Tag Archives: Bradley Crain

Brad reviews NOWHERE TO RUN (1993), starring Jean-Claude Van Damme!

Posted on by Bradley Crain

In NOWHERE TO RUN, Jean-Claude Van Damme plays Sam Gillen, a recently escaped convict who finds himself hiding on the outer edges of a rural farm owned by widowed mother Clydie Anderson (Rosanna Arquette) and her two children, Mookie and Bree (Kieran Culkin and Tiffany Taubman). Through a variety of circumstances, Sam learns that a ruthless developer, Franklin Hale (Joss Ackland), and his enforcer Mr. Dunston (Ted Levine), are trying to force all of the farmers to sell their land, using violence if necessary. When bad guys show up one night and threaten Clydie and her kids, Sam emerges from the woods and kicks their asses. Soon Sam finds himself fighting off more of Hale’s goons, romancing the beautiful widow and becoming more emotionally connected to the kids. With his past closing in, Sam decides to do whatever it takes to protect Clydie and her kids, even if that costs him his freedom.

The late 80’s and early 90’s saw the emergence of two new action stars… Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme. As a constant patron of our local video stores, I was there at the beginning of their careers and rented each of their new movies as they became available. Van Damme would establish himself in hit films like BLOODSPORT (1988), KICKBOXER (1989), DEATH WARRANT (1990) and UNIVERSAL SOLDIER (1992). As a big fan, I found myself in a movie theater in January of 1993 to watch his latest film, NOWHERE TO RUN. 

With a plot that resembles an old western… a man corrupted by wealth tries to force a widow off her land until a kind-hearted drifter steps in… NOWHERE TO RUN isn’t trying to reinvent the action genre, but it does give Van Damme a different kind of role. His Sam Gillen isn’t a wisecracking action hero or an unstoppable martial artist. Rather, he’s a flawed man with a particular set of skills who’s looking for redemption. I think Van Damme plays that soulful weariness better than most would give him credit for. Rosanna Arquette brings a credible presence to this genre film that helps sell the relationship between her and Van Damme, and the presence of her kids, also amps up the stakes and gives the story a genuine sense of vulnerability. When Sam decides to fight back, it’s not to protect himself, but to protect people worth standing up for. That motivation helps make the film more engaging than you might normally expect from an early 90’s action film. 

Speaking of action, NOWHERE TO RUN doesn’t feature a ton of action, but what it does have is effective. The early sequence where Van Damme’s character initially steps in to help the terrorized family is especially strong. There are several additional fight sequences and a prolonged motorcycle chase to provide some entertainment, but don’t expect wall-to-wall action or you could be disappointed. Joss Ackland (LETHAL WEAPON 2) and Ted Levine (THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS) are suitably nasty villains so we definitely want to see them get their comeuppances, and the film effectively obliges. I also like the fact that NOWHERE TO RUN is set out on a rural farm. This setting enhances its “western” feel, and I certainly appreciate that unique element for an action film of this era. 

At the end of the day, I enjoyed NOWHERE TO RUN when I watched it in the movie theater back in 1993, and I enjoyed it again today. It’s certainly not flashy and action packed like HARD TARGET or TIMECOP, but it is a solid, and surprisingly emotional Van Damme film. I recommend it. 

Brad discusses THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (1960), directed by John Sturges!

Posted on by Bradley Crain

Way back in 1960, Director John Sturges took Akira Kurosawa’s timeless classic SEVEN SAMURAI (1954) and translated its themes of honor and sacrifice into the American western THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. A classic on its own, the film stars such cinematic legends as Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, James Coburn, Eli Wallach, and Charles Bronson. The storyline of a small group of men protecting a village from bandits proved to be an irresistible subject once again, especially the way it was handled here. Its theme music by Elmer Bernstein is one of the most instantly recognizable pieces of music in western cinema. It’s not easy translating a masterpiece without suffering quite negatively in comparison, and I’ve always admired how Sturges and his team of writers were able to create a film that both honored the source material while successfully transferring its content to a different part of the world. 

The lead performances of Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen anchor the film, and the screenplay masterfully takes the time to introduce us to each of the seven men and their myriad of reasons for taking on this mission. We care about the men because we get to know them. After Brynner and McQueen, we learn James Coburn is the most badass, Robert Vaughn is the most cowardly, Brad Dexter is the most money hungry, and Horst Buchholz is the most naive. Unsurprisingly, my favorite of the characters is Bernardo O’Reilly, played by Charles Bronson. In my opinion, the character of O’Reilly represents the heart of the story. His character is as tough as it gets and great with a gun, but it’s the way he cares for the actual people, especially the children of the village, that really stands out. It’s in these small moments and exchanges between Bronson and the kids, where the film seems to transcend the genre and become something even more reflective and meaningful. So when Bronson pays the ultimate price, it’s not for some grand purpose or ideal, it’s specifically for those kids, and the moment becomes powerful. For my money, Bronson gives one of the more moving turns in classic western cinema that remains under appreciated to this day. 

In 2025, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN celebrated its 65th anniversary, with many theaters around the country screening the film again. I was lucky enough to catch one of those screenings at a theater in downtown Little Rock. It was a wonderful night at the movies. Today, on what would have been his 116th Birthday, I celebrate Director John Sturges and this great film that has meant so much to me!

Brad reviews UNDER SIEGE (1992), starring Steven Seagal! 

Posted on by Bradley Crain

I’ve always liked UNDER SIEGE. After his sudden emergence with a series of brutal action films in the late 80’s and early 90’s, like ABOVE THE LAW and OUT FOR JUSTICE, Steven Seagal entered the world of high concept action filmmaking when he starred in this “Die Hard on a Battleship.” Seagal would not be the underdog cop taking on drug dealers, coked up mafia hitmen, or crooked cops here. Rather, he emerges as a full blown movie star in a big budget studio action film. Directed by Andrew Davis, whose credits include Chuck Norris’ best movie CODE OF SILENCE (1985), Seagal’s debut ABOVE THE LAW (1988) and the next year’s global smash THE FUGITIVE (1993), this is the movie where everything came together for Seagal. I watched UNDER SIEGE at the movie theater myself in 1992 and had a great time with it. I didn’t realize at the time that this would be his career peak, with a global box office of over $156 million. No other film would really even come close. 

Casey Ryback (Seagal) is a “cook” aboard the USS Missouri, a battleship that is scheduled to be decommissioned. He’s also a former badass Navy SEAL who was demoted after punching out his commanding officer when a mission in Panama had gone wrong. When a group of mercenaries led by ex–CIA operative William Strannix (Tommy Lee Jones) seize control of the ship under the guise of a birthday celebration, they overlook Ryback. In classic John McClane style, Ryback goes on to become a fly in their ointment, a monkey in their wrench, and a big-time pain in their asses! Moving through the narrow corridors of the ship, and with the assistance of Playboy Playmate Jordan Tate (Erika Eleniak), Ryback begins taking out mercenaries one by one. But will he be able to stop Strannix and his partner Krill (Gary Busey) from stealing the ship’s nuclear Tomahawks and preserve the safety and security of the world? I’ll give you one guess!

First and foremost, UNDER SIEGE is a damn good action movie. It definitely helps that a director as talented as Andrew Davis is calling the shots. His film delivers on the entertainment front, with lots of well staged shootouts, violent scenes of close quarter, hand-to-hand combat, and a cake emergence sequence that still makes my head spin! I think the battleship makes for a great “movie” setting for this type of action. With its concoction of narrow hallways, engine rooms, and mess halls, there’s all kinds of interesting places for fighting and killing. Back in 2007, I was lucky enough to take a tour of the USS Alabama battleship, the primary filming location for UNDER SIEGE, which only enhances my appreciation for the work done here. On the heels of his confident and charismatic performance in the prior year’s OUT FOR JUSTICE, this is Steven Seagal at his most watchable. He’s in peak physical condition, so he can believably kick all the ass that’s necessary for this kind of film, and he’s also likable in his role as the underestimated “cook.” He will never be mistaken for Bruce Willis, but Seagal is good here.

Great action movies will usually have great villains, and UNDER SIEGE is especially blessed in this area. Tommy Lee Jones goes way over-the-top, chewing on scenery like he’s at a Golden Corral buffet, turning Strannix into the type of irrational lunatic that I love in my early 90’s action movies. And looking back now, Gary Busey seems to do what he does best. His traitorous Commander Krill comes off as goofy, disgusting, and unstable. In other words, he’s perfect. Even though Seagal does smile more in this film, Jones and Busey do bring an energy to the movie that balances out Seagal’s more stoic character, providing the type of spark not often found in the star’s movies. 

At the end of the day, I rank UNDER SIEGE as my second favorite Steven Seagal film, slightly below my preference for the more down and dirty OUT FOR JUSTICE. What it lacks in grit is more than made up with entertainment value, strong performances, and action on a scale that the star’s future films would never rise to again. If I were put in a position where I could only recommend one Steven Seagal film to a person who’d never seen one of his movies before, I’d probably go with this one. It’s an excellent, mainstream 90’s action movie. 

Brad reviews INTO THE WILD (2007), directed by Sean Penn!

Posted on by Bradley Crain

This morning my wife told me she wanted to watch a movie based on a true story. After scrolling for a bit, I came across the film INTO THE WILD, which interested me for a couple of reasons. First, it was directed by Sean Penn, whose directorial debut, THE INDIAN RUNNER (1991), gave my favorite actor of all time, Charles Bronson, a late-career character performance that critics actually took seriously. I’ve followed his directing career ever since. Second, the movie stars Emile Hirsch, who my wife and I had the rare opportunity to watch up close this summer while he was filming a movie here in Central Arkansas… an awesomely surreal experience that’s had me revisiting the work of the actors I saw that day. As such, today seemed like the perfect time to hit play on INTO THE WILD! 

INTO THE WILD is based on the true story of Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch), a bright, idealistic young man who graduates from college in the early 1990s and immediately walks away from the type of life everyone expects him to live. Chris donates his savings to charity, abandons his car, burns the cash in his wallet, reinvents himself as Alexander Supertramp, and sets off across America on a great Alaskan adventure. Along the way he comes across different people who impact his life in a variety of ways, from some free-spirited hippies, to a grizzled old widower, and even a beautiful young lady who takes an immediate liking to him. Each of these encounters offer Chris a chance to form meaningful relationships, but he always decides to keep moving on. When he does eventually make it to the wilds of Alaska, it’s everything he hoped for… at first. But as the months wear on, his loneliness and inexperience take their toll, and Chris is forced to face the ultimate consequence of his decisions. 

I’ll start out by saying that INTO THE WILD is a truly beautiful film. Sean Penn and his cinematographer Eric Gautier capture so many amazing images, from the Grand Canyon and Lake Tahoe, to the Denali National Park in Alaska. We see an America that is awe-inspiring, and we can at least somewhat understand why Chris might want to escape to such a world of promise. I also liked the music, especially when Eddie Vedder’s voice emerges to punctuate a scene that seems perfectly in tune with Chris’ restless spirit.

I must admit that Chris McCandless, the person, is quite the frustrating subject. He’s intelligent and sincere, but he’s also painfully naive and self-righteous. It’s noble that he wants to find ultimate truth, but he goes about it by running away from the messy parts of his life, especially the parents, played here by William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden, that he sees as horrible people. I guess my frustration with Chris’ decisions may be the point, and Director Sean Penn doesn’t turn him into either a saint or a fool. While watching the film, I was somewhat torn between admiring Chris for the way he rejects materialism and lives his life on his own terms, while also being disappointed as he continually walks away from any person who gets too close or tries to help him. 

Emile Hirsch is incredible in the lead role as Chris McCandless. He captures his restless spirit, as well as his determination to make it completely on his own, that is, until he realizes that he overplayed his hand. The other performances that stood out to me came from Vince Vaughn as a farmer that Chris stops and works for, Catherine Keener as a hippie with her own set of issues, and especially Hal Holbrook as a lonely, but perceptive old man who sees in Chris the grandson he never had.

At the end of the day, I feel that INTO THE WILD is a powerful film, but not because of what ultimately happens to Chris. Rather, what lingers with me is his too-late realization that personal freedom without meaningful relationships is not satisfying. As beautiful as this movie is to look at, its strongest moments are Chris’ interactions with the caring people he meets along the way. I just wish one of them had been able to convince him to call his mom and dad. 

Brad reviews BARBARIAN (2022)

Posted on by Bradley Crain

My nephew told me that he liked the film BARBARIAN (2022) when we were hanging out at the family cabin for Christmas. This particular nephew loves movies and every time we get together we talk about our favorite films, and he knows his stuff. We didn’t really talk about what happens in this movie, but he just casually mentioned it was a film he thought was good. As such, the title caught my attention when I was scrolling through my Hulu app today. Knowing nothing about the plot of the film, my wife and I settled in for our initial viewing…. 

BARBARIAN’s setup feels quite ordinary. Tess (Georgina Campbell) arrives in Detroit for a job interview, only to discover her Airbnb has been double-booked with a stranger, Keith (Bill Skarsgård). Through a variety of circumstances, the two end up agreeing to share the house for the night. Needless to say, it takes a bit for the two to get comfortable with each other. Every polite smile, every offered cup of tea, or glass of wine for that matter, feels loaded with possibility. Is he harmless? Is she overreacting? What in the hell is about to happen? Director Zach Cregger milks these scenes beautifully, allowing the tension to build until they finally seem to find a reason to trust each other. And just when you think you’re starting to understand where the movie is going, it begins throwing curveballs at you by introducing new characters and new perspectives to everything that has been introduced thus far. Justin Long’s character of AJ McBride, the owner of the Airbnb who arrives about halfway through the film, is especially inspired as it provides both a break in the tension and another unique personality to the mix. 

By the time BARBARIAN starts to come to its full conclusion, it has truly become the stuff that nightmares are made of, but it doesn’t feel completely evil. As outrageous as it all is, I actually understood why the characters behave the way they do, so there’s almost a sense of sadness under the horror. There’s real danger, but that danger is brought on by unimaginable cruelty and neglect. It’s ugly and gross, but it’s also somewhat realistic since the filmmakers have taken the time to set up both the hows and the whys of their horrific scenario. 

At the end of the day, I enjoyed BARBARIAN. I’ve never been the kind of movie watcher who searches out horror movies. When I was a kid, I watched scary movies at sleepovers with friends. As an adult, I’ll watch them with my friends at #ScarySocial on X, or when they’re recommended to me as is the case here, but then I’ll seamlessly move back to my world of action or comedy films. Such is the case with BARBARIAN. With its freaky images and multiple jump scares, my wife and I were both glad that we watched the movie when it was still daylight. It’s one of those films that crawls under your skin and hangs out with you for a while even after the closing credits. I’ll have to watch some football or a Charles Bronson movie just to get my head straight! 

Brad reviews OUT FOR JUSTICE (1991), starring Steven Seagal!

Posted on by Bradley Crain

17 year-old Brad Crain was at the movie theater in April of 1991 to see Steven Seagal’s latest action film, OUT FOR JUSTICE! Seagal’s career had shot out of a cannon with his first three films being the highly successful movies ABOVE THE LAW (1988), HARD TO KILL (1990), and MARKED FOR DEATH (1990). As a guy who loved action movies, Seagal (with his pony tail) was a cool new action star, and I was down for it.

Steven Seagal plays Detective Gino Felino, a Brooklyn cop called into duty when a guy who grew up with him in their neighborhood, mob enforcer Richie Madano (William Forsythe), goes completely off the rails. Hooked on drugs and looking to settle some personal scores, Richie murders Gino’s partner, and begins turning their neighborhood into a war zone, even pulling a woman out of her car and blowing her away in broad daylight over a simple traffic incident. Convinced that Richie will not leave the neighborhood he grew up in, Gino talks Captain Ronnie Danziger (Jerry Orbach) into letting him have an unmarked police car, a shotgun, and his approval to engage in a manhunt for the drugged out psycho. From that point forward, Gino shakes down Richie’s family members and associates to try to find out where he is. As bodies and broken bones pile up, Gino is determined to do whatever it takes to bring Richie to justice!

I’ll just say up front that OUT FOR JUSTICE is my personal favorite Steven Seagal film. It’s not the crowd pleaser or the box office champ that the next year’s UNDER SIEGE (1992) would be, and film critics largely blew it off when it first hit cinemas, but it does feature the star at his most charismatic, something that would all but disappear after the mid-90’s. I love the way Seagal plays Gino. Sure he’s tough, but he talks more, he laughs more, and it feels like he’s actually enjoying himself. His Gino isn’t just a badass cop, he’s a neighborhood guy, a former street punk who grew up and made something positive out of himself. Seagal’s performance here truly works, and he plays the role with so much confidence that it’s a shame that he didn’t remain this engaged in future performances.

OUT FOR JUSTICE is a badass action film. After it opens with Richie’s horrific murders, it then follows Gino’s hunt for the killer into smoky bars filled with wannabe tough guys who know more than they’re letting on. They get their asses handed to them. It follows Gino as Richie’s goons attack him at various places, from meat shops to apartment buildings, and he dispatches them with calm precision, but often in gruesome ways. I still wince when I see the results of meat cleaver fights and close quarter shotgun blasts. OUT FOR JUSTICE is a throwback to an era when action films featured men with integrity who kick ass and take names. While the movie does have some melodrama and humor, at the end of the day, this is tough-guy cinema done right. 

I did want to shout out a few other things about OUT FOR JUSTICE that helps put it over the top for me. William Forsythe is incredible as Richie Madano. He’s sweaty, twitchy, cruel, and completely unhinged. He makes you believe that he’s literally capable of doing anything, and it seems like his goons may be following more out of fear than anything else. His Richie is a man who doesn’t expect that he’ll be alive that much longer, so he’s willing to cross every line that may have once mattered in his life. Director John Flynn captures the urgency of the film’s action very well, and we can feel the tension as Gino tries to locate the crazy Richie as quickly as possible before more innocent people are killed. He isn’t afraid to show the brutality of the violence as part of Gino’s quest, either. This shouldn’t be surprising when you recognize that Flynn directed the revenge classic ROLLING THUNDER (1977) about fifteen years earlier. The one last thing I wanted to point out about OUT FOR JUSTICE is that it was written by R. Lance Hill, who wrote the brutal Charles Bronson hitman film THE EVIL THAT MEN DO (1984). These are talented guys who know how to tell tough stories about even tougher men who are willing to do what it takes to get justice when no one else can. 

At the end of the day, Steven Seagal would go on to make a lot more movies, but I don’t think he ever quite recaptured the balance of charisma and toughness that he shows here. And OUT FOR JUSTICE is a badass action movie that doesn’t really care what movie critics think, either. Buoyed by Seagal’s performance, the film’s action is angry, focused, unapologetic, and still hits hard over thirty years after it was originally released.

Brad reviews THE HANGOVER PART III (2013), directed by Todd Phillips!

Posted on by Bradley Crain

In THE HANGOVER PART III, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Doug (Justin Bartha) get back together so they can help Alan (Zach Galifianakis), whose gone off his meds and seems incapable of handling his dad’s sudden death. After a family intervention, the guys are driving him to a rehabilitation facility when their car is forced off the road and out steps the gangster Marshall (John Goodman), assisted by Black Doug (Mike Epps). Marshall kidnaps (white) Doug as leverage to force the guys to bring him their old friend Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) within three days, or they won’t see Doug alive again. It seems that Chow, who recently escaped from a Thai prison, had stolen $21 million in gold from Marshall, and he’s pissed. The Wolfpack head back to Vegas, and with the help of a few old friends, they do whatever they have to do to save Doug one more time! 

Released in the summer of 2013, THE HANGOVER PART III pulled in around $362 million in worldwide box office against a $103 million budget. While definitely a box office hit, these numbers are a big step down from the prior film’s $586 million, so up to this point, Part III has remained the Wolfpack’s last adventure. While THE HANGOVER PART II was practically a remake of the first film, PART III seems to be going the opposite way and actively tries not to repeat itself. The “what the hell happened last night” plot lines are abandoned for something different, and honestly, that’s probably about the smartest decision the filmmakers could have made for this installment. The film plays more like a darker, R-rated crime comedy, leaning into the action, heist, and confrontation sequences. While the change isn’t entirely successful, I definitely appreciate the attempt to come up with something different.

Even though THE HANGOVER PART III isn’t as funny as the prior films, I still enjoy the chemistry between Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis as the primary members of the Wolfpack. I also thought it was funny that Justin Bartha’s pack member Doug is once again relegated to the guy who’s not really involved, as he’s the one who’s kidnapped. Ken Jeong’s Mr. Chow, as cartoonish and unhinged as he is, is probably my favorite character in the series at this point. He pretty much steals every scene he’s in. John Goodman is a welcome addition as the intimidating bad guy, and he’s good in the film, but it’s the kind of role he could do in his sleep. I also really liked the fact that PART III returned to the initial setting of Las Vegas, which provides a nice sense of closure to the series, while also allowing for the participation of former characters like Heather Graham’s Jade and her son Tyler! It was nice to check in with them again. 

Ultimately, THE HANGOVER PART III is a pretty good conclusion to the series. It’s certainly not as funny or outrageous as the prior films, but it does deserve some credit for trying something new instead of simply repeating the formula for a third time. And I also thought the final scenes were emotionally effective as they took us for a quick trip down memory lane with the Wolfpack. It felt like the end, and I felt good watching it.

Brad reviews THE COWBOY WAY (1994), starring Woody Harrelson and Kiefer Sutherland!

Posted on by Bradley Crain

Happy 59th birthday, Kiefer Sutherland!

Sutherland portrayed my favorite TV character of all time, when he spent 8 seasons playing Jack Bauer in my favorite TV series of all time, 24. Raylan Givens (Timothy Olyphant) gave him a solid run for his money when I got around to watching the JUSTIFIED series a few years back, but I still believe Bauer edges him out. Another of my favorite shows when I was growing up was CHEERS. And a big reason for that is Woody Harrelson. CHEERS ran from 1982-1993, so when it started I was nine and when it ended I was twenty. I literally grew up on the show. I thought Harrelson’s portrayal of the dim-witted, but lovable and sweet character, Woody Boyd, was so funny. I remember being happy when he started making movies and had some solid success. I’ve always enjoyed THE COWBOY WAY, the film that teamed up Harrelson and Sutherland, so I decided to revisit the 1994 action-comedy on Kiefer’s special day. 

IN THE COWBOY WAY, Woody Harrelson plays the somewhat dim-witted and overwhelmingly carefree Pepper Lewis, while Kiefer Sutherland plays the more responsible and extremely serious Sonny Gilstrap, two lifelong friends and rodeo champions from New Mexico. The story kicks off when their long-time friend Nacho Salazar (Joaquin Martinez) disappears after going to New York City to pick up his daughter Teresa (Cara Buono), who has been smuggled into the U.S. from Cuba. Pepper and Sonny decide to head to the big city themselves to track down Nacho, and soon find themselves taking on the murderous human trafficker, John Stark (Dylan McDermott), who murdered Nacho and is forcing his daughter to work in a sweatshop. With only their country boy common sense (well at least Sonny’s), their exceptional rodeo skills, and the help of an empathetic NY cop ((Ernie Hudson), Pepper and Sonny will do whatever it takes to find out what happened to Nacho and save his daughter from a life of modern day slavery.

THE COWBOY WAY is silly and unrealistic at times, with shifts in tone that will make your head spin, but I still love it anyway. This type of action-comedy was commonplace in the 80’s and 90’s, but you don’t see movies like this much anymore. I’ll admit that my personal nostalgia, as well as my lifelong appreciation of Sutherland and Harrelson, plays into my enjoyment of the film. It’s a movie that leans into the once popular formula of outsiders from the country being looked down upon by city slickers, and then proving themselves to be more than capable. Think CROCODILE DUNDEE, but without the romance. This is the kind of movie that is trying its best to give us a good time for our box office dollars. Many in Hollywood have forgotten how to entertain, and it’s such a breath of fresh air to watch movies that exist solely for that purpose, even when they’re not perfect. 

As is often the case for me, the cast of THE COWBOY WAY plays a big factor in my enjoyment of the movie. Woody Harrelson is certainly over the top as the irresponsible New Mexico cowboy, but he’s also funny at times and more than capable of handling the action scenes. Kiefer Sutherland’s cowboy is the exact opposite, he’s serious, extremely responsible, and very capable. If nothing else, he needs Harrelson’s character in his life to help him remove the stick from his ass at times! Ultimately, it’s their relationship and banter that carries the film for me. Dylan McDermott is good as the sleazy villain, but if you’ve seen many 80’s and 90’s action movies, he’s pretty much exactly what you’d expect. As a fan of spaghetti westerns, I also enjoyed seeing the genre stalwart Tomas Milian pop up as McDermott’s soon-to-be ex-boss. It’s not a big role but this movie buff appreciated it. Finally, Ernie Hudson is just so likable as the kind-hearted and helpful horse-mounted cop. I like to think that he and Kiefer’s character kept a John McClane / Sgt. Al Powell type relationship going after the events of the movie.

Ultimately, in my opinion, THE COWBOY WAY may not be a great movie by critical standards, but it is a fun movie. If you’re in the mood for 90’s era action-comedy, featuring a great cast, fun stunts (e.g. men on horseback taking on New York City traffic), and a little Travis Tritt on the soundtrack, then you’ll probably have a good time with this one. 

Brad reviews THE HANGOVER PART II (2011), directed by Todd Phillips!

Posted on by Bradley Crain

In director Todd Phillips’ THE HANGOVER PART II, the night before his wedding, groom-to-be Stu (Ed Helms), his two best friends, Phil and Doug (Bradley Cooper and Justin Bartha), Stu’s soon-to-be brother-in-law Teddy (Mason Lee) and Doug’s brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifianakis), sit on a beach in Thailand for a toast to the bride and groom. After cracking open sealed bottles of beer in the beautiful setting, the movie screen goes black, and soon we see Phil, Stu and Alan wake up in a seedy room in Bangkok with absolutely no memory of what happened the previous night. The room is trashed, there’s a monkey wearing a denim Rolling Stones jacket, a naked Chow (Ken Jeong) is sleeping under a pile of blankets, Alan’s head is completely shaved, Stu has a face tattoo, and both Doug and Teddy are nowhere to be found! Doug calls and he’s back at the resort, but the only trace of Teddy is his severed finger, which is now in possession of the monkey. With the wedding just hours away, the three friends follow any clues they can find in a frantic search for Teddy. The search leads to the surprise discovery that Stu had intimate relations with a transsexual stripper, a tattoo parlor run by Nick Cassavetes, a dangerous and duplicitous American gangster named Kingsley (Paul Giamatti), and an arrested, ancient Buddhist monk who’s taken a vow of silence and who’s also confused for the 16-year-old, Teddy. Hell, at one point Mike Tyson shows up and sings the classic Murray Head single, “One Night in Bangkok.” Most importantly though, will the friends find Teddy alive and still have time to get back to the resort in time for Stu’s wedding?!!

A massive box office hit in the summer of 2011, THE HANGOVER PART II became the highest grossing R-rated comedy up to that time, with a worldwide gross of $586 million, against an $80 million budget. It was also the highest grossing R-Rated film to have opened over Memorial Day weekend, raking in over $118 million in its first four days. The story went to the well again with its still clever, but not quite as unique premise, comprised of a mystery-driven plot line where we follow the investigative adventures of Phil, Stu, and Alan and discover what happened the night before at the same time that they do. This allows for another series of outrageous, raunchy, surprising, and funny moments that escalate in absurdity over the course of the film’s 102-minute running time, culminating with another secret roll of pictures on Teddy’s camera that fill in the crazy events from their wild night in Bangkok. Based on the familiarity with the characters and the types of situations, I didn’t laugh out loud quite as frequently this time around, but the film still has its share of amusing moments, and I enjoyed revisiting the film again after a number of years. One of the things that I noticed about THE HANGOVER PART II is that it does not have the re-quotability factor going for it like the first film does. Alan and Chow have some funny lines, but honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever re-quoted a single one of them. I will agree with Alan on one point though, “When a monkey nibbles on a penis, it’s funny in any language.” I’d say that this film is more about mining comedy out of the extreme and absurd situations that our heroes are put in and less about clever, quotable quips. 

THE HANGOVER PART II works because of the outrageous situational comedy, as well as the exceptional chemistry between Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis. Ken Jeong has a bigger part this time around as Mr. Chow, and of course he’s hilarious. I did get some solid laughs from its combination of shock-value, sight gags and character interplay. The Bangkok we see here also makes for a seedy, raunchy and dangerous background to the crazy action. Of course the biggest negative of the film, as is the case with many sequels, is the fact that it’s practically a remake of the first HANGOVER, just set in Bangkok instead of Vegas. Think Charles Bronson’s DEATH WISH (New York) versus DEATH WISH II (Los Angeles). Also like the first two DEATH WISH films, THE HANGOVER PART II pushes the boundaries even farther, with even more graphic nudity and just overall harder material in general. Sequels always up the ante, but lose a little of what makes them so special in the process, and that’s definitely going on here.

Ultimately, while THE HANGOVER PART II was even more financially successful than the original, it’s not quite as fun because we’ve seen it before in the first film. But I loved the first film, so I enjoyed this one as well, just not quite as much.