have a hell of a weekend in Las Vegas.

Each is given a gimmick of sorts, a little thing needed to work out. Douglas' Billy is getting hitched but is concerned about seeing Paddy who is pissed at him for a recent event Billly was unable to attend. Their friendship is one that borders on rivalry, especially when they both meet and like Mary Steenburgen's sassy, smart-mouthed lounge singer. Freeman's Archie is coming off a mild stroke, his son (Michael Ealy) worried about his sick dad, placing limits on eating, drinking and just about everything while pushing pill after pill. Kline's Sam is recouping from hip surgery, hating his life in Retirement Village, USA. He's given permission by his wife (Joanna Gleason) to have sex -- no strings attached -- with any woman while in Vegas. For Archie and Sam, the weekend becomes about reuniting with friends but also reclaiming their wild oats. That becomes the funnest part of the 105-minute movie.

Also look for Entourage alum Jerry Ferrara as a Vegas partygoer who gets on the Flatbush Four's bad side and Romany Malco as Lonnie, the Four's personal assistant and tour guide of sorts at their swanky hotel villa. Even look for a quick and you'll miss it cameo from rapper 50 Cent.  

The story is focused on the four friends -- obviously -- as they explore Vegas, meet the dreamy lounge singer, work as judges on a bikini contest, get into a high-end nightclub with some pricey bottle service, gamble a little bit here and there, bust each others' balls but don't let outsiders do the same (only friends can do that), throw the biggest party Las Vegas has ever seen and maybe find out what brought them all together as friends and kept them as friends for over 60 years. It isn't a great movie because it isn't meant to be. More movies should be like this, funny, well-acted and entertaining throughout. Highly recommended if for nothing else than Morgan Freeman is a really good dancer. Age be damned.

Last Vegas (2013): ***/****

The Untouchables

So Prohibition, huh? That must have sucked. People wanted to drink, but the government said it was illegal to do so. The government agencies and police forces were tasked with limiting the bootleggers, but that was easier said than done. The most famous? Eliot Ness, a Treasury agent who became famous for helping take down Chicago gangster Al Capone. His story was turned into a successful TV show in the late 1950s and early 1960s and maybe most famously in a feature film, 1987's The Untouchables.

It's 1930 and Prohibition has turned Chicago into a warring city of dead bodies and rival gangsters fighting for control. The most powerful though is Al Capone (Robert De Niro), ruling the city and the influx of alcohol with an iron fist. Where there's demand, he's got the supply. A U.S. Treasury agent, Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner), has been called in to bring Capone to justice, hopefully bringing his crime empire down with him. Ness, idealistic and a little naive, struggles with where to start, meeting dead end after dead end as he discovers how deep Capone's empire goes. Obsessed with doing his job and doing it well, Ness keeps on, recruiting a small group of agents and police officers, including a tough Chicago beat cop, James Malone (Sean Connery), who knows the streets better than anyone. As he quickly finds out, Ness doesn't know how deep he'll have to go to accomplish his mission, especially when the bodies start to pile up.

From director Brian De Palma, this is one of those perfect guy's guy movies. It is based on Ness' real-life exploits as his crew of Untouchables took the battle to Capone in Chicago between 1929 and 1931. Yes, time is compressed, some names are changed here and there, but the point is the same. It has just about everything going for it. 'Untouchables' was filmed on location in Chicago (looks gorgeous), and it feels like Depression Era Chicago, picking up two Oscar nominations for Costume Design and Art Direction/Set Decoration. Everything from the background on the streets to the cars to the time-appropriate costumes (Armani suits never looked so good), it all adds layer after layer to the film. Also picking up an Oscar nomination is the score from composer Ennio Morricone.Listen to his full soundtrack HERE. I love the sweep of it, quiet, moving Morricone balanced with bigger, epic Morricone.

At the forefront of 'Untcouhables' is a great pairing of stars. Costner is one of the biggest stars of the 1980s with everything from Bull Durham to Field of Dreams, Silverado to No Way Out. Connery was a Hollywood legend, the firmly established star. Their on-screen dynamic is an underrated part of the success here that can get lost in the shuffle. Costner's Eliot is a hard-driving, hard-working idealist. He wants to accomplish his mission, but do it the right way, not knowing how filthy the world is he finds himself in. Connery's Malone is the flat-footed beat cop with a long career behind him. He knows everyone, knows all the secrets and inner-workings. Eliot Ness is looking for help while Malone is looking for a reason to become re-energized again after years of watching greed and corruption poison Chicago. Their scenes together crackle, dialogue just brimming with energy and plenty of great one-liners.

Joining Costner and Connery as the Untouchables are a very young Andy Garcia and a scene-stealing Charles Martin Smith. Garcia plays George Stone, a cop fresh out of the Police Academy and a dead-shot with a pistol, his Italian background hinted at but never fully explained. Garcia's Stone is inherently cool, a man of few words who lets his smirk and his pistol do his talking. Martin Smith plays Oscar Wallace, a Treasury accountant/bookkeeper who jumps at the chance to do some actual field work with the Untouchables. It's four cool characters, a great dynamic among the quartet, an odd couple men on a mission grouping that works perfectly.

Committing to gaining weight to really look the part, De Niro is a fine choice to play infamous Chicago gangster Al Capone. It is a part that would have been easy to be exaggerated, but De Niro knows how far to push it. Capone is hot-tempered, fiery and barely keeps his emotions in check. The part is mostly long scenes, monologues really, where De Niro gets to flex a bit. Richard Bradford plays the police commissioner caught in the middle of it all and maybe playing all sides, Patricia Clarkson plays Ness' pregnant wife, an uncredited Clifton James as the prosecuting district attorney, and Billy Drago as Frank Nitti, Capone's chief enforcer and accomplished killer.

With the actual history here condensed from a few years to seemingly a few months, we get an episodic story that covers a ton of ground in the 119-minute movie. More than the performances, the music, the period appropriate....well, everything, 'Untouchables' always stands out for me because of the well-staged set pieces. An ambush near the Canadian border is a gem, the machine guns rattling like crazy to Morricone's swooping score. The highlight though has Ness and Co. looking for Capone's bookkeeper, desperately trying to get out of town, at Union Station. The action, the drama, the nods to classic films (Battleship Potempkin), and the slow motion all build to this almost unbearable tension. Maybe it isn't the most unified script/story, but the set pieces help keep things together beginning to end. A gem, a must-see for fans of Costner, Connery, gangster movie fans and any Chicagoans.

The Untouchables (1987): ****/****

Silver Linings Playbook

Each movie awards season, some movies gain crazy amounts of momentum. Little films turn into BIG films thanks to some critical buzz, others because of word of mouth. Too put it lightly, I can be a little wary of these films, especially when everyone is shoving it down your throats. Case in point, 2012's Silver Linings Playbook. I needn't have worried. I liked it....a lot.

After an eight month stay at a mental institution, Pat Solitano Jr. (Bradley Cooper) is finally released and moves back in with his parents, Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro) and Dolores (Jacki Weaver), at their home in Philadelphia. The incident that put him in the institution still hangs over Pat though, and though he's trying his best, he's struggling to adjust. His parents have their own issues going on while Pat tries his best to get back together with his wife, proving he's changed. It doesn't go particularly well until he meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a young widow who struggled with sex addiction following her husband's tragic death. Tiffany offers a solution though; she'll help Pat get back together with Nikki if he helps her in an amateur dance competition that requires a partner. He bristles at first but decides to go along. Maybe these two can end up helping each other.

One of the most talented directors currently working, David O. Russell delivers a gem here. He earned a Best Director nod, ultimately losing to Ang Lee for Life of Pi. While it is a drama, it has some very funny moments. It isn't a drama or comedy, refusing to be hamstrung by either genre description, and it's the better for it. The drama, laughs and emotions come from the personal reality of the story. While the amateur dance competition seems a little out of left field, it isn't an issue. It fits in with the story effortlessly. 'Playbook' also deftly handles a story that focuses so heavily on mental health issues. Pat, Tiffany and others struggle with depression, addictions and other assorted things that can't be seen like a disease or a sickness. There aren't easily seen symptoms, but the diseases are very, very real. It's a human drama, and a good one.

An awards season darling, 'Playbook' didn't catch all that buzz because of any huge style, crazy cinematography or groundbreaking new storytelling technique. Plain and simple, it's the acting with a nomination for each of the Best Acting categories. Cooper and Lawrence aren't close age-wise at all, Cooper 37 and Lawrence 21 at the time of filming, but the age difference isn't an issue in the least. Talk about chemistry, it's pretty perfect every time they have a scene together. They drive each other nuts but can't quite get away each other. Cooper does a fine job showing a pissed off frustration at the world while still being sympathetic. Lawrence was the lone Oscar winner, taking the Best Actress award, and she deserves it. There are moments where her armor is up, protecting herself, but revealing her worries and concerns in these horrifically dramatic moments that are difficult to watch. Very likable actors in just about every part they do, and as the hearts of the film here, they don't disappoint.

Also earning supporting nominations were De Niro and Weaver. Of the two, I was more impressed with De Niro, his Pat Sr. an epic Philadelphia Eagles fan who lives on superstitions and luck, struggling with his own past demons and current issues while trying to help out his son. He has a scene late that's perfect with Lawrence, a confrontation that gets defused in a great back-and-forth. Weaver's role is more familiar but still worth watching, a mother who worries and worries about everyone around her. In some other key supporting parts look for a subdued Chris Tucker as Pat's friend from the institution, Anupam Kher as Dr. Cliff, Pat's psychiatrist, John Ortiz as Ronnie, a friend of Pat's who's married to Nikki's nagging sister (Julia Stiles), and Shea Whigham as Jake, Pat's older brother who doesn't know how to deal with his brother's mental health issues.

I liked the movie throughout, but I wasn't sure early on exactly where it was heading. It's never slow, but an episodic story that runs 122 minutes does cover a lot of ground. I never thought I would write this in a review, but the story really comes together as the amateur dance competition and the training for it steps to the forefront. Go figure. All the different personal issues come together in a scene that could have gone poorly if handled a little differently. It's high on emotion -- maybe a little too much -- but like so much else here, it works. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. The dance competition ends up being a great scene and a fitting finale. I'm not one who is typically in favor of a movie having a happy ending, but this is one where it is required/necessary. Great ending to a really good movie with a handful of worthwhile acting performances.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012): *** 1/2 /****

Mean Streets

Even the most talented directors have to start somewhere, typically from the bottom and climb their way up. Yeah, even Martin Scorsese. After making his big screen directorial debut with 1970s Big Bertha, Scorsese followed up the effort with 1973's Mean Streets, a film typically identified as a near-classic, especially considering how influential it was in the years to come.

It's New York City in the 1970s, and it is a less than pleasant place. Among all the craziness is Charlie (Harvey Keitel), a young man in his 20s working for his uncle who has some Mafia ties. Charlie typically works as a collection agent (of sorts), picking up any tributes owed his uncle. He has a good niche, a good life carved out for himself, but Charlie wants more. He wants to start a business of his own -- preferably a restaurant -- and marry his girlfriend (sort of), Teresa (Amy Robinson). A couple things are holding him back though. One, Teresa has epilepsy, and everyone associated with Charlie looks down on the girl. Two, his longtime friend, Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro), is always in trouble, usually related to his lack of success paying off debts. If Charlie ever wants to amount to something, he's going to have to figure out both issues.

From the word 'Go' here, it's obvious that Scorsese is a very talented director behind the camera. All those little touches we're used to now in 2012 with a very established Scorsese are already on display in this 1973 mobster flick. He uses the camera to give his film a style, following the action around with some impressive tracking shots. The camera isn't stationary, always on the go. Maybe Scorsese's most recognizable touch though is his soundtracks, especially using songs from The Rolling Stones. Here, he uses Jumpin' Jack Flash in De Niro's character's entrance. Watch it HERE. It's the epitome of cool. Some 30 years later, it may seem cliched, but Scorsese set the mold here. Just like that ever-moving camera, the soundtrack ends up being a key ingredient to the movie's success. Check out the soundtrack listing HERE.

With style to burn, it's easy to forget the interesting story that 'Streets' presents. Identifying as a story isn't exactly an accurate description as long as we're talking about it. If anything, I would say it's a series of vignettes held together by a handful of characters. The focus in the story is on Charlie, but it's a little trip through his life, his world, and his problems. There are no huge set pieces over even huge scenes. The bouncy, jumping story makes a 112-minute long movie a tad long in portions, but for the most part it works. Working off a script written by Scorsese and Mardik Martin, it has an easiness with its characters and surroundings. It might not always seem like it, but 'Streets' knows where it's going. If I can say anything, it's this. Stick with it. 

One of my favorite things about Scorsese's films are his ability to introduce and present characters that are far from likable, but they just the same end up being very likable, even sympathetic. This was Keitel's first major, starring role, and he's a scene-stealer. It's a subtle job he does too. You don't even realize how good he is because everyone else has showier, flashier parts, but this is Keitel's movie. As for De Niro, it's odd to see him in a goofy, almost dumbed-down role as Johnny Boy just because his parts in The Godfather 2 and Taxi Driver are the complete polar opposite. I loved Keitel and De Niro's chemistry, loved their interactions, everything about their friendship. Their group of quasi-friends include Tony (David Proval), a tough guy and restaurant owner, and (Richard Romanus), a bookie who lent Johnny Boy some serious money. Cesare Danova plays Giovanni, Charlie's Mafia-connected uncle who seemingly has a pull on everyone.

If there is any complaint I have about this movie, it is the ending. It's apparent as we get to know Keitel's Charlie -- and more importantly how stupid Johnny Boy is -- that things are not headed in a positive direction unless something drastic changes. So here we are with one of my favorite film elements; that impending sense of doom hanging over characters. 'Streets' builds and builds on that premise and even presents an ending that could (and probably should) have worked. I don't need everything spelled out for me, but a little more closure would have been good here. A little too open-ended for me. But overall, it's a minor complaint in an otherwise very good movie. Scorsese's talent is evident if a little rough at this early point in his career. Seriously though, it's Scorsese, De Niro and Keitel. That's a difficult trio to beat.

Mean Streets (1973): ***/****

Machete

Use the term 'exploitation film' and it's about as vague as you can get in describing a genre as a whole. So how to describe them? Basically any movie made on the cheap -- to a point at least -- that appeals to a mass audience. This is not The Godfather or Lawrence of Arabia. These films through the 1960s and 1970s can be amazingly bad to watch (in a good way), and influenced directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, both modern day directors who have done their own exploitation films, including Rodriguez's 2010's Machete.

It's been three years since ex-Federale, Machete (Danny Trejo), was betrayed by his boss, saw his wife and daughter killed and was left for dead. Now working as a day laborer in Texas, Machete is approached by the mysterious Booth (Jeff Fahey) who offers him $150,000 to assassinate Senator John McLaughlin (Robert De Niro), currently running for re-election. Machete agrees and takes the money, but he is double-crossed during the attempt. It was all a set-up, and McLaughlin was in on it to boost his re-election effort. Severely wounded and on the run, Machete is on his own, but he's looking for answers. You can follow his trail by the mangled bodies he's going to leave behind.

As a director, Rodriguez shot to fame with his ultra-low budget El Mariachi and kept climbing with Desperado, From Dusk Til Dawn and the Spy Kids series (I suppose on that last one). He already did a tribute to exploitation with Sin City and Grindhouse, but thanks to the fictional trailers from Grindhouse, he had the potential for this film. I understand the appeal of the genre; no pretensions about sex, violence, sex, drugs, sex, whatever. I love low-budget schlock, and all those touches are there. The grainy film, that distinct low-budget look, the ridiculous story, all there for us to enjoy. But the problem for me was obvious. You make an exploitation film and do it. Made for a little over $10 million, something just ain't right here.

The only thing I can figure? Instead of just being an exploitation flick, it comes across as a spoof. It has its moments, especially Trejo's stone-faced one-liners and reactions, including my favorite, "Machete don't text." Rodriguez just tries too hard to make those films he grew up on and loved. How many different ways can you see a machete decapitate, cripple, mangle and generally destroy a human being? I lost count, but the effort was surely made here. It's supposed to be cartoonish violence, but it ends up looking laughable. I don't know if it was just poorly done CGI or what, but the final product is bad. Low brow is one thing (and can certainly be a positive), but when Machete jumps out a window and uses a man's intestines as a bungee cord, I knew I was in trouble.

A veteran of 150-plus flicks, Danny Trejo doesn't disappoint as the titular character. He basically expresses no emotion, doesn't crack a smile and is required to look tough and be a badass who dispatches nameless henchmen in creative ways with a machete....oh, and usually saying a cheesy one-liner while doing it. That's all. Trejo nails the part. Give Rodriguez credit. The man can put a cast together. De Niro hams it up as McLaughlin with Fahey being a gravelly-voiced scene stealer as Booth, the senator's aide. In the eye candy department, we've got Jessica Alba (can't act, semi-nude scene), Michelle Rodriguez (can act, no nude scene), and Lindsay Lohan (can't act, topless). In the flashback department, we've got an enormous-looking Steven Seagal as a Mexican drug lord and Don Johnson as a vigilante "protecting" the U.S./Mexico border. Rodriguez favorite Cheech Marin is another scene-stealer as Padre, Machete's shotgun-toting brother who happens to be a priest. Also look for Shea Whigham as Booth's inept henchman.

The story that revolves around Machete's revenge efforts include De Niro's Senator, Seagal's drug lord, Johnson's border vigilante, and an evil conspiracy to control the border to curtail illegal immigrants coming into America. I'm all sorts of democratic, but I don't want any message shoved in my face in a movie named 'Machete.' The whole angle, the angelic underground network helping people across and the dastardly evil big business, gets to be too much in a movie that had a whole lot of too much for me.

Look, I get it. This isn't a movie meant to be over-analyzed and critiqued within an inch of its life. It's about seeing Machete bed down every woman he meets (almost), about twin nurses in short skirts firing machine guns, about a tricked-out, machine gun packed motorcycle, countless decapitations, perfectly slimy bad guys, topless Lindsay Lohan, and all that beautiful low-brow humor and violence that most films just can't get away with. I just didn't like it. Exploitation is one thing, but I can't get over the fact that it plays far too much like a spoof. I of course might be alone in this sentiment. The sequel, Machete Kills, is due in theaters next summer.

Machete <---trailer (2010): * 1/2 /****

Killer Elite (2011)

Not to be confused with Sam Peckinpah's 1975 flick The Killer Elite -- a mess of a movie but entertaining -- came 2011's Killer Elite. See, they dropped the 'The' to help us out. Throwing me for a loop even more was that the stories sounded somewhat similar. The more recent Killer Elite looked pretty generic to me, but I've been in a bit of a slump at Netflix lately so I thought I'd give it a try. Not a classic, but it was much better than I anticipated.

It's 1980 and after a mission doesn't go off quite as planned, mercenary Danny Bryce (Jason Statham) decides to leave the business and heads home to Australia. A year later, he finds out that his old partner, Hunter (Robert De Niro), is being held prisoner for not completing a high-paying but risky job. Danny takes the job on to save his friend. Working for a Middle Eastern sheikh, Danny must avenge the deaths of the deposed sheikh's three sons, the deaths coming at the hands of SAS (British Special Forces) agents. He must not only kill them, but get taped confessions in the process. With some help from his former team, Danny goes about finding them, but he isn't privy to the whole scenario. Waiting for him is a former SAS agent with a shadowy past, Spike (Clive Owen), who will do his best to protect his former partners too.

Based on the novel The Feather Men by Ranulph Fiennes, 'Elite' is supposedly based on real-life events. The Feather Men were a group of mercenary vigilantes who did all sorts of shady things, most of them helping protect others from killers and murderers. Now whether it's true or not is one thing. Take it's honesty however you want it -- it is certainly possible -- but what surprised me is how much I liked the movie. Set in 1980, it has the distinct feel of a 1980s action movie. No frills, no wasted efforts, and little to no sense of humor. All the characters aren't black and white, but shades of gray, and the world is one nasty place where everyone is in it for themselves. There are some twists toward the end that work pretty well, but as far as action movies go, it rises above the majority of those released recently.

This may sound odd concerning an action movie, but I liked the look and feel of 'Elite.' Director Gary McKendry -- in his first feature film -- does a great job of setting things up. He shot the movie on-location in Wales, England and Australia, and it doesn't have that generic look of 'been there, seen that.' With a story set in 1980, it actually feels like 1980 whether it be the clothes, the bad hair cuts, or even the throwback cars that make the chases that much more interesting. Throw in a solid score from Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek -- seemingly channeling Hans Zimmer's Inception score at times -- and you've got all the makings of a real winner.

With all those shadowy good/bad guys, McKendry certainly must have had some fun casting. All the sudden, it feels like Jason Statham is in every movie hitting theaters, but I'm a fan, and I'm okay with that. His steely-eyed, cold mercenary is what Statham does best. He glares and sneers, growls his lines, and when needed kicks/punches/shoots anyone in his way. Like some of his other movies though, it isn't mindless fight scenes repeated one after another. The fights have something to do with a...wait for it...story! As his SAS opponent, Clive Owen again shows he can be an action star. He's a great actor, but with roles like this that allow him to have some fun, he doesn't disappoint. Rocking an epic mustache, Owen's Spike is an enforcer of sorts for what the book dubbed 'the Feather Men.' We learn very little about him or his background other than that he's extremely capable and a highly dangerous man.

And then's there Robert De Niro.....freaking De Niro! It's great to see him play more mainstream, commercial roles too. Now are these especially good parts? No, not in the least. Playing Hunter, Danny's mentor and former partner, De Niro isn't exactly phoning it in, but it's close. He has some great one-liners and does have a good give-and-take with Statham. It's really more of a cameo than anything as he disappears for long stretches. Other worthwhile parts go to Dominic Purcell as Davies, the hot-headed Welshman (with handlebar mustache, epic sideburns, nasty, greasy hair), and Aden Young as Meier, the quiet killer, two former members of Danny's team now working with him once again. Star of TV's Chuck, Yvonne Strahovski plays Anne, the love interest that Danny must protect when threatened. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje has a good part too as Agent, Danny's link for jobs and missions around the world.

Struggling in theaters -- making around $25 million -- and receiving mixed to negative reviews, Killer Elite is probably doomed to the $5 bin of movies at Wal-Mart. It's too bad because while not a classic, it is very watchable and I enjoyed it. Maybe it's that throwback feel to 1980s action movies or a solid cast working so well together, but I'd recommend this one. It isn't the tongue in cheek, over the top action movie that trailers and commercials presented it as. Cool globe-trotting cast, great action, and a solid and possibly true story.

Killer Elite <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Jackie Brown

One of the breakout stars of 1970s movies, Pam Grier shot to fame in blaxploitation movies like Coffy and Foxy Brown. She was tough, sassy and sexy, and not surprisingly became a fan favorite. Her best performance though is an easy one to peg, Quentin Tarantino's 1997 film Jackie Brown. 

After being busted years before for transporting drugs, stewardess Jackie Brown (Grier) again finds herself in trouble with the authorities. Working for a low-level airline, Jackie is transporting large shipments of cash for an arms dealer, Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), stationed out of Los Angeles. Not looking to do jail time and avoid probation at all costs, Jackie has to figure out what to do. The authorities (including ATF agent Michael Keaton) are pressing her, but with some help from a friendly bail bondsman, Max Cherry (Robert Forster), Jackie comes up with a complicated if hopefully successful plan to get out clean....and with a boatload of money too.

As I've mentioned before, Tarantino as a director can be a tad bit polarizing among fans. Watching his movies, I've come to be a huge fan, enjoying some movies and loving others. It's a given going in. You can expect a hip soundtrack, style in general to burn, some characters and acting you might not expect, lots, lots of dialogue and some startling violence. For Tarantino haters, this might be a good intro. At 154 minutes, it is a little long in the tooth. The dialogue is a little self-indulgent and too much, but because of the immense talents involved you go along with it. The violence is probably at an all-time low for Quentin with a story focusing more on the characters, the betrayals and the double crosses. So if you despise Tarantino, give this one a try.

More of a sex symbol in the 1970s than an actress, Grier shows that without a doubt, no question about it, she can act and do it well. Part of it is the script (based off an Elmore Leonard novel), but this is a great character. Grier puts her own spin on it. Jackie is backed into a corner with nothing left to lose at this point. She's looking at minimum at probation, more likely serving jail time. With no ace up her sleeve, she plays everyone around her -- except for one person -- to her own benefit. The catch? We're rooting for her. She's likable (okay, I thought so). We want her to succeed. Oh, and just an FYI, at 48 years old....still sexy.  Just saying.

What I don't understand with Tarantino haters is that whatever you dislike about him personally or his style as a director, he consistently gets original, unique, and entertaining performances from his cast. You know what's a good sign of a deep cast? Read the plot synopsis, and it doesn't even mention Robert De Niro. Not bad when a movie uses De Niro as a supporting part, involved but not essential to the story. He plays Louis Gara, an ex-con working with Jackson's Ordell, underplaying his part to the point you question if he's acting. Bridget Fonda plays Melanie, one of Ordell's girlfriends, spending most of her screentime in a bikini and stoned out of her mind. Keaton plays Keaton, a kinda finicky, eccentric ATF agent while Chris Tucker has a small part as  Beaumont, one of Ordell's "associates."

Right up there with Grier though, I thought the best performance was from Robert Forster as Max Cherry, a bail bondsman with 20 years of experience and some 15,000 bonds written. When he meets Grier's Jackie, he's instantly drawn to her and ends up getting involved in her scheme like he never planned. I don't know what it was about the performance, but I liked it. Like most of the acting here, it's underplayed and subtle. Max has a bright spot in his life when Jackie enters. His voice mail message checking in with her says it all, a rambling stream of thought providing every single one of his contact numbers. It's a human part amidst all the quick, fast-paced dialogue, just one aging guy looking for something in his life. Oh, and Samuel L. Jackson is intimidating and an all-around great bad guy.

Add another win for Tarantino with this one. Similar in some ways to his other films, it is also very different. However you feel about him though, it is well-written and the performances keep you interested from beginning to end. Not a bad follow-up to Pulp Fiction at all.

Jackie Brown <---trailer (1997): ***/****

Limitless

Depending on where you read or who is trustworthy, numbers vary on how much of our brain we actually use. Some state that in one way or another we use 100% of its functions, albeit at different times, never all at once. Other reports have us using anywhere from 10-20% of our brain function.  So as 2011's Limitless brought up, what if we could utilize our brain for the amazing piece of science it really is? What if we could be functioning on a second-to-second basis, using every little ounce of intelligence, observation, and ability we have?

A struggling writer in New York City, Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) is given a pill -- NZT 48 --by his ex-brother in law (Johnny Whitworth) who tells him it opens up the sensors in your brain, expanding what you were previously capable of. Somewhat suspiciously, Eddie takes it and is blown away by the results. Everything begins to fall into place for him. He can remember everything he's ever seen or heard, can analyze numbers, trends, and algorithms in ways no one else can. Money and success start to roll in, and the possibilities are endless as his mind and his ability increase by leaps and bounds, even working with a huge energy company (run by Robert De Niro) with billions of dollars at stake. What is this pill though? Can he get more of them? And what are the consequences? Eddie starts to see, where there is an obvious positive there is almost always a costly negative.

Since his starring role in 2009's The Hangover, Bradley Cooper has had quite a couple of years.  He's an actor who is also a movie star, and he certainly seems destined for bigger and better things.  Cooper is a great choice to play Eddie, a pretty regular guy who's completely bottomed out on life and given this incredible opportunity to better himself...at a price of course.  As an actor, Cooper has a knack for playing a likable asshole for lack of a better description.  He's obnoxious at times, condescending and smarmy, but well...aw shucks, he seems nice still.  This character is more interesting than likable, but that's all the story needs. Eddie's narration is a quality and necessary part of the story, explaining what's happening and changing without telling us every little thing. This is Cooper's movie though, and he doesn't disappoint there. It's good to see him carry a movie on his own.

This movie had its fair share of flaws -- which I'll get to -- but overall I liked it. Limitless is a thriller that isn't built around explosions or action or violence or sex.  It is a thriller of one person stumbling into something and quickly getting in over his head. Low-key isn't the right description, but that's all I'm coming up with. Director Neil Burger has a smart, interesting and mostly well-thought out thriller. The scenes of Eddie "expanding" his brain/mind are highly stylized without being obnoxious. The negative side effects -- jumps in time, loss of short term memory -- are equally stylized, a blur of people and actions that aren't quite clear. The conspiracy theories pop up late with some twists and needless turns, but a personal thriller of one man caught up in some shady dealings is always entertaining.

Let's talk flaws because what's the fun in just slobbering all over a movie? This pill is supposed to make you freakishly smart, but then why does Eddie do so many stupid things? That is not necessarily Cooper's fault or even the character's fault.  I think it's just some lazy screen-writing, and things needing to happen for the sake of the movie moving along more than actually making sense. Eddie gets a stash of pills when the brother in law gets killed and seemingly never runs out of pills.  Oh wait, he does run out when we need a twist. Oh, and then he finds individual pills as needed going ahead. Oh, except for that hidden stash he left with his girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) in her apartment. I realize the lack of pills is key to the story, but it needs to add up at some point. He increases his dosage but never seems to run out, and the original bag wasn't that big. Just saying...

There's more than that of course. In an effort to add some tension and danger to Eddie's situation, Morra does things that he just wouldn't rationally do. Investing in stocks, he's doubling and quadrupling his money almost daily, but he needs to borrow money from a stereotypically frightening and intimidating Russian loan shark? Andrew Howard does a fine job being intimidating as the loan shark by the way. Of course it doesn't make any sense, but without some sort of bad guy, Eddie will just float along figuring things out by himself. There's also a ridiculous jump in logic late when Eddie "needs" a fix. He can only get it by slurping up the blood of someone who injected themselves with the drug. Disgusting? Yes. Stupid? Yes. I'm no doctor, and I don't think that would work.

My only other complaint is the casting of Robert De Niro, still one of the coolest people to ever walk the Earth. The trailers built up his part -- surprise, surprise -- but he's really a secondary character. I wish there were better, smarter and more well-written parts than he's been offered of late. He makes the most of his appearance, and his scenes with Cooper show an easy, flowing chemistry, but there needed to be more of this screen legend.

Well, I did it again. Re-reading the review, I'm seeing how negative this sounds for a movie I genuinely enjoyed. The flaws aren't movie-breakers, but they're certainly noticeable.  All I can recommend is that what I enjoyed about Limitless outweighed what I didn't like. The ending is a little too tidy for my liking, but I suppose it works. Worth checking out.

Limitless <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Raging Bull

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goodfellas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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