THE LAST ACTION HERO (1993)

The problem with THE LAST ACTION HERO is not the film itself, but the film-within-a-film it's poking fun at, named after the super-cop character JACK SLATER, which in itself is a lame title for a franchise that seems very made-up. So basically THE LAST ACTION HERO is bagging on an Action Movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger himself, which would be like Jerry Lewis looking down on lovable klutzes or Rod Serling sneering at a twist ending...

The main problem is, Arnold did this movie way too soon. After TERMINATOR 2 he was at the peak of his powers, and he winds up showing audiences how stupid those kind of movies are. The funny thing is, Arnold's most popular "Action" films are really Science-Fiction... Not just TERMINATOR 1 and 2 but TOTAL RECALL, THE RUNNING MAN and PREDATOR... plus the CONAN films which are sci-fi's sibling, Fantasy...

Many of the cliches through the JACK SLATER universe do NOT exist in actual action movies... In those they're part but here they are glaring stereotypes that serve no purpose at all. Especially unfitting is the CARTOON CAT that shows up as a working cop in the police station. No Arnold or Sly Stallone or Bruce Willis movie has EVER had a cartoon mix in with humans (and the central kid actor is a bore)...

The only two good things are the tall/lanky, totally scary-looking Tom Noonan as an ax-killer who should have been the ONLY MAIN villain instead of Charles Dance making fun of Charles Dance.. And F. Murray Abraham as Jack's fictional cop partner turned backstabber could have had more merit than two quick scenes, so the fact is, the film-within-the-film is treated with no respect, and it's simply not entertaining (like Arnold's following years' comeback, a real action movie, TRUE LIES): For instance, JACK SLATER IV opens with a five-minute scene between two very old men having a conversation (Tony Quinn and Art Carney), which would bore the daylights out of any kid watching on opening night. And, after all the nonsense, by the time the fictional characters do a TIME AFTER TIME meets THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO and enter real life, the audience is exhausted. A shame since THAT movie was far better than the other. SCORE: **

 

SUPERMAN RETURNS (2007)

You got to give credit to X-MEN director Bryan Singer for, in 2007, trying to make his SUPERMAN RETURNS literally that: returning from the 1978 original (with the same opening credit look) and starting out after the fantastic sequel SUPERMAN II, basically Brandon Routh is really, literally supposed to be Christopher Reeve and not just Superman who's Clark Kent up front...

If there's any one thing Reeve did best in the title role is playing Kent in an endearing underdog manner. Something Routh just can't pull off: Instead of clumsy for the part he seems awkward in the role, and while on paper Kevin Spacey's the dream Lex Luther, he seems like he doesn't want to be there, and with the same exact world-damning land-deal goal as Gene Hackman's Luthor, it makes the arch villain feel even more bland, unoriginal, familiar and basically a frustrating afterthought...

Meanwhile, an otherwise witty (in Christopher Guest movies) Parker Posey is perhaps the weakest moll in film history... But worse yet is Lois Lane... Played by a much too young Kate Bosworth, not only is she too inexperienced an actress but the character lacks Margot Kidder's charm, screen presence and, in having been in her thirties, and while looking older than Reeve, Margot really did seem like what she played: a reporter who's been in the game and knows more in the area of reporting and taking risks: The latter giving Kent turned Superman a reason to protect her, constantly...

But the biggest shame here is James Marsden's throwaway role as Lois's seemingly too-perfect boyfriend, trying too hard to be "dad" to a horrible child actor who's really Kent's Superboy. And come to think of it, Marsden, under Singer's direction as Cyclops in X-MEN, would have made a much better Superman: Being the right age he seemed more in tune with the natural fit Reeve had in the part, and he's great looking, has a properly muscular build, and to play the clumsy Kent, he's a good actor... How could Singer not know what/who was staring him in the face? GRADE: F+

AVATAR

title: AVATAR

year: 2009

cast: Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver

writer/director: James Cameron

rating: *1/2

The first twenty minutes, although we're quickly force-fed the plot of a crippled marine going to a planet called Pandora where his counterpart "Avatar", clone to the indigenous natives, will seek trust in these tall blue Na'vi (all this happening while he, in human form, lays a tanning booth and guides the creature) in order to abduct a mineral to take back to earth (symbolizing oil, of course)... isn't bad, seeming as if a young James Cameron, who directed "Aliens", "The Terminator" and "The Terminator 2" with flowing precision, is at the helm. We're on a terrific adventure and it looks pretty neat: like a Roger Dean "Yes" album cover with motion. But then something happens: Once within the forest, separated from his fellow troops, the Avatar discovers he digs the peace-loving natives more than stupid humans, falls in love with the hottest of the tall blue elf-folk, and after taming a flying dragon and bedding down the babe, he's "one of the gang" way too quickly. Most of the action of the film's first half, pitting our hero against forest-dwelling predators, is (in a visual and directorial sense) straight out of JURASSIC PARK; the thrills eventually taking a backseat to drawn-out new-age ceremonies and cheesy dialog too horrible to repeat. And when the big battle ensues... The Honest Natives Vs The Greedy Americans... the vague, undeveloped characters get lost within the expensive flash. AVATAR, filmed in 3D but with 1D everything else, in trying to blend science-fiction, fantasy, romance, and a big bright moral message, ends up mirroring Cameron's view of the American Military: overwrought, overpriced and completely brain-dead.

STAR TREK

title: STAR TREK

year: 2009

cast: Chris Pine

rating: **

While this was better than the NEW Star Wars prequels (episode 1, 2, and 3), I had the same problem in the continuity factor. In other words, when watching the original Star Wars: A New Hope, seeing Obi Wan Kenobi (Alec Guiness) and imagining him doing all the things Ewan McGregor did in the first three films... was impossible. And when I go back and watch the original Star Trek TV show, or the movies starring the original cast, I will now have to wrap my brain around the fact that Captain Kirk, as a preteen, listened to The Beastie Boys. And that Spock dealt with bullies on his home planet - which weren't very different from the ones cookie-cutter teen flicks (I realize, this is mentioned on the original show, but the way they carried it out was so... after-school-special). Or that Uhura had a green martian roomate who Captain Kirk, before he was Captain, was trying to bang in an apartment that looked straight outta Melrose Place. I realize the William Shatner "Kirk" is known to be quite a ladies man - but seeing Jim in a trendy nightclub with rave music thumping in the backdrop just doesn't fit in the Star Trek canon... at least not mine. The first ten minutes, involving Kirk's father saving the lives of 800 people, including his wife who was pregnant with you-know-who... right before intrepidly dying on a monitor viewed by his weeping wife... was pure melodrama straight out bad made-for-cable sci-fi. The villain looked and acted like a WWF wrestler. And I'm not sure what the plot is other than "blow the big bad thing up that destroys planets" (kinda like The Death Star, huh?). Chris Pine looked perfect for the role of a young Kirk but seemed too much like a jocky lughead than anything else. And the special effects... going back to my problem with the new Star Wars... was just too much. I always dug the cerebral-led aspect of the original series (and movies)... mind over action... kind of like a chess match... And, so, having these youthful, energetic characters being part of a high-octane thriller... And the Enterprise darting through space like a Tie Fighter... just didn't fit with me. I'll take corny acting, dated special effects and a slow moving plot to exploding eye-candy any day.

THE DARK KNIGHT

title: THE DARK KNIGHT

year: 2008

cast: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine

rating: *

My reviews usually insert a brief description of the plot, but since there's about a thousand plots I'll start with the man of the hour, the late Heath Ledger who, as said in interviews, was inspired by Malcom McDowell's performance in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but seems more like Rip Taylor channeling Paul Lynde imitating Johnny Depp impersonating a demented circus clown. Now a violently gay joker I don't mind, but he should at least have a backstory or purpose. Then again this entire film - set in a Gotham City that looks like Manhattan - has no purpose at all. Christian Bale delivers his lines like a porn star Hal 9000; and Mayor Harvey "Two-Face" Dent goes from friendly, highly-energetic politician to sinister villain for no other reason than getting blown up and deformed - REASON being another thing this film lacks... although there's tons of expensive flash to keep rabid "graphic novel" fans wide-eyed, mouths gaping for more. But for someone who likes a coherent storyline no matter what the genre, it's two-and-a-half hours of PURE TORTURE.

JAWS

title: JAWS

year: 1975

cast: Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, Robert Shaw, Lorraine Gary, Murray Hamilton, Jeffrey Kramer

director: Steven Speilberg

rating: *****

Okay fine, I'll admit it: the shark looks fake... but - the situation is real. Or seems so real the fake-looking shark doesn't matter. And we don't see the plastic beast till later on: and which point we're hooked. There's not much to say about a perfect movie except this one does what no other horror/thriller has before, giving us two separate films: the first a "monster movie" with the monster mostly unseen gulping up victims; second a deep sea adventure straight out of Melville. Both stories coincide using a hand-off method of characterization. Starting out with Roy Scheider as Brody, the new sheriff of the island beach town Amity; then adding Richard Dreyfuss as Hooper, a young shark expert helping Brody solve the "mystery" (what kind of shark is it and was the right one killed?). Then the best character is saved for last (although he's introduced earlier with a classic speech, his real part comes later)... Enter Robert Shaw, all but stealing the show as Quint, a salty dog who, it turns out, survived the U.S.S. Indianapolis in World War 2... he's gonna help Brody and Hooper kill the shark deep at sea on his vessel THE ORCA, and unlike these two, Quint's objective is personal. The famous speech as Shaw recounts the Indianapolis story involving fellow sailers being eaten by sharks - not in the original Peter Benchley novel and conceived by director Speilberg then written by pal John Milius - is perhaps the greatest scene in film history. (And Shaw didn't even get nominated for an Oscar!) Murray Hamilton adds an excellent fourth tier as the mayor in denial; and Lorraine Gary as Scheider's faithful wife provides a steady anchor for our hero as he takes on something that wasn't in the job description. And least I forget Speilberg's sublime, ever-flowing direction, rolling off the screen like a visual symphony... speaking of which, would there even be a film without conductor John William's main theme and score (the same can be said of STAR WARS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK)? This is one of the best movies ever made, and that's no exaggeration. It's got everything and then some!

WATCHMEN

title: WATCHMEN

year: 2009

cast: Jackie Earle Haley

rating: *

An agenda-ridden film-noir-wannabe pretentious bore. And that was just the opening credits. And then the rest of this catastrophe has us believe that superheroes were "used" by the government to win the BIG WAR (against Hitler) and then the BAD WAR (Vietnam)... but my question is - if we had superheroes on our side, how would Hitler, or Pol Pot, have even gotten as far as they did in the first place? Style over substance has taken over plot and character-development. Images. That's what has taken over plot nowadays. Lots and lots of "REALLY COOL" images.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

year: 2009

rating: **

There are so many problems with this latest Quentin Tarantino flick I'll just ask one question to begin: Why were the "Basterds" - the scalp-hacking Nazi Hunting American Jews the film is named after - merely extras? We don't see them train, see them hunt, see their missions, learn their quirks, mannerisms, fears, strengths... they're merely in the background of an overall muddled picture. The title should have been HANS LANDA, since he - the flitting Nazi villain played nicely by Christopher Waltz - is not only the best character, but seems to be the ONLY character in the movie. A subplot involving a french girl who survived her family being killed by Landa, running a movie theater in disquise as a Frenchwoman, goes nowhere, for one because I couldn't connect her as the little girl who survived the original massacre - we see her hiding under the floorboards only a few times in the opening which didn't carry on to her other scenes. I just didn't feel enough for her to really WANT the revenge she garners: involving her theater full of the top dog Nazis, including Adolf himself, once again played by an actor going way over-the-top. At this point in history we all know Nazis were evil, but... perhaps when making a film about Nazis being tortured a filmmaker should REMIND US SEVERAL TIMES of their evil more than just a swastika on their uniforms. Brad Pitt's character, the redneck leader of the Basterds, has no overall bearing (he just talks a lot), and other side-characters (a British officer; a German actress double-agent; and a knife-wielding German serial killer) are thrown in that we're supposed to care about but end up meaning close to nothing. Tarantino builds tension like a sleeping dog getting a fire up its ass: with either endless bouts of boring dialog (subtitled no less) that WAY TOO SUDDENLY become loud jarring massacres, with no in-between. And Tarantino ends up knocking himself off at times, for instance: a drawn-out scene in a tavern/pub involving a British officer imitating a German POSSIBLY being caught by a Nazi soldier for having a suspicous accent; then, towards the end of the film, before the climax when things REALLY MATTER, Brad Pitt, meeting the MAIN VILLIAN, pretends to be Italian (purposely not trying very hard) and it's played-out like something from a John Hughes film... which makes you wonder why the Tavern scene mattered in the first place. I'm afraid the great QT has lost his touch... see DEATHPROOF for more PROOF of this theory. Gone are the days of RESERVOIR DOGS and JACKIE BROWN (and, yes, PULP FICTION). Gads, even the beginning title sequence (something that Tarantino usually does so well) is plain boring: black screen with titles and a hollow slow-paced Spagetthi Western score. And the casting of Eli Roth as the bat-weilding "crazy" basterd is a complete joke. (Quentin, hire REAL actors, not your director-buddies, buddy.) And to note, there is a 1978 Italian film called INGLORIOUS BASTARDS which has only the title in common. That movie, starring Bo Svenson and Fred Williamson, unlike this mess ACTUALLY CENTERS on the characters the film's named after.

LOVE STORY

title: LOVE STORY

year: 1970

cast: Ryan O'Neal, Ali McGraw, Tommy Lee Jones, Ray Milland

rating: *

As I watched this film about a woman who dies young, I wanted to also die young (middle aged, that is). It was bad. Ali McGraw... I do NOT know how she ever got famous: other than her beauty. In this, her first big role, she is horrible, robotic, wooden, annoying. Ryan O'Neal is okay but the story is as sappy as stupid as I've ever witnessed. And in keeping with the theme, of a young person dying before their time... I ejected the film far before it's time. But then again, for me, it was time for EJECT.