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


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. 

I review BLOOD WORK (2002) – starring Clint Eastwood and Jeff Daniels!


Here at The Shattered Lens, we’re celebrating Clint Eastwood’s 95th birthday on May 31st. As part of that celebration, I decided to revisit his 2002 film, BLOOD WORK. 

BLOOD WORK finds Clint Eastwood as retired FBI profiler, Terry McCaleb (Clint Eastwood), a man who has recently had a heart transplant. Despite the wishes of his doctor Bonnie Fox (Angelica Huston), the beautiful Graciella Rivers (Wanda De Jesus) is able to guilt McCaleb into investigating the death of her sister, Gloria, when she reveals to him that it’s her sister’s heart that is now beating in his chest. Unable to drive due to his heart condition, McCaleb hires his goofy next-boat neighbor Buddy (Jeff Daniels) as his driver. The two set out to find any clue or follow any lead they come across. Eventually McCaleb is able to uncover that Gloria’s killer may be the “Code Killer,” the very same killer that he was after when his heart gave out on him, forcing his retirement. He’s going to do everything he can to catch the killer this time, even if it kills him in the process! 

BLOOD WORK puts Clint Eastwood smack dab in the middle of one of my favorite genres, the serial killer film, and the result is somewhat of a mixed bag. On the positive side, it contains a really good performance from a 72 year old Clint Eastwood as the retired FBI guy and recent heart transplant recipient. This character trait strips away Eastwood’s ability to be a Superman as he has been so many times before in his career. As a matter of fact, we feel his pain when a big Russian throws him down, or when he has to dive out of the way of a car trying to run him over. We worry for him when he gets a fever, which could actually kill him. But even in his fragile state, every so often he’ll grab a shotgun and start blasting away at the inhabitant of a car he sees watching him. His character has to rely on his intellect more than his strength and Eastwood is fun to watch in the role, with his performance the highlight of the movie. Of the other performances, I really like Angelica Huston in the relatively small role of his doctor. You believe that she really wants him to get better, and she’s pissed off that he’s gotten himself involved in this murder investigation. I’m not that impressed with Jeff Daniels here. I normally like his work, so I think the problem is that his character isn’t written that well. Wanda De Jesus is a lovely woman, and she has some good moments, but there are a couple of times that she’s way over dramatic, and I couldn’t help but roll my eyes. 

As I mentioned earlier, I usually enjoy serial killer movies, and I did enjoy BLOOD WORK. It hits most of the expected notes of the genre… the serial killer taunting the lawman, the visits to the family members of the victims, the sudden discovery of clues / evidence, the eleventh hour reveal of the killer, etc. With Eastwood at the center of it all as both actor and director, you can’t really go wrong even if the movie does drag some during its middle portion. And even though it’s presented as a whodunit, there’s not a lot of mystery to the identity of the killer. I suspect most filmgoers will figure it out before the final reveal. But at the end of the day, BLOOD WORK is definitely worth a viewing for fans of Clint Eastwood and fans of serial killer movies. Not his best work, but still better than most! 

I’ve included the trailer for BLOOD WORK below:

I Watched Backwards (2012, Dir. by Ben Hickernell)


Want to feel old?  Remember James Van Der Beek from Dawson’s Creek and how he was an aspiring film director who went to high school and thought he knew better than all of his teachers?  In Backwards, James Van Der Beek is the teacher!  He’s not just a teacher but he’s also the head of the school’s athletic department.  He still looks and sounds like Dawson, though.

When Abi Brooks (Sarah Megan Thomas) fails to qualify for the Olympic rowing team and is instead offered a spot as an alternate for the second time in a row, she decides to take a job coaching a high school team instead.  It’s not an easy transition.  At first, Abi pushes her rowers too much and forgets the importance of having fun.  But then she falls in love with school’s athletic director, Geoff (that would be James Van Der Beek), and she starts to loosen up.  Her rowers start to win and soon, they have a chance to go to London and compete in a prestigious race!

Then, Abi is contacted by her former coach (Glenn Morshower).  There’s an opening on the Olympic rowing team and he needs Abi to come to practice immediately.  When Abi asks if she can come after coaching her students in London, her coach tells her that he’ll have to pick someone else if Abi isn’t at practice on Monday.  Abi wants to go the Olympics but James Van Der Beek says she’ll be abandoning her students if she goes.  Abi has to make a choice, her students and her love or her lifelong dream.

I liked Backwards up until everyone started to give Abi a hard time about accepting a spot on the Olympic rowing team.  Abi has spent her entire life working for her chance to go to the Olympics.  She’s nearly 30 so this is probably her last chance to go as a competitor.  Abi took a job coaching because she was told that she wouldn’t be on the team.  Now, out of nowhere, she finally has her opportunity to fulfill her lifelong dream and be a part of the Olympic tradition.  Should she leave her job to start training for the Olympics?  Of course, she should!  Anyone in the real world would understand that this is an opportunity that Abi can’t pass up and no one would expect her to.  True friends would have wished Abi luck and promised to cheer for her instead of guilting her!  Dawson was always guilting Joey about something too.  That’s why I liked Pacey.

Up until that point, Backwards was pretty good.  Sarah Megan Thomas was believable as an athlete and Glenn Morshower had the coach thing down perfectly.  I was happy with Abi and Geoff finally admitted how they felt about each other.  I still think Abi should have gone to the Olympics, though.

 

 

January True Crime: Shoot First: A Cop’s Vengeance (dir by Mel Damski)


Made for television in 1991 and possessing a rather unwieldy title, Shoot First: A Cop’s Vengeance tells the story of two friends in San Antonio in the early 80s.

Farrell Tucker (Dale Midkiff) and Stephen Smith (Alex McArthur) are both cops.  They entered the police academy together, they graduated as a part of the same class, and they both hope to be partners while working to keep the streets of San Antonio safe.  Tucker is laid back and friendly and not one to worry too much about following all of the regulations.  Stephen Smith, on the other hand, is uptight and, at first, by-the-book.  He grew up in a poverty-stricken, crime-riddled neighborhood and it left a definite impression on him.  He hates crime and criminals but what he really can’t stand is a justice system that seems to be more concerned with the victimizers than with the victims.  Tucker and Smith enjoy spending their time together, drinking at the local cop bars and practicing their shooting on the weekends.  Tucker’s not much of a shot, whereas Smith is a sharpshooter who rarely misses.

At first, no one notices or even cares that some of San Antonio’s less upstanding citizens are getting gunned down in the streets.  But when Smith somehow manages to be first on the scene to a series of shootings, it gets the attention of Internal Affairs.  With Sergeant Nicholas (Terry O’Quinn) investigating the possibility of a cop-turned-vigilante and Chief Hogan (G.D. Spradlin) announcing that no one is above the law, Smith starts to get a bit paranoid and Tucker is forced to consider that his friend could very well be a murderer.

And, of course, Tucker’s right!  The first scene features Tucker confronting Smith and then the majority of the film is told in flashback.  Even if not for that narrative choice, one could guess at Smith’s guilt just from the title of the film.  When Shoot First: A Cop’s Vengeance was released on home video, the title was changed to Vigilante Cop, which made Smith’s guilt even more obvious.  Finally, some viewers will guess that Smith is guilty because the film is based on a true story.  Officer Stephen Smith actually did go on a killing spree, gunning down men who he felt had escaped the law and even sending threatening letters to his chief when the latter announced that vigilante activity would not be tolerated.  Officer Stephen Smith went from being a follower of the rules to someone who attempted to write his own rules.  It’s an interesting story for anyone who wants to google it.

As for the film, it’s adequate without being particularly memorable.  Alex McArthur and Dale Midkiff both give good performance as Tucker and Smith and the cast is full of talented people like Terry O’Quinn, G.D. Spradlin, Bruce McGill, and Lynn Lowry.  Observant viewers will even notice a long-haired Jeremy Davies, showing up for a split-second.  I liked the performance of Loryn Locklin, as the waitress who marries Smith and then discovers that her charming husband actually has some very serious issues.  The main problem with the film is that the story moves a bit too slowly for its own good and some of the Texas accents were more than a little dodgy.  If you’re looking for an action film, this won’t be for you, though the shootings are surprisingly graphic for something that was made for television.  Shoot First: A Cop’s Vengeance is a rather routine telling of an interesting story.

Horror Film Review: Godzilla (dir by Roland Emmerich)


There’s a giant lizard rampaging through New York, the result of a mutation that happened as a result of being exposed to radiation.  The military tries to stop the lizard but it turns out that stopping a giant lizard is not that easy.  Scientists try to understand the lizard and how it came to be a destructive giant.  The media breathlessly reports from the scene as two wisecracking cameramen do their best to record every second of the mayhem.  The reporters call this lizard …. GODZILLA!

But is it Godzilla?

No, it’s not.  Oh, it may be called Godzilla.  And the movie itself may be called Godzilla.  But the creature at the center of the 1998 American film Godzilla is definitely not Godzilla.

Godzilla was released with a great deal of fanfare in 1998, with commercials and toys and a lot of hype.  Diddy, back when he was still calling himself Puff Daddy, recorded a song for the soundtrack and upset thousands of Led Zeppelin fans like my Dad who found themselves having to deal with kids who thought Kashmir was called Follow Me.  (Diddy singing, “Follow me?”  AGCK!  How cringey is that!?)  But, like many of the film of Roland Emmerich, it’s been almost totally forgotten in the years since.

And why not?  It’s a forgettable film.  It’s the epitome of an assembly-line action blockbuster, the type of thing that Roland Emmerich is known for.  There’s comic relief, in the form of Hank Azaria.  There’s a nerdy scientist hero in the form of Matthew Broderick.  Broderick’s scientist has an ex-wife and yes, Godzilla’s invasion of New York gives them a chance to get back together.  There’s a mysterious Frenchman who is played, somewhat inevitably, by Jean Reno.  The Mayor of New York is a fat guy named Ebert (Michael Lerner) and he has an assistant named Gene (Lorry Goldman) and they get a lot of screentime because Emmerich wanted to make fun of two films critics who didn’t care much for his work.  In fact, the Mayor and his assistant get so much screentime that it distracts from the rest of the film.  Emmerich was directing a multi-million dollar reboot of a beloved franchise and he was more concerned with a petty feud.

He certainly wasn’t concerned with Godzilla.  Personally, I like the giant lizard and one of the only effective moments in the film is when the lizard discovers that its children have been killed by the military.  But that lizard is not Godzilla and the fact that Emmerich made a Godzilla film without Godzilla indicates that he didn’t really care about the monster or its fans.  This film has no love for its source material and that’s a shame.  The Godzilla films are fun!  And the fact that the majority of the ones made up until the release of this film looked kind of cheap and featured a Godzilla who was obviously a man in a rubber suit only added to the fun.  There’s not much fun to be found in this version of Godzilla.  The movie looks great without ever making much of an impression.

And you know what?  Having gotten this review out of the way, I’m ready to get back to reviewing the true Godzilla films.  They may not have cost as much as Emmerich’s film but they’ve got heart.

Previous Godzilla Reviews:

  1. Godzilla, King of the Monsters (1958)
  2. Godzilla Raids Again (1958)
  3. King Kong vs Godzilla (1962)
  4. Mothra vs. Godzilla (1964)
  5. Ghidorah: The Three-Headed Monster (1964)
  6. Invasion of the Astro-Monster (1965)
  7. Godzilla vs. The Sea Monster (1966)
  8. Son of Godzilla (1967)
  9. Destroy All Monsters (1968)
  10. All Monsters Attack (1969)
  11. Godzilla vs Hedorah (1971)
  12. Godzilla vs Gigan (1972)
  13. Godzilla vs Megalon (1973)
  14. Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla (1974)
  15. The Terror of Mechagodzilla (1975)
  16. Cozilla (1977)
  17. Godzilla 1985 (1985)
  18. Godzilla vs. Biollante (1989)
  19. Godzilla vs King Ghidorah (1992)
  20. Godzilla vs. Mothra (1992)
  21. Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla 2 (1994)
  22. Godzilla vs SpaceGodzilla (1994)
  23. Godzilla vs. Destoroyah (1995)
  24. Godzilla, Mothra, and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (2001)
  25. Godzilla (2014)
  26. Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters (2017)
  27. Godzilla, King of the Monsters (2019)
  28. Godzilla vs Kong (2021)
  29. Godzilla Minus One (2023)

Horror Film Review: Dead & Buried (by Gary Sherman)


The 1981 horror film, Dead & Buried, takes place in the small town of Potters Bluff.  It seems like it should be a nice place to live.  The people are friendly.  The scenery is lovely.  The town is right on the coast of the ocean so the view is great.  It’s a bit of an artist’s colony, the type of place where you would expect to find Elizabeth Taylor painting the sunset while Richard Burton battles a hangover in the beach house.  It’s the type of small town that used to by very popular on television.  It’s just one Gilmore girl away from being an old CW show.

It’s such a nice town.  So, why are so many people dying?

That’s the mystery that Sheriff Dan Gillis (James Farentino) has to solve.  Actually, it’s one of the many mysteries that Dan has to solve.  There’s also the mystery of why his wife, Janet (Melody Anderson), has been acting so strangely.  And then there’s the mystery of what happened to the person who, one night, Dan ran into with his car.  The person ran away but he left behind his arm.  When Dan gets some skin from the arm analyzed, he’s told that the arm belongs to someone who has been dead for at least four months!

Who can explain all of this?  How about William G. Dobbs (Jack Albertson), the folksy coroner who seems to enjoy his work just a little bit too much.  In fact, Dr. Dobbs seems to be a bit more than just a tad eccentric.  One would necessarily expect a coroner to have a somewhat macabre view of life but Dr. Dobbs seems to take things to extreme.  Is it possible that Dr. Dobbs knows more than he’s letting on?

Dead & Buried has a reputation for being something of a sleeper, a deliberately-paced and often darky humorous horror film that had the misfortune to be released at a time when most horror audiences were more interested in watching a masked man with a machete kill half-naked teenagers.  Because the studio wasn’t sure how exactly to market Dead & Buried, it failed at the box office and it was only years later, after it was released on home video, that people watched the film and realized that it was actually pretty good.  And make no mistake about it, Dead & Buried is a fairly clever horror film, one that is full of effective moments and which does a good job of creating a creepy atmosphere.  If I’m not quite as enthused about this film as others, that’s because I do think that it’s occasionally a bit too slow and the film’s twist ending, while well-executed, didn’t particularly take me by surprise.  This is one of those films that you enjoy despite the fact that you can see the surprise conclusion coming from a mile away.

In the end, Dead & Buried fills like a particularly twisted, extra-long episode of one of those old horror anthology shows, like Night Gallery, Twilight Zone, or maybe even Ghost Story.  It’s a nicely done slice of small town horror, featuring a study lead performance from James Farentino and an enjoyably weird one from Jack Albertson.  Though the film is not heavy on gore, Stan Winston’s special effects are appropriate macabre.  Even if it’s not quite up there with Gary Sherman’s other films (like Vice Squad and Death Line, to name two), Dead & Buried is an entertainingly eccentric offering for Halloween.

Film Review: All The King’s Men (dir by Steven Zaillian)


On September 10th, 1935, a Senator named Huey Long was shot and killed at the Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rogue.

While it’s generally agreed that Carl Weiss, the son-in-law of a political opponent, approached Long, there’s still some debate as to whether or not Weiss was the one who shot Long. Did Weiss fire one shot at Long or was Long himself accidentally shot by his many bodyguards, all of whom opened fire on Weiss? (Weiss died at the scene, having been wounded at least 60 times.) There’s even some who argue that Weiss didn’t even have a gun on him when he approached Long and that Long’s bodyguards misinterpreted Weiss’s intentions. Or, as some more conspiracy-minded historians have suggested, perhaps Long’s bodyguards were themselves paid off by one of Long’s many enemies. With Huey Long, anything was possible.

Huey Long has been described as being an American dictator, a man who ran for office as a populist and who, as governor and then senator, ruled Louisiana with an iron fist. His slogan was “Every man a king,” and he promoted a platform that mixed Socialism with redneck resentment. (In modern terms, he mixed the vapid but crowd-pleasing rhetroic of AOC with the bombastic but calculated personal style of Donald Trump.) He often played the flamboyant buffoon but he also knew how to reward his friends and punish his enemies. At the time of his death, he was planning to run for President against FDR. It’s said that, in typical Long fashion, he planned to run as a third party candidate and draw away enough votes from Roosevelt to allow Republican Alf Landon to win. Then, in 1940, Long would run for the Democratic nomination and send President Landon back to Kansas.

Huey-Long-radio-3000-3x2gty-5c2934d246e0fb00012da4a1

Whether his plan was feasible or not, they came to an end with his death. However, his legacy continued as members of the Long family dominated Louisiana politics for decades to come. Huey’s brother, Earl, served as governor of Louisiana for several contentious terms. Huey’s son, Russell, spent nearly 40 years in the Senate and, as chairman of the Finance Committee, was one of the most powerful men in the country. As late at 2020, Huey’s third cousin was serving in the Louisiana Senate. In the past few years, both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have been compared to Huey Long. Of course, if Huey were alive today, he’d probably be very popular online. Political Twitter has never met an authoritarian that it couldn’t make excuses for.

Among those who were fascinated by the life and death of Huey Long was a Southern poet and novelist named Robert Penn Warren. Warren used Long as the basis for Willie Stark, the man at the center of the novel All The King’s Men. In the novel, Stark is a classic and tragic American archetype, the man of the people who loses his way after coming to power. Stark starts the book as an idealist who wants to make life better for the poor but who, as he works his way up the political ladder, loses sight of why he first entered politics in the first place. He goes from fighting for the people to fighting only for himself. The book was controversial but popular and won the 1947 Pulitzer Prize. In later interviews, Warren often said that All The King’s Men was never meant to be a book about politics but instead a book about two men, Willie Stark and reporter Jack Burden, losing their way during the tumult of the Great Depression.  Regardless of Warren’s intentions, most readers and critics have focused on the book as a cynical look at American politics and the authoritarian impulse.

All-the-Kings-Men-1949

Considering the book’s popularity, it’s not surprising that All The King’s Men was turned into a movie just three years after it was published.  Directed by Robert Rossen and starring a perfectly cast Broderick Crawford as Willie Stark, the film won the Oscar for Best Picture of 1949.  Just as with the book, the film was considered to be controversial.  Many claimed that the film’s cynical portrayal of American politics was the equivalent of supporting communism, despite the fact that both the novel and the original film present Stark as being the epitome of the hypocritical Marxist dictator.  Indeed, if any character would have inspired audiences in 1949 to distrust socialism, it would have been a faux populist like Willie Stark.  Still, John Wayne was so offended by the book and the script that he very publicly turned down the role of Willie Stark.  That was all the better for Broderick Crawford, who won an Oscar playing the role.  When seen today, the original All The King’s Men holds up surprisingly well, as does Crawford’s lead performance.  Filmed in harsh black-and-white and featuring a cast of cynical, tough-talking characters, it’s a political noir.

Those who found the 1949 version of All The King’s Men to be dangerously subversive obviously had no idea what was in store for them and the country over the next couple of decades.  There’s a reason why the best-known book about the downfall of Richard Nixon was called All The President’s Men.  By the start of the current century, with all of the political corruption that was happening in the real world, the flaws and crimes of Willie Stark seemed almost quaint by comparison.  In 2006, with George W. Bush serving his second term, America embroiled in two unpopular wars, and the economy looking shaky, it was decided that it was time for a new version of the story of Willie Stark.

This version was directed by Steven Zaillian, the screenwriter whose credits included Schindler’s List, Gangs of New York, Hannibal, and American Gangster.  The role of Willie Stark was played by Sean Penn, who was both an Academy Award winner and an outspoken critic of George Bush.  (And, make no mistake about it, the new version of Willie Stark would be as much based on Bush as he was on Huey Long.)  Jude Law played Jack Burden, the reporter who narrated the story of Stark’s rise and fall.  Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins, James Gandolfini, Patricia Clarkson, Mark Ruffalo, Jackie Earle Haley, and Kathy Baker all had supporting roles.  This was a cast full of Oscar nominees and, indeed, the film’s trailer had that portentous, “the movie is very important and award-worthy” feeling to it that studios go with whenever they’re trying to convince audiences that they have an obligation to see a film, regardless of how boring or annoying it may look.  Entertainment Weekly predicted that All The King’s Men would be an Academy Award contender. For nearly two months, one could not see a movie at the Dallas Angelika without also seeing thee trailer for All The King’s Men.  It was a movie that was due to arrive at any minute and it was coming with an awful lot of hype.

And then, the strangest thing happened.  The film itself kind of disappeared.  It arrived and then it promptly got lost.  The reviews were overwhelmingly negative.  Audiences did not turn out to see the film.  It was a box office bomb, one that pretty much ended Steven Zaillian’s career as a director.  The film played for a week in Dallas and then left the city’s movie screens.  Even if I had been planning on seeing the film when it was originally released, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity.  The Gods of cinema, politics, and Southern accents were conspiring to protect me from suffering through a bad movie and I guess I should be thankful.  There’s nothing that makes me cringe more than hearing a bad Southern accent in a movie and the trailer for All The King’s Men was full of them.

Way back in November of last year, I noticed that the 2006 version of All The King’s Men was available on Encore On Demand.  At the time, I had politics on my mind.  The Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections had bee held earlier that week.  Biden’s huge infrastructure bill had passed the House on the very same night that I came across the film.  Hell, I figured, could watching Sean Penn as Willie Stark be any worse than watching Joe Biden try to give a speech from the Oval Office?  So, I decided to give the movie a chance and I quickly discovered that watching Sean Penn’s Willie Stark was a lot worse.

In All The King’s Men, Sean Penn gives the type of bad performance that can only be given by a good actor.  Penn yells and grimaces and barks out order like the villain in a badly dubbed Bollywood movie.  When he watches a dancer, he doesn’t just look at her.  Instead, he stares with all the intensity of a cartoon wolf who has just spotted Little Red Riding Hood.  There’s nothing subtle about Penn’s performance, least of all his overbaked accent.  The only thing wilder than Penn’s accent is his hair, which often seems to be standing up straight as if he’s just removed his fingers from an electrical socket.  It’s a performance that is heavy on technique but empty on substance.  In both the book and the original film, Willie Stark is flamboyant in public but cool and calculating in private.  In the remake, Penn yells and sweats and jumps around and comes across as being so desperate that it’s hard to buy into the idea that anyone would believe a word that he said.  Broderick Crawford’s Willie Stark was believable because Crawford, with his bulky build and his plain-spoken manner, came across as being a real human being.  One could imagine voters looking at Crawford and believing that he was just like them.  Sean Penn, on the other hand, comes across like a rich man’s version of a poor man.  Penn is too obviously condescending to be an effective populist.  Voters will forgive a lot but they’ll never forgive a politician who openly talks down to them.

As for the rest of the cast, they’re a very talented group but not one of them is convincingly cast.  In fact, many of them give career-worst performances.  Anthony Hopkins does his usual eccentric routine but it doesn’t add up too much because the audience never sees him as being anything other than Anthony Hopkins using a rather spotty Southern accent.  When Hopkins’s character dies, it’s not a tragedy because the character himself never feels real.  Instead, you’re juts happy that Hopkins collected a paycheck.  Kate Winslet seems to be bored with the role of Stark’s mistress.  Mark Ruffalo is dazed in the role of Winslet’s brother.  As Jack Burden, Jude Law seems as lost as anyone, which wouldn’t be problem if not for the fact that Jack is the one narrating the film.  When your narrator is lost, you’re in trouble.

There’s really only two members of the cast who escape the film unscathed.  Jackie Earle Haley is properly intimidating as Stark’s devoted bodyguard.  Haley doesn’t get many lines but one look at his disturbed eyes tells you all you need to know about how far he’ll go to protect his boss.  On the other hand, James Gandolfini gets several lines and he does such a good job of delivering them and he plays the role of a corrupt political boss with such a perfect combination of good humor and cold pragmatism that you have to wonder just how much All The King’s Men would have been improved if Gandolfini had played Willie Stark instead of Sean Penn.

Steve Zaillian’s direction involves a lot of soft-focused flashbacks and several visual references to the Nuremberg rallies.  Just as with Penn’s performance, there’s nothing subtle about Zaillian’s direction, despite the fact that the story itself is so melodramatic that it calls for the opposite of a heavy-handed approach.  One wonders what exactly Zaillian was trying to say with his version of All The King’s Men, which presents Willie Stark as being a monster but still as the audacity to end with a clip of him giving a rousing campaign speech.  Again, the problem is that we never buy into the idea that Willie Stark was ever sincere in his desire to help the common man.  Everything about both Penn’s performance and Zaillian’s direction serves to suggest that, from the start, Stark viewed them as just being a means to an end.  Ending the film with a flashback of Willie giving a campaign speech is about as moving as a friend from high school contacting you on Facebook and then trying to get you to take part in a pyramid scheme.  There’s no sincerity to be found in any of it.

In the end, it’s a film of overheated performances and meticulously shot scenes that all add up to very little.  There are a few moments where Sean Penn’s body language and his vocal inflections suggest that he’s trying to channel George W. Bush but there’s nothing particularly shocking or subversive about that.  In 2006, every movie and TV show had to find a way to take a swipe at Bush and Penn’s never been particularly reticent when it comes to broadcasting his politics.  Though All The King’s Men was executive produced by political consultant James Carville, there’s very few moment in the film that feel authentic.  It’s like a high school senior’s view of politics.

All The King’s Men came and went quickly.  Fortunately, everyone was able to move on.  Steven Zaillian has not directed another film but remains an in-demand scriptwriter.  Sean Penn, Anthony Hopkins, and Kate Winslet all won Oscars after appearing in this film (though, it should be noted, none of them won for this film).  Mark Ruffalo and Jude Law went on to join the Marvel Universe.  Jackie Earle Haley continues to be a much-respected character actor.  Tragically, James Gandolfini is no longer with us but his performance as Tony Soprano will never be forgotten.  The second version of All The King’s Men wasted a lot of talent but, fortunately, talent always finds a way to survive.

Behind Enemy Lines II: Axis of Evil (2006, directed by James Dodson)


After an intelligence satellite reveals that the North Koreans have built a nuclear missile that can hit anywhere in the world and that they’re currently pointing the missile right at the United States, the President (Peter Coyote) orders a team of Navy SEALs to parachute into North Korea and take out the missile site.  At the last minute, the mission is canceled but two SEALs have already jumped out of the airplane and two more follow because a SEAL leaves no man behind.

While the world sits on the brink of war, the stranded SEALs attempt to reach the missile site and knock it out of commission.  Unfortunately, two of the SEALs get killed by the North Koreans and the two survivors end up getting captured and are forced to undergo extreme torture.  With time running out, the president authorizes a military strike on the missile site, a move that could plunge the world into a nuclear war.  It’s now up to Lt. James (Nicholas Gonzalez) and Master Chief Callaghan (Matt Bushell) to escape from the North Koreans and complete their mission before the stealth bombers show up and do their thing.

Behind Enemy Lines II: Axis of Evil has nothing to do with the previous Behind Enemy Lines film, beyond featuring a Naval officer stranded in enemy territory.  Behind Enemy Lines II: Axis of Evil is one of those films that should be simple and easy to follow but it’s so frantically directed and edited that it’s actually difficult to understand what’s going on from scene to scene.  This isn’t a case where, as in Black Hawk Down, the film is deliberately confusing in order to show what it would be like to be under enemy fire.  Instead, Behind Enemy Lines II feels as if it was edited by someone who was getting paid per jump cut.  It becomes difficult to keep track of who is shooting at who and the overuse of the shaky handheld camera effect didn’t help.  Also, for some reason, there are some fantasy sequences that feel as if they belong in a different movie.

The scenes in Washington D.C., where the President and his advisers debate whether or not to plunge the world into war, are marginally better.  Peter Coyote has the right amount of moral authority to play the president and the great Glenn Morshower (you may remember him as Aaron of the Secret Service on 24) plays the admiral who suggests that maybe it would be a good idea not to hastily destroy the world.  Because this movie was made in 2006, the actress playing the Secretary of State is a dead ringer for Condoleezza Rice.

Behind Enemy Lines II is not a good movie but it made enough money to get a sequel, which I’ll review tomorrow.

 

Playing Catch-Up With The Films of 2017: Transformers: The Last Knight (dir by Michael Bay)


So, I’m just going to be honest here.

I did watch Transformers: The Last Knight.  I didn’t see it at the theaters, of course.  To date, I’ve only seen one Transformers movie on the big screen.  It was the fourth one and not only did I get motion sick but when I left the theater, I discovered that I was having trouble hearing.  Even though I watched Transformers: The Last Knight on a small screen, I still made sure to take some Dramamine beforehand.  That may have been a mistake because this movie somehow drags things out for 2 hours and 30 minutes.  That’s a lot of time to spend trying to stay awake while watching something that doesn’t even try to make sense.

So, yes, I did watch Transformers: The Last Knight but I’m not really sure what I watched.  I know that there was a lot of camera movement.  There was a lot of stuff blowing up.  Robots would fly into space.  Robots would return to Earth.  Robots turned into cars.  All of the robots spoke in these gravelly voices and half the time, I couldn’t really understand what they were saying.  Mark Wahlberg was around and he spent the entire movie with this kind of confused look on his face.  His Boston accent really came out whenever he had to deliver his dialogue.  One thing I’ve noticed about Wahlberg is that the less he cares about a movie, the more likely he is to go full Boston.  To be honest, if I just closed my eyes and listened to Wahlberg’s accent and tuned out all of the explosions and robot talk, I probably would have thought I was watching Manchester By The Sea.

Anthony Hopkins was also in the movie, playing a character who might as well have just been named “Esteemed British Person.”  It’s always fun to see Hopkins in a bad movie, just because he knows that his deserved reputation for being a great actor isn’t going to suffer no matter how much crap he appears in.  He always goes through these movies with a slightly bemused smirk on his face.  It’s almost as if he’s looking out at the audience and saying, “Laugh all you want.  I’ll still kick anyone’s ass when it comes to Shakespeare…”  Anyway, Hopkins is mostly around so that he can reveal that the Transformers have been on Earth since time began.  Why, they even saved King Arthur!

The plot has to do with a powerful staff that can be used to bring life back to the Transformers’s home planet.  The problem is that using the staff will also destroy all life on Earth or something like that.  So, of course, the good Transformers are trying to save Earth and the bad Transformers are like, “Fuck Earth, let’s blow stuff up.”  Or something like that.  The main good Transformer — Optimus Prime, I guess — gets brainwashed into becoming an evil Transformer.  Of course, since Anthony Hopkins is in the movie, the majority of the film takes place in England and that can only mean a trip to Stonehenge!

And…

Look, I’ve exhausted myself.  I’m not going to say that Transformers: The Last Knight is a terrible movie because, obviously, someone out there loves this stuff.  I mean, they’ve made five of these movies so someone has to be looking forward to them.  They’re not for me, though.

Some day, I hope Micheal Bay directs a Fifty Shades of Grey movie.  I look forward to watching Christian and Ana discuss consent while the world explodes behind them.

Embracing the Melodrama Part II #100: Pearl Harbor (dir by Michael Bay)


Pearl_harbor_movie_poster

“And then all this happened…”

Nurse Evelyn Johnson (Kate Beckinsale) in Pearl Harbor (2001)

The “this” that Evelyn Johnson is referring to is the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  You know, the date will live in infamy.  The attack that caused the United States to enter World War II and, as a result, eventually led to collapse of the Axis Powers.  The attack that left over 2,000 men died and 1,178 wounded.  That attack.

In the 2001 film Pearl Harbor, that attack is just one of the many complications in the romance between Danny (Ben Affleck), his best friend Rafe (Josh Hartnett), and Evelyn (Kate Beckinsale).  The other complications include Danny briefly being listed as dead, Danny being dyslexic before anyone knew what dyslexia was (and yet, later, he’s still seen reading and writing letters with absolutely no trouble, almost as if the filmmakers forgot they had made such a big deal about him not being able to do so), and the fact that Rafe really, really likes Evelyn.  Of course, the main complication to their romance is that this is a Michael Bay film and he won’t stop moving the camera long enough for anyone to have a genuine emotion.

I imagine that Pearl Harbor was an attempt to duplicate the success of Titanic, by setting an extremely predictable love story against the backdrop of a real-life historical tragedy.  Say what you will about Titanic (and there are certain lines in that film that, when I rehear them today, make me cringe), Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet had genuine chemistry.  None of that chemistry is present in Pearl Harbor.  You don’t believe, for a second, that Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett are lifelong friends.  You don’t believe that Kate Beckinsale is torn between the two of them.  Instead, you just feel like you’re watching three actors who are struggling to give a performance when they’re being directed by a director who is more interested in blowing people up than in getting to know them.

Continuing the Titanic comparison, Pearl Harbor‘s script absolutely sucks.  Along with that line about “all this” happening, there’s also a scene where Franklin D. Roosevelt (Jon Voight) reacts to his cabinet’s skepticism by rising to his feet and announcing that if he, a man famously crippled by polio and confined to a wheelchair, can stand up, then America can win a war.

I’ve actually been to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.  I have gone to the USS Arizona Memorial.  I have stood and stared down at the remains of the ship resting below the surface of the ocean.  It’s an awe-inspiring and humbling site, one that leaves you very aware that over a thousand men lost their lives when the Arizona sank.

I have also seen the wall which lists the name of everyone who was killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor and until you’ve actually been there and you’ve seen it with your own eyes, you really can’t understand just how overwhelming it all is.  The picture below was taken by my sister, Erin.

Pearl Harbor 2003If you want to pay tribute to those who lost their lives at Pearl Harbor, going to the Arizona Memorial is a good start.  But avoid Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor at all costs.