Battle Los Angeles

It took me about the length of a trailer to figure out I wanted to see 2011's Battle Los Angeles. That's the beauty of trailers at their best. This specific one is one of the best I've ever seen, and I'll link to it later for your viewing pleasure. A trailer can convince you one way or another to go see a movie, but how often do you LOVE the actual trailer? I never got around to seeing it in theaters, but I'm glad I caught up with this summer.

Over maybe the last 10 years, it feels like the alien invasion movie has gone through a rebirth of sorts with waves of films hitting theaters. Think Cloverfield, Skyline, War of the Worlds, District 9, Signs, the Transformers movies, and even going back into the 1990s, Independence Day and Men in Black.  A lot of reviews talked that 'Battle' is more war movie with aliens as opposed to space invasion movie. Complaints are all over the place -- some fair, others not so much -- that it is a propaganda movie (sounds ridiculous to me), but my biggest issue would be that it is as cliche ridden as any movie I can think of. Is that a bad thing? No, not really, I revel in movie cliches. Just a warning as you head in.

After almost 20 years in the Marines, Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) has requested his retirement, the paperwork coming through quickly. Days removed from leaving the Marines though the planet is thrown into a worldwide battle for survival. Bizarre meteor showers are hitting off coastal cities all over the world, some extraterrestrial beings coming from the showers and proceeding to annihilate everything in their paths. Nantz is quickly transferred to a platoon of Marines commanded by the intelligent but inexperienced Lt. Martinez (Ramon Rodriguez). Like cities all over the world, Los Angeles is being torn to pieces, but Martinez, Nantz and their men are given a mission. Deep in the city is a hospital overrun by these attacking aliens. They must get into the city, rescue any survivors and get out before an air strike is called in on the whole coast. Can they do it in time, or is something else waiting for them?

In the midst of an alien invasion story, I was pleasantly surprised to see this story develop, that of the unit picture, a group of soldiers in an impossible situation trying desperately to hold on for survival.  Think as far back as 1934's The Lost Patrol or more recently with movies like 2003's Tears of the Sun or 2010's Predators. At times 'Battle' does play like a recruiting tool for the U.S. Marines more than just an action sci-fi movie with its penchant for Marine mythology and reputation. But for the most part, I liked it for the interesting alien storyline and a small group of specialists trying to maneuver through a war-torn city. There is something simple about mankind vs. aliens. There is good and bad, no cultural differences or race issues, just survival.

So from the "unit picture" comes a list of stock characters that just about everyone is familiar with. Making the most of a very stereotypical, cliche-ridden character, Eckhart is the brightest star from the cast as he plays Sergeant Nantz, the veteran Marine dealing with emotional issues from his last tour overseas where some of his men were killed (how we don't know, but it was supposedly his fault). His lines reek of cheese and are way too over the top, but Eckhart has a way of making it believable and not painful to watch. Rodriguez too (who I thought was awful in Transformers 2) is surprisingly decent with the very recognizable young, inexperienced officer. Also look for Michelle Rodriguez as Santos, an Air Force survivor traveling with the platoon, Will Rothhaar as Cpl. Imlay, maybe the most capable soldier in the bunch, Cory Hardrict as Lockett, a Marine with a bone to pick with Nantz, Jim Parrack as Kerns, a vet from Iraq/Afghanistan trying to get back,  Gino Anthony Pesi as Stavrou, rapper/hip-hop artist Ne-Yo as Harris, and Adetokumboh M'Cormack as Adukwu, the medic, among others.

What can be fun about the alien invasion movies is the reasoning, the explanation, and of course, the visual of what the aliens look like. Part of the reason Cloverfield worked was because basically all those things were left unexplained. It's a weird, immense creature attacking New York City. That's all we need to know, and the movie was better for it. 'Battle' doesn't go overboard trying to piece things together, to rationalize why the aliens are attacking Earth. The reason does seem a little suspect, but it never dwells on it. The aliens -- in whatever form they are and for whatever reason -- are good bad guys here, boasting impressive futuristic technology that forces U.S. forces and the Marines to improvise as to how to beat them. They aren't invincible, and thankfully we don't defeat them by giving them a cold/flu bug.

Battle Los Angeles was made for a relatively cheap $70 million, a modest sum for an action movie.  For all the complaints of the cheap special effects, I thought the action was a major selling point. Scenes of the city being attack provide some nice scale, a nice comparison, because the rest of the action is on a smaller, more personal scale.  It is a handful of Marines running low on ammunition navigating through L.A. as aliens work their way through the city looking to kill them. Guilty at times of using too much handi-cam and ridiculously fast editing, director Jonathan Liebesman manages to find the right balance of the loud chaotic extremes of the fighting with the personal, terrifying moments of extreme fear together.

Especially now as I look back, I'm probably overrating the movie a bit. Through the cliches in characters and story and hammy, patriotic 'Go America!' speeches, I still liked this movie. It isn't ground-breaking or new in basically in any way. It's just a fun, exciting shoot 'em up alien invasion action movie. Enjoy the trailer below too. Also mostly because I forgot, look for Michael Pena and Bridget Moynahan in pointless supporting roles as civilians along for the ride.

Battle Los Angeles <---trailer (2011): ***/****   

Trunk to Cairo

Instead of using the exact same lead as I did previously in reviewing 1966 spaghetti western The Texican, I'm going to tweak it a little bit.  The year marked a decided change for Hollywood B-movie star Audie Murphy who after 30-plus movies in the United States turned to Europe for more roles.  It was a short-lived period because after 'Texican' and another 1966 flick, Trunk to Cairo, Murphy only made two more movies before his tragic death in 1971 in a plane crash.

The movie is a mess on so many levels.  It is an Israeli-West German co-production if you're looking for any sign of the quality of the movie on the whole.  'Trunk' aired somewhat recently on Turner Classic Movies, and as a fan of Murphy, I recorded it, especially because I had never heard of the movie in any way.  The reason was pretty clear.  Like so many movies from the 1960s that featured transplanted American stars, it is awful.  We're not talking guilty pleasure either, just a bad movie with few if any redeeming qualities.  Seeing stars at their absolute worst is never a quality calling card, and that's about all this one has going for it.

Traveling to Cairo, German scientist Ludwig Bauer (Murphy) meets Helga (Marianne Koch), a young German woman going to meet her father, Professor Schlieben (George Sanders). Several of Schlieben's co-workers -- all highly intelligent scientists -- have all been brutally murdered in bombing attacks, Bauer sent as a replacement for the good professor's most recent job.  Bauer is stunned at what he finds out.  Schlieben is working on and close to completing his latest contract, building an atomic weapon that could knock out a major city, handing the weapon over to the Egyptian government for use at their discretion.  Bauer has a secret though, he's a CIA agent working with the Israelis hoping to knock out this program run by Schlieben and his neo-Nazi cohorts.

This review has the potential to go poorly very quickly. About 20 minutes into this bomb, I realized I was watching just that...a bomb.  Bad but not bad enough to be a guilty pleasure, I ended up fast-forwarding through long stretches of the movie, the 103-minute running time still managing to go by at a seemingly endless pacing.  The powerhouse directing duo of Menahem Golan and Raphael Nussbaum -- yes, somehow these two giants of film were able to work together -- look to try and capitalize off the huge worldwide successes of the James Bond movies, but well....yeah, they fail.  Good effort, I guess.  Nah, who am I kidding? I could give some credit if the movie shot for the stars and crashed and burned. This one never gets off the launch pad.

In a recent wave of Audie Murphy reviews, I probably said the same thing over and over again. Good/Average actor at times who could be an above average actor with the right part, getting by on his on-screen persona and likability, audiences going along for the ride with his characters.  'Trunk' would not be a good movie to introduce someone to the real-life WWII hero who knew nothing about him.  Sleepwalking would be a kind way to describe his performance here as undercover secret agent, Mike Merrick. His Texas drawl is there, but he mumbles his way through his lines, and at times it looks like he's reading off cue-cards held just off camera.  He looks bored with the proceedings, clearly not his best effort.

This is not an effort to pile on Murphy, an underrated star/actor who I've always been a fan of.  The blame should get placed evenly and all over the place.  No one is safe here! Everyone comes under fire.  What did George Sanders do to deserve this fate later in his career? I suppose you could call his Dr. Schlieben the villain, but he's so clueless and harmless I can't quite call him a bad guy. Koch -- who I only knew from A Fistful of Dollars -- is the love interest of sorts who falls for Murphy's Merrick, getting caught up in the middle of this mess.  Hans von Borsody gets to play the ideal German, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Neo-Nazi who tangles with Merrick before meeting a nasty demise while Yossi Yadin plays Capt. Gabar, Schlieben's Egyptian liaison. Gila Almagor is a bright spot as Yasmine, an undercover contact working with Merrick.

Let's get a bright spot out of the way before I trash the movie on the whole. The locations in Cairo and later Rome look great so the movie's got that going for it...and that's about it. By the end of the movie, the previously serious spy thriller has degenerated to a slapstick chase the Keystone Cops would have been jealous of.  Composer Dov Seltzer turns in a laughably bad soundtrack that blares over the embarrassment, Murphy outrunning/outriding (on horseback) two Egyptian police on motorcycles chasing him because he rides up a gentle slope. The ending itself is a topper, but I only want to spoil so much of the badness.  I've got to leave some mystery for this steaming pile, don't I? It's forgotten for a reason. Steer clear.

Trunk to Cairo <---trailer (1966): */****

Two-Minute Warning

When I think of movies from the 1970s, one genre rises above the rest...the disaster movie. Put an all-star cast together with a possibly world-ending catastrophe, and you've got a winner on your hands. Well, sort of. Most of these movies are pretty bad, the appeal coming from guessing which huge Hollywood star is going to die gruesomely in some horrific way.  Hint: It's almost always the aging star sacrificing themselves for the lives of a younger person. The disaster movie opened the door for all sorts of movies with all star casts, not necessarily just at the end of the world.

Take 1976's Two-Minute Warning as an example. The caliber of names is certainly impressive, but more on that later. The premise is disaster-like, but it's more of the man-made variety.  In fact, the movie and its premise -- a sniper setting up shop at a sporting event and opening fire -- was so controversial that it has been almost entirely buried over the last 30-plus years.  To air it on TV, an additional 30 minutes were added to make the lone sniper a diversionary tactic for a heist in Los Angeles, supposedly lessening the blow and the impact of what's going on.  The original theatrical version is a mixed bag overall though with a dull first hour, great middle half hour, and a finale and ending that rival the most uncomfortable scenes you'll ever watch.

Hosting a championship football game (supposedly between L.A. and Baltimore?), the L.A. Coliseum has opened its doors to some 90,000 fans who have turned out to see the contest. VIPs including politicians both locally and nationally have come out for the job, making Captain Peter Holly's (Charlton Heston) job that much more difficult maintaining security. Near halftime though, one of the countless cameras around the stadium spot a man with a rifle in the tower over the main entrance, a location that is impossible to get to without being detected. The high-powered automatic rifle will have free reign over the stadium, and no is seemingly safe. A SWAT team headed by Sgt. Button (John Cassavetes) is called in to handle the situation with Holly, but can they get the job done before the lone sniper opens fire on the thousands of targets in front of him?  

This is a difficult movie to review, and I try to only use that complaint every month or so.  It isn't so much a movie as a faux-documentary from director Larry Peerce, giving you the feeling of being a fly on the wall as this high-tension situation continues to escalate. Peerce's movie follows a handful of characters pre-game and as the game develops, giving us just enough info about them to get interested in them (hopefully that is, the attempt is hit or miss). Much of the movie was shot during the NFL season in 1975, also prominently featuring a Pac-10 game between USC and Stanford.  The problem is that much of the story shows a quick scene with the cast then cuts quickly to the football game and then the police and SWAT efforts to handle the sniper. With that filming technique, the first 45-60 minutes have a disjointed feel that makes it difficult to actually get into any rhythm with the movie and keep up with it.

Thankfully the movie finds the right gear at about the hour mark once Cassavetes' SWAT team arrives on the scene, the anxiety and tension building as the game nears its close.  SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS Despite the best efforts of the police and SWAT, the sniper does open fire, causing mass chaos as people start dropping dead all over the Coliseum, the deaths portrayed graphically and brutally.  Pieces start to click together as to why the all-star cast is there....as targets and little else.  Seeing movie stars shot aside, the finale as the sniper opens fire is one of the most troubling, uncomfortable extended scenes I've ever watched. Imagine 90,000 freaked out people all scrambling to stay alive, not quite sure what's going on.  People are trampled and thrown, pushed aside like rag dolls as survival takes over above all else. The second hour most definitely makes up for the struggles of the first hour, a truly memorable ending.

Let's talk celebrities here for a bit, typically a trademark of the disaster movie.  The description of the movie didn't do it justice, making it seem like Heston and Cassavetes worked closely together to stop the sniper.  Well, sort of, but not really.  Heston was in quite a few disaster movies so while it isn't a great part for him, he still brings his typical professionalism to the part. The same goes for Cassavetes, always intense and always very watchable.  Who else? Lots more. Martin Balsam plays McKeever, the Coliseum event coordinator, Beau Bridges as a father who brought his wife and two kids to the game, David Janssen and Gena Rowlands as a bickering couple going through a bitter fight, Jack Klugman as a gambler who needs his bet to stand or he'll be murdered by his bookie, Mitch Ryan as the priest sitting alongside him, Brock Peters as a Coliseum employee, and Walter Pidgeon as an aging pickpocket working the crowd.

More than the cast, the uncomfortable premise is the star here. All it takes is one lunatic to decide to do this, not some huge, elaborate plan that takes terrorists years to plan. It is a reasonably easy thing to do, and anyone who has been to a sporting event can appreciate the terror in the situation. The sniper doesn't care who he hits, just that he hits something. There's so much going on here that just wouldn't work now in 2011.  Can you imagine any stadium -- much less the well-known Coliseum -- opening its doors to a movie depicting mass murder?  I'd say N-O.  The movie works at its best in those moments, a feeling of realism, of pure terror and fear racking your body.

The story builds and builds, and thankfully the ending knows how far to push it.  The sniper is never actually shown in close-up (we see glimpses of him, get a vague sense of what he looks like), and maybe most appropriate...his motivations or reasons are never given. He's a nut, going on a suicide mission that will have only one ending; his death.  Cassavetes' SWAT leader delivers a cynical but ultimately honest brief of how the incident will be portrayed, appropriate for a late 1970s movie. The ending doesn't go for the jugular, just focusing on the emotion, Balsam's McKeever sitting in the empty stadium in the aftermath, wondering exactly what happened. The first hour is bad, but the second hour is that good to counter. Stick with this one.

Two-Minute Warning <---trailer (1976): ***/****

The Fast and the Furious

Not to get nostalgic over a movie that came out just 10 years ago, but for better or worse, I've grown up with the Fast and the Furious movies. Other generations had Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings...I had these street racing movies.  Saying the series has come a long way isn't exactly a spot-on description because they're all fun, entertaining, popcorn movies. It started with 2001's The Fast and the Furious, a movie that seems like it was in theaters a long time ago, especially considering the series' fifth movie, Fast Five, was just released in May. You've got to start somewhere though, right?

Watching this movie now -- having seen the other four movies since, some of them on repeated viewings -- I couldn't help but notice a couple things.  One is something that didn't even register for years after it was released.  More on that later, but it involves the whole story being almost a complete rip-off of another cult classic from the early 1990s.  The other thing, the bigger thing? The original is pretty bad overall, definitely a guilty pleasure that is a success because of its badness.  It stays close to home with plenty of fast cars, gorgeous women, a rap and hip hop soundtrack, and fast cars. Oh, wait, I mentioned that already.

Working an undercover job, young police officer Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker) has been given a timetable to bring a case to court.  A group of hijackers using premium, high end foreign cars are taking down 18-wheelers all over California, taking their shipments of everything from electronics to car parts and selling them on the black market. Posing as a mechanic at a car parts store, Brian is forced to become part of the underground street racing world. One of the biggest and most obvious suspects is Dom Torretto (Vin Diesel), an ex-con who has gained a reputation as one of the best racers around. Losing a race to Dom, Brian owes him a 10-second car and is quickly accepted into Dom's team.  As the evidence mounts though, can Brian put aside his friendship with Dom and relationship with Dom's sister, Mia (Jordana Brewster), if he thinks they're the real masterminds behind the hijacking?

Does the basic story sound familiar at all?  It didn't click at all on my first couple of viewings, but at some point it hit me like a bag of rocks. The story is basically a blatant rip-off of 1991's Point Break starring Patrick Swayze and Keanu Reeves. Instead of bank robbers we've got hijackers, Walker taking over for Reeves and Diesel stepping in for Swayze.  The undercover agent must take down his new friends, balancing out the duty he feels with this legitimate friendship and bond that has developed as he goes undercover. It doesn't ruin the movie by any means, but it certainly is on your mind as you watch it.

Through all the bad lines and really hammy acting, the things that work well here are the things that work well in all the movies.  Diesel is a solid lead as Dominic Torreto, an action star and a presence more than an actor.  Walker has improved significantly as an actor over the last 10 years so here as undercover cop Brian he's not the most impressive actor around. Still, they have a good chemistry together, two opposites becoming fast friends through their love of cars and racing. The best moments -- like in Fast Five and the others -- are Dom, Brian and his crew shooting the breeze, hanging out in the garage, having a group BBQ. The team include Michelle Rodriguez as Letty, Dom's girlfriend, Chad Lindberg as Jessie, the computer/tech/engine expert, and  Johnny Strong and Matt Schulze as Leon and Vince. Through all the fake, forced confrontations, the movie is at its best when it lets the characters relax and be themselves.

Enough with the acting conversation about a movie about street racers. Let's talk fast cars and street racing!  Credit to director Rob Cohen for finding an appropriate middle ground for his racing sequences.  They're heavily edited and lightning quick, but never to the point where you lose track of what's going on. For the most part, the story doesn't revolve too much on the racing sequences, focusing more on Brian's investigation and his friendship with Dom and relationship with Mia. A highlight is the final 30 minutes when all the stops are pulled out. Dom....brace for it....is leading the hijackers with Brian trying to stop them as the truckers go vigilante, arming themselves. A high-speed chase on a desert highway is crazy, and the following chase with a rival racer, Johnny Tran (Rick Yune in a truly bad performance), on motorcycles is a great finale.

Over the course of five movies, directors/producers/writers have figured out what works and what doesn't work with the story and characters.  The first 45 minutes are pretty painful as the story just tries too hard to be currently hip or cool (and yes, I realize pointing that out and using 'hip' and 'cool' makes me just the opposite). There are some beyond cringe-inducing moments, line deliveries that make you wonder if a little kid wrote them.  Thankfully the movie finds it rhythm pretty quickly once everything is established. Like any movie, just know what you're getting into. Some other supporting roles include Ted Levine as Brian's immediate supervisor, Thom Barry as Agent Bilkins, the FBI liaison on the case, and Noel Gugliemi as Hector, a possible suspect.  

Fast Five and even Fast and Furious are better movies overall, 2 Fast 2 Furious probably on the same level, but the first movie in the series is still worth watching and a must-see for fans of racing movies.  It is the rare franchise that got better -- not worse -- as the movies have been released. Still, it's the original. Enjoy it.

The Fast and the Furious <---trailer (2001): ***/****

Syriana

When Syriana was released in 2005, reviews were almost uniformly positive, speaking of a dramatic story that was intelligent, well-written, and smart. I'm usually a tad-bit skeptical when I hear descriptions like that so I was wary going into the movie when we rented it after its DVD release.  Call it whatever you want, but less than 30 minutes into the movie, and I was bored to tears. I stopped the movie, not willing to wait it out until it got better. Well, since then I'd see the DVD at video stores or at Netflix, and I felt like in a weird way it was judging me.

So here I sit in late July 2011 having revisited the movie, a political, current issue thriller with a non-linear story focused on oil and all its effects on the world (mostly bad if you don't watch the news).  My second viewing -- first all the way through to the end -- was basically the same as the first viewing with a more stubborn point of view on my part. I was going to stick it out through hell or high water, fighting off the need to take a quick nap as the story developed s..l..o..w..l..y.  That's 'slowly' for those who didn't get it. I watched it all the way to the end, re-read reviews, read some plot descriptions and came away feeling the same way. Not impressed even though I felt like I should have liked it.

Before writing and directing this 2005 thriller, Stephen Gaghan was most well-known for his work with the screenplay for 2000's Traffic. It is easy to draw parallels between the two movies with a handful of stories -- seemingly different but all heading in the same direction -- with the oil business taking over for the drug trafficking business.  Syriana demands you pay attention to every scene (novel concept, huh?), but I say that having paid attention and still coming away confused. Call me naive or stupid in my movie-going and viewing ways, but just because everything is needlessly complicated and even unexplained does not mean a movie is "smart." It just means that someone, in this case writer/director Gaghan, wrote a weaving story that takes some odd routes to get there. He's clearly talented, but I felt lost with this story from the word 'go.'

The plot can be divided into four main storylines, sometimes connected and others times not so much. First, there's aging, veteran CIA agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney) who has caused some trouble for talking aloud about a problem he sees in the Middle East. His superiors are noticing him for the wrong reasons, sending him on a dangerous mission into the Middle East. Second, there is Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright), an oil company representative involved with a multi-billion dollar oil company merger, but problems arise almost instantly, and his beliefs and morals may come under fire. Third is Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), an energy analyst working closely with the possible future emir of an immense oil field, Prince Nasir (Alexander Siddig) who isn't going along with U.S. interests. Last, there is young Wasim (Mazhar Munir), a Muslim teenager searching for who he really is in turbulent, chaotic times.

As much talent is involved though with all these characters, the only one that left a truly positive impression was Clooney as Agent Barnes, a long-time field agent for the CIA who is at a bit of a crossroads in his personal life and his career. Clooney gets a bad rap at times for being a movie star, not an actor, but I think his acting ability is criminally underrated. At this point in his career, his Barnes is confused, frustrated and fed up, forcing him to make decisions he normally would not. The problem with the rest of this talented cast is that no one really comes to life.  You don't see Bryan Woodman, you see Matt Damon. Not a dig at Damon because it's a problem across the whole movie. In addition to all those names above, there are also supporting parts for Christopher Plummer as a high-powered oil executive, Chris Cooper as a high-strung oil rep, Amanda Peet as Woodman's wife, Tim Blake Nelson as an oil rep clearly in the crosshairs for his actions, William Hurt as Stan, an old source from Barnes' past, and Mark Strong as Mussawi, an overseas contact Barnes will use on his mission.

A day since watching the movie, I'm struggling to put into words why I struggled to get through this movie. At just over two hours, it feels much longer than that.  The non-linear story (read: confusing) is too disjointed and never gets into any sort of rhythm. As one portion of the story actually gets interesting, it jumps to another story. Mostly though, my issue comes down to boredom and lack of any emotion at all. Call it smart, call it well-written, call it educated. I was BORED, downright bored. I fell asleep again watching this movie...twice...forcing me to rewind and watch over what I'd missed. As for the emotion, there isn't any. The movie and all its intertwining stories keep you at an arm length. There are quick instances where you feel connected to the story or the characters, but they're fleeting moments. So I was bored and didn't really care about any characters, good combination, don't you think?

What next? I don't intend this as a 'I'm not smart so I'm going to lash out at the movie that threw me for a loop' rant regardless of how it sounds. Gaghan's script looks at all these different ways that oil affects the world, mostly in a negative way as greed, terrorism, corruption, betrayal and murder take over.  Is this supposed to be surprising, or am I just missing something? Am I that cynical? Is this supposed to be innovative, groundbreaking or in any way a new look at the world? I don't feel like it takes a stance that hasn't or hadn't crossed my mind at some point.

The one saving grace is the ending, brutally efficient in its effectiveness.  Honest and violent, it just works as we finally see the personal, human side of all these things.  Lives are lost in an instant because there are bigger concerns and worries at play, more than one individual's life.  It isn't enough to save the movie as a whole, but it does help Syriana end on a positive note, even if it is a little too late.

Syriana <---trailer (2005): **/****

Get Shorty

With his role in Quentin Tarantino's 1994 movie Pulp Fiction, John Travolta burst back onto the Hollywood scene in a big way.  He was in the Look Who's Talking Movies up to that point, but not much else over a 10-plus year time span. But starting in 1994, Travolta seemed to be marketable again, someone audiences wanted to see in theaters.  Over the next several years, he starred in Michael, Phenomenon, Face/Off, and in one of his best parts, 1995's Get Shorty.

Not to sound smarmy or condescending, but from director Barry Sonnenfeld, this is a movie about movies...literally.  All the characters are working toward (and against each other) about a supposedly can't miss script which we discover little about, which then turns into another movie.  It is stylish and fun with a story that does its fair share of twisting and turning as characters turn on each other over and over again. But more than that, it is a self conscious movie -- in a good way. The story quotes other movies, characters appreciate movie history (especially Travolta), and the movie even ends in a film within a film. Don't be confused though, it all works nicely.

A mobster and loan shark based out of Miami, Chili Palmer (Travolta) is feeling the wrath of new boss and possibly nuts mobster Ray 'Bones' Barboni (Dennis Farina). Palmer heads west after an unpaid debt, finding out that someone who owes him money defrauded the insurance company out of $300,000 and is now in Los Angeles after a successful trip to Las Vegas.  Chili quickly and easily finds the man, but in the process meets B-movie director/producer extraordinaire Harry Zimm (Gene Hackman) with who he quickly hits it off through their appreciation of movies. Harry has a can't miss script on his desk and enlists Chili to help him get it made with all his "talents." Not so easy though, even with Chili's ability to get things done because another loan shark, Bo Catlett (Delroy Lindo), wants in on the movie and isn't worried about ruffling some feathers.

With how wrapped up celebrities and the movie business can get with themselves, it is always nice to see those celebrities poke fun in their own direction. Sonnenfeld's movie paints a big target and rips anyone and everyone involved with the movie business, but it never comes across as mean-spirited or cruel humor, just an honest look at a shady business.  We meet primadonna actors, has-been and never will-be stars, past their prime directors, and loan sharks with an eye for a quick and easy payday.  More than anything though, it is a fun dig at all these people and professions.  If you're going to do that, you'd better have a lot of talent on-board, and Sonnenfeld assembles quite a cast to do so.

I have always liked John Travolta as an actor. The man can act, but when he is at his best, I like to think it is because of his presence, his ability to ham it up at times as his character requires.  His Chili Palmer is a strong mix of both so we get a chance to see Travolta act but also have a lot of fun with a part that allows him to explore some.  He is supremely confident in his abilities but never cocky or arrogant.  He knows he will get a job done.  Most importantly though in his line of work, he is one persuasive S.O.B. but never in an intimidating way. He just has a knack for convincing you that what he needs is what you need to do. The change Chili makes is great too, trying to sell his story of what he's doing at the moment (chasing down a debt) as a feature film. Loan shark and mobster maybe, but he's a movie fan above all else, quoting everything from John Wayne to Bette Davis. Good to see you back, Mr. Travolta.

With Travolta's Chili Palmer, you have a character capable of carrying a movie, and at times, he does, dominating his scenes with ease.  Of course that's not all the movie got. Hackman is perfectly cast as Harry Zimm, a veteran aging director looking for one more hit. I'd like to think this is a spin on Roger Corman, but I could be off-base.  Rene Russo plays Karen Flores, a B-movie scream queen who never quite reached stardom but is still a recognizable face in the movie. Danny DeVito is hilarious and beyond perfect as Martin Weir, an actor's actor, a method actor who wants to BECOME the role he's playing. His scenes with Travolta are priceless as Martin tries to become a loan shark. Farina and Lindo get to milk their bad guy roles, hamming it up as the relatively bad guys with James Gandolfini playing Bear, Lindo's henchman and a former stunt man himself. It would be easy for a cast like this to fight it out for screen-time, but this group has an ease working together that never throws the movie off. Watch out late for a quick but perfect cameo from Harvey Keitel in the finale too.

I'm looking for more to say but coming up with nothing. There is nothing really new or groundbreaking about Sonnenfeld's well-made, stylish comedy. But every weekend when you see really stupid comedies and lazy remakes hitting theaters or being released on DVD, it is nice to see a movie like this. There is an abundance of talent involved, and they're having as much fun making the movie as we are watching it (hopefully at least, I enjoyed it). It is smart and funny right from the start. Now as for the sequel that came 10 years later, 2005's Be Cool? I'll let you know about that one.

Get Shorty <---trailer (1995): ***/****

John Paul Jones

Is it possible that over the last 200 years the American Revolution has gotten lost in the shuffle of all of the United States' history? The story of the 13 colonies working together and fighting for their freedom is as incredible now as it was in the last quarter of the 18th Century. Thousands of individuals put everything on the line -- their lives, their families, their rights -- in their fight for freedom. As I've mentioned in other American Revolution reviews, Hollywood hasn't fully embraced the time period, resulting in a lack of movies...much less too many good ones.

A war that lasted eight years and took countless thousands of lives is going to produce its fair share of heroes. Names like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and many more are synonymous with the war, but most of the well-known names are remembered for their work in helping bring America its freedom from the government side. One of the biggest American military heroes was John Paul Jones, an American naval officer who helped make our country's navy what it is today. His story is told in the factually correctly if somewhat dull to watch epic, 1959's John Paul Jones -- appropriately titled, huh?

A young man growing up on the high seas, Scotsman John Paul (Robert Stack) gains years of experience doing everything he can on different ships. He rises through the ranks, eventually gaining command of a ship, only to see a suppressed mutiny derail his career path. He is forced to take refuge in 1770s Virginia, taking the name 'Jones' to throw off any pursuers. John Paul Jones arrives in Virginia at the right time as the colonists continue to push their British rulers.  Looking for experienced naval officers, the Continental forces turn to Jones, offering him a command position in the fledgling Navy.  Playing a key role in the Revolution as the colonists earn their freedom, Jones gains notoriety around the world, setting up a post-war life that could even earn him more fame.

Released in 1958 at the height of the historical epic's popularity among audiences, 'Paul Jones' certainly has a lot of potential to be a memorable movie.  In the translation from historical facts and details to on-screen adaptation though, something gets lost. At 126 minutes, one would think there was plenty of time to develop a well-told story, but one would think a lot of things.  Money and budget were clearly spent on the look and feel of the movie with its lavish costumes and extravagant sets which even a pan-n-scan cut of the movie couldn't ruin. Max Steiner's score is appropriately epic and booming, but not that good. Most of the issues can be traced back to an issue many epics have. Director John Farrow is more interested in the spectacle than the story or characters, and the final product keeps you at arm's length, never really letting you in.

Is it Farrow's fault, or a less than impressive script? I was surprised not that the movie isn't very good, but for another reason. It is very historically accurate to Jones' real life exploits -- kudos to a movie for accuracy -- but it is beyond dull, blasting into boring territory with ease. For starters, too much time is spent on pre-Revolution JP Jones, including a crush on Virginia belle Dorothea (Erin O'Brien). His involvement with the Revolution (the thing people know him best for) feels rushed as we never get a sense of how the war is going until America has won its freedom. Then, after England gives the colonies to America, the story doesn't know how to end, rushing through the final years of his life in hopes of providing some closure. It is a movie that tries too accomplish too much, and in the process, accomplishes nothing. Just a badly paced, dull attempt at an epic.

The more I see of Stack, the less I'm drawn to him as an actor.  My biggest question is whether he's got the star quality to play such a heroic character, and to be fair, it isn't entirely Stack's fault.  This should be an interesting character, but Jones as presented is pretty one-note.  Stack doesn't have a ton of range as an actor, producing little differences in anger, in love, and in combat.  Like the story he was in, I was bored watching him develop his reputation (for the good) and in the process become a hero.  Some other members of the cast include Charles Coburn as Benjamin Franklin, Marisa Pavan as Aimee, a love interest, Bette Davis in an out of place cameo as Catherine the Great, Macdonald Carey as Patrick Henry, and Jean-Pierre Aumont as King Louis XVI. With a story that covers 20-plus years, a ton of characters/individuals are introduced, but very few leave much of an impression, positive or negative.

The saving grace of the movie are the segments in the Revolution, including Jones' daring, heroic raid on England in 1778.  Some of his crew include Tom Brannum, Bruce Cabot, and Archie Duncan among some others.  These scenes show Jones for what he was -- a heroic leader who inspired his crew and a country through his actions.  Unfortunately there is too little of that and too much of a soap opera-esque background.  I struggled to get through this snail-paced movie, continuing to wait for it to get better.  It didn't though, the few bright spots overshadowed by the low points.

John Paul Jones (1958): * 1/2 /****

Sudden Impact

Growing up watching westerns, I will always associate Clint Eastwood with the genre, most notably his spaghetti westerns with Italian director Sergio Leone.  He of course is known for any number of other things, including become an Oscar-winning director as he started working behind the camera instead of in front of it.  So while I picture him as the Man With No Name, a roaming gunfighter looking to make a buck, ask another fan and you will probably get a completely different answer depending on the fan.

Name Eastwood's most famous character over the course of his career, and I'd bet 8 or 9 people out of 10 would say Dirty Harry instead, San Francisco homicide detective Harry Callahan.  It's easy to understand why as Eastwood created one of the most recognizable, iconic characters in movie history with this tough as nails police officer who does things his way, procedure and laws be screwed. Starting with 1971's Dirty Harry, Eastwood played Callahan five times, the fourth effort coming with 1983's Sudden Impact after a seven-year break since 1976's The Enforcer.

Working a case with Mafia connections, San Francisco homicide detective Harry Callahan (Eastwood) is up to his usual shenanigans.  He meets a mob boss in public and berates him, the boss actually dying of a heart attack.  His superiors are sick of his troublesome attitude and complete disregard for procedures and the laws, assigning him to a case in the tiny, seemingly peaceful coastal town of San Paulo involving a brutal murder where the victim was shot in the crotch and in the forehead. Callahan sees a connection with his case though as more bodies start to mount up. A victim of a vicious gang rape 10 years earlier, Jennifer Spencer (Sondra Locke), has returned, killing off the men who raped her. No one thinks much of his hunch though, meaning Callahan is on his own...as usual. Criminals watch out because here comes Dirty Harry.

The threat with any series/franchise is the proceedings getting stale at a certain point. Like any series, Dirty Harry doesn't always keep up the momentum. The first two movies of five -- Dirty Harry and Magnum Force -- are a cut above the last three, but that doesn't mean they aren't good movies...just not as good.  In terms of story, this has to be the darkest of the five, a rape victim gunning for her rapists.  With Eastwood directing though, I think too much time was spent on Locke's Jennifer character. By the last 30-45 minutes of the movie, the story focuses more on Jennifer than on Harry.  Credit to Eastwood girlfriend and underrated actress Sondra Locke for bringing her character to life, but I watch these movies for Dirty Harry above all else.

That is what is so appealing about vigilante movies like this, even if Callahan's vigilantism is toned down a bit here.  In his world, there are no shades of gray. There is black and white, good and bad, and if you can't pick a side, Callahan will pick one for you.  As a veteran inspector, he's just sick of the countless crimes he sees around him. He always gets his guy -- sometimes stretching the limits of the law to do so -- only to see the system let the bad guys back on the street. The bad guys here are ridiculously evil, not a human bone or redeeming quality in sight. The rapists include Paul Drake as the psychotic Mick, Audrie Neenan, and Jack Thibeau. This is a Dirty Harry movie that's tired of bosses, superiors, and all-around tools so the uppity-ups include Pat Hingle as the San Paulo police chief, and Bradford Dillman and Michael Currie as his San Fran bosses. If we've learned anything from these movies though, it's that Dirty Harry doesn't do well when told what to do.

This isn't a great cop movie regardless of who the main character is.  It starts off on a great note, the first 30 minutes full of energy, action and one-liners as Eastwood has some fun with the character, delivering the iconic 'Go ahead, make my day' line when stopping a robbery in progress. Watch that scene HERE. The remaining 90 minutes are far from boring, but they have the feel of being phoned in.  It lacks the energy that the first half hour has.  The movie is at its best when Eastwood is front and center. At different points, Harry takes on the mob, chases a suspect by driving a retirement home bus, practices with his cannon of a Magnum pistol, and hangs out with his bulldog, Meathead.  Albert Popwell plays Horace, a friend on the force, while Mark Keyloun has a good supporting part as Bennett, a young San Paulo officer working with Callahan. Overall, the character has become more of a caricature of itself as opposed to an even somewhat realistic character.

Still, all things consider, it's Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry, and it's hard to pass that up. There is something simple and perfect in terms of entertainment value watching Callahan lose his mind and take his anger out on any crook stupid enough to tangle with him. There is no question that in the end he will get his man, just how and when.  Sudden Impact doesn't bring anything new to the procedural cop drama or the Dirty Harry series, but it is a solid if unspectacular (and still entertaining) movie, mostly because Clint Eastwood is still and always will be cooler than anyone and everyone.

Sudden Impact <---trailer (1983): ** 1/2 /****

One Step to Hell

Thanks to a change in monthly pricing, I've had to adjust my Netflix subscription recently. Instead of paying about $10 per month for one DVD at a time and unlimited streaming content through their website, the rate for each individual feature got bumped up to $8...each. I don't watch enough movies at the website to justify subscribing both so starting in mid August (about when this review will be posted, give or take a few days) I lose Instant Watch capabilities.  In other words? I've got about 3 weeks to watch all the Instant Watch movies I wanted before I lose the chance.

That brings us to 1968's One Step to Hell, also known and released as King of Africa. Listed as a western through Netflix's website, this flick stars Ty Hardin and sounded like a pretty typical if hopefully enjoyable western oater. Well, part of that description was right, but it's hard to explain this one. It is a western -- sort of -- but it is set in Africa as opposed to the American west, it looks to have Italian backing and has the feel of spaghetti western, and worst of all, the version I saw was 90 minutes long even though a 100-minute version is supposedly available somewhere out there.  Odd, off the wall, eccentric, all three apply in this genuinely different western.

A British colonial policeman in South Africa around the turn of the 20th Century, Lt. King Ray (Hardin) faces a difficult decision. Three prisoners he helped bring in, including bandit ringleader Anders (George Rigaud), have escaped while being transported to a nearby town and a likely death sentence.  He can't convince his superiors (George Sanders in an odd cameo) to allow him to pursue the bandits though, forcing him to make a tough decision. He goes on "furlough," using his coming break to hit the trail and hopefully bring these bandits to justice. Anders and Co. up the ante quickly though when their goals become known. They've kidnapped the wife (Pier Angeli) of a gold mine owner and are using her to guide them to the hidden, lucrative mine. Can King catch up in time across the desolate plains of Africa?

Years of watching spaghetti westerns -- some really good, others really bad, but for the most part entertaining -- has trained me to appreciate these movies made on a smaller budget. There is a charm to the lower quality, no frills, action-packed stories where there were never really "good guys," just some guys who weren't as bad as the others. This is a movie that certainly qualifies in the vein of a spaghetti western. The African setting is a great change of pace (and a real beauty to look at with some stunning shots), and the story feels like so many westerns set in America, a bounty hunter/sheriff on the trail of a gang of outlaws. Nothing particularly remarkable about any of it, but going in it certainly sounded interesting.

This is a movie that has basically been completely forgotten over the last 40-plus years. Where to start for the reasons that might account for its complete lack of notoriety. The credits provide some clues, starting with director Nino Scolaro directing his one and only feature. For a movie and screenplay where the story never seems on a direct path to anywhere, there are five different names listed as helping in some way with the script. The biggest issue though -- because all the above problems can be dealt with -- is that I watched the 90-minute version, not the supposedly longer 100-minute cut that was released in Spain. Scenes end in a ragged fashion, leaving things unsettled and moving on before anything can be resolved. Is that because of the cuts or the jagged story to begin with? None of this is helped by composer Gianni Marchetti's score which ranges from spaghetti-themed and appropriate to jazzy and out of place at other times.

From an American perspective, some of these European productions from the 1960s and 1970s throw me for a loop. With a long cast listing, only 10 actual names have a character listed to them. That makes describing characters a tad bit difficult once you get past the main stars. On the backside of his career, Ty Hardin is a solid enough lead as Lt. King, a police officer trying to right a wrong. He's in beefcake mode here for the female members of the audience, always seeming to run around with little in the way of clothes on. Angeli is all right as Mrs. Benton, but I swear the script gets her character and Helga Line's Deborah confused late in the movie, Hardin's King even calling Mrs. Benton 'Deborah.' One relative bright spot is Rigaud as Anders, a somewhat charismatic aging outlaw looking for one last strike. His gang (some of the few people actually listed in the credits) include Luciano Pigozzi, Miguel Del Castillo, and Antonio Mayans among several other nameless actors. Rossano Brazzi has a small but solid part as Dr. Hamilton, a physician also trying to convert his African patients to Christianity.

'Step' certainly has all the makings of a solid if not so unique western, but something never clicks into place. Even at just 90 minutes, it ends up being surprisingly dull.  Long stretches of a slow-moving story are interrupted by quick bursts of graphic action, but the ending is never really in doubt, or at least it shouldn't be if you've got two or three brain cells working.  It ultimately gets some points for being unique in terms of setting and characters, but that's not enough to carry it overall.  A deeply flawed and even at times bad western that still manages to be entertaining.

One Step to Hell (1968): **/****